Apps For Healthy Kids — Where PC Meets PCs

theodp writes "Put the Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and Madden away, kids! Over at Apps for Healthy Kids, First Lady Michelle Obama has a whole new slate of games for you to play with! Voting on entries in the White House-backed game development competition has begun, and you'll find exciting titles like Balanced Meal (6 votes), Blubber Blaster (9 votes), Calorie Quest (10 votes), and Count Peas (7 votes) — and that's just for starters."

Comments

Surely the healthiest option

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, be sure to slap books out of their hands.

Anyhow, I'm just curious. Has anyone run the numbers on increasing kid-lard versus decreasing safe roaming distance around the home?

(Disclaimers: I read books, and grew up in an city-sized 60s suburb that was entirely safe to let kids roam.)

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[BlkRb0t]

That's not possible in the current scenario, PC's are everywhere and kids are going to see them and be curious about them. It's better that you teach them how to use it properly than making it a restriction. If you don't let them near one then they are going to seek it out from outside which maybe worse than what you intended to do.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like boobs...

And we spend alot of time and money protecting children from the evil boobs...

^^

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Of course, when it comes to killing children's intrest I think the whitehouse is using much more effective techniques than your suggested violence. I mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.

You can keep children away from books by forcing them to read moby dick just as easily. More effective than the death penalty they use in Iran, in my opinion.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[aussie_a]

(Disclaimers: I read books, and grew up in an city-sized 60s suburb that was entirely safe to let kids roam.)

Parents of the time thought it was safer than parents do these days. It may be that it was safe. It may still be safe to do now. Or it may be it was simply perceived as being safe.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[mangu]

If keeping kids away from computers makes them healthy, then I guess the healthiest kids in the world must live in some African country.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're not overweight, they can't afford drugs, many of them are devoutly religious and willing to die for their beliefs. Sounds like model citizens to me.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[BasilBrush]

As far as road safety goes, where I am in the UK, it's far safer than it was in the 1960s. Quite the opposite of parents perception:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

It seems to me that one of the drivers of increased safety has been deliberate raising of the public's awareness. Increased awareness creates a perception of things getting worse, whilst actually causing things to get better.

I would imagine research into child abduction, abuse and murder would also produce results contrary to expectation.

I have no kids, but if I did, I'd give them as much freedom to roam as I had when I was a child. I certainly wouldn't be driving them everywhere.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

Hmmm, I grew up in the 50s and we roamed the neighborhood in relative safety, but there were also lots of parents around. Two income families were not the norm. My wife or I would take our kids (now teens) to the playground and we would be the only parents in the area.

There have been a number of significant changes in the way people spend their time and how they interact in the last 50 years. Entertainment content has changed as well. It is simplistic (but fun!!) to blame one thing or another for obesity and violence.

So here's my 2c: Up to grade 5 or 6, turn off the TV and limit computer time. Go outside and play with your kids. Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

(Disclaimers: I read books, and grew up in an city-sized 60s suburb that was entirely safe to let kids roam.)

Parents of the time thought it was safer than parents do these days. It may be that it was safe. It may still be safe to do now. Or it may be it was simply perceived as being safe.

There were pedophiles and druggies around... but there were less distractions and more supervision. 90% of the houses in our neighbourhood had a parent at home during the day. Fences were 3-4' high and you could see through them. Strangers in an area were easily spotted.

There was milk and bread delivery to most homes and it seemed like there was always someone on the back porch working a laundry line.

Virtually no one is home during the day in our present area.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[obarthelemy]

does anyone have numbers about safe roaming distance ? my guess is it's ever-increasing, as is parental hysteria over danger.

from : http://pediatrics.about.com/od/childabuse/a/05_abuse_stats.htm

"Although the incidence of child abuse and neglect has been decreasing in recent years, more than 1.25 million, or 1 in every 58 children in the United States, were abused in 2006."

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anne Thwacks]

the healthiest kids in the world must live in some African country.

Well the village girls always look best!

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[kainosnous]

Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place. There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found. As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.

Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality. These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals. If I were forced to choose between wantoness and Halo, I think video games are the better alternative.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[nu1x]

> Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

Not really, regarding modeling. Many (most ?) kids are capable of differentiating between modeling the internal vs. the external world, as in, they can take all the sarcasm, blood and gore, and still understand the "abstraction" part behind it. I spent a lot of time around certain kids growing up, and while they were certainly above the norm intellectually, by the age of about 12, every abstract thing you throw at them they can take just dandy.

What is much more dangerous, is not having the valve for gore and brutality - you may think it strange, but it is necessary. I've seen kids ruined by over-protective parents. In other words, I've noticed that true demons among kids are those who have not noticed pain and suffering in the world, and esp. those who have not felt pain and personal loss - not saying that you should traumatize your kids, far from it - what I am getting at is that kids need to go outside, for example, take a camping trip - and not experience comfort for once - but the mud, the hunger and hardship - these are the things that make kids appreciate it in others and become more helpful.

Also, boys (maybe I am coming off as sexist here, whatever) tend to naturally seek out sources of pain in real life while playing. But it is healthy - broad spectrum of experience defines us as persons.

Not sheltering them or making them "model" some behaviour on rote level, but rather, leading them to understand root causes and relationships of this world, is a better approach.

World-proof your kids.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

And we spend alot of time and money protecting children from the evil boobs...

And for good reason (NSFW)

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[drinkypoo]

Surely the healthiest option Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

1) Please stop putting the first part of your sentence in the subject line without replicating it in your comment. It's bad form in any medium.

2) Yes, surely it will be healthy to keep children ignorant of computers so they can grow up disadvantaged unlike an acquaintance's two year old who is plugging and unplugging USB devices (and not just for fun, but when necessary) and is able to start and use programs. What a brilliant idea in education you have stumbled upon!

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[TheLink]

Uh, you could get lower traffic accident statistics BECAUSE more parents don't let their kids out to roam.

Not saying that your point is not true, but to actually prove increased safety you'd also need to have the number of pedestrians+cars over the years. And for children safety you'd need the number of children roaming the streets per year.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[paiute]

Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place. There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found.

Ah, the good old days. When were they, anyway? I forget those halcyon days when we didn't put up with no criminals, but put them straight into the pokey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[TheLink]

> Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

Nah, if you really have something more important to do, do that first. The kids will survive.

But most things aren't that important. Even though they might be more fun or less tiring than talking with the kids :).

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[BasilBrush]

Uh, you could get lower traffic accident statistics BECAUSE more parents don't let their kids out to roam.

Indeed, which is a result of increased public awareness...

to actually prove increased safety you'd also need to have the number of pedestrians+cars over the years.

Yes. Though one thing we do know is that the car part of that equation has increased a lot.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[jduhls]

Good luck with that, n00b.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[TheLink]

Yeah... Then again if they're all stuck in traffic jams, if they hit a kid, the kid may not even notice :).

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Chowderbags]

Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

They're your kids. Raising them is the most important thing you have to do.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[kdemetter]

So on one side , kids need to play less video games ,and play outside more often .
On the other side , it's not safe for them to go outside ?

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Stormwatch]

That rise was all because of the nonsensical "war on (some) drugs".

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[jedidiah]

> I mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.

Like anything else, it's all in the execution.

You can either screw it up royally as most Americans do to green vegetables or you can do it right.

Do it right and you won't get nearly as much resistance.

You won't need these stupid apps either.

Really, they just need to bring back Mulligan's Stew.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[jedidiah]

There is safety in numbers.

If everyone is paranoid and staying inside, then there will be no safety in numbers.

It's a nasty Catch-22 if everyone is too afraid to let their kids roam 70s style.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[spike hay]

Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

It seems like these games would be excellent at doing exactly that.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

And to think, what is said here is a RARITY and not common practice anymore.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[eugene ts wong]

I'd like add a bit to your last paragraph. I suggest people proactively expose children to people who are problem solving in a polite and respectful way. They need to be exposed to people actually trying to find win-win situations, as opposed to win-lose situation. They definitely need to avoid the lose-lose situations. I think that most people don't really know how to get the win-win situation or how to really co-operate in a collaborative way. It's not just a matter or attitude either.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

Look, I am not saying build a wall around your kids, but the concept that we should inure children to violence and gore and that we should just let them be exposed to anything on TV is just wrong and extremely off target. Also, the idea that "boys...seek out sources of pain" is just weird.

My son plays hockey and he has his share of testosterone. He doesn't shy away from rough situations but he certainly doesn't seek out pain or painful situations. Just the opposite.

Now, just because children from an early age can abstract and differentiate between fiction and reality does not mean we should allow them to be exposed to traumatic fictional situations. Especially not on a regular basis.

On the path from birth to adulthood, children take on more and more decision making responsibility including about what they watch and what they spend their time at. At age 12, kids are, generally, still in a pretty critical developmental situation. We don't need to start desensitizing them to violence and suffering at that age.

Behaviour modelling is important and kids do act out behaviour that they are exposed to. Why would this be surprising?

Children can learn life lessons and develop powerful coping abilities without being steeped in fictional violence.

Don't get me wrong: I don't believe that some ill-conceived legislation should tell us, as adults, what we can see or do, at least within the limits of the criminal code. I am not some holier-than-thou moralist. The point at which our children are allowed to make the choices that adults make is individual. Parents know their own children best.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have very fond memories of playing Math Blaster, Layer Cake, and some game about electronic circuits (I forget the name) on my Apple IIe. I learned a lot from those games, *and* had a good time.

Obviously, kids won't be giving up Halo to play these games... but I somehow thing that Halo players are not the target age range.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[dogsbreath]

Spot on, Eugene. Absolutely right.

You don't have to make up artificial situations: just make sure you carry the right attitude and philosophy in all your dealings. Kids watch what you do and learn from it. They don't have to be force fed healthy behaviour; they need to live in a healthy atmosphere.

Cheers

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Belial6]

Give me the study that tracks the shift from fatty foods to sugar foods (carbohydrates ARE sugar), and the ever increasing obsession with calories.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

Please link to Incarceration rate per capita, as opposed to gross incarceration rate. (Why? Because it's even more shocking!)

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[mdwh2]

Do you have a reference to show crime rates, rather than going by the memories of your parents? Compared with historical rates, I believe things have never been safer, but I may be wrong.

but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found

We don't now, last time I looked.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[mcgrew]

mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.

You're giving these games too much credit.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if we only give the kids-based tax break to double parent, single income families. Don't care who stays home, but someone better be there.

Re:Surely the healthiest option

[mcgrew]

Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place.

I was around in the '50s (born in 1952), and I assure you the world is far safer today. Take automobiles -- the cars back then had drum brakes, rather than antilock disk brakes. There were no seat belts, let alone air bags. The autos' dashes were steel, the cars had no crumple zones.

There were no bicycle helmets; a kid that lived around the block from me died froim a head injury after wrecking his bicycle.

The media is to blame, making it LOOK like it was safer. From the newspapers you'd think there's a child molester on every street corner waiting for some unwary parent to tke his/her eyes of the child, but the fact is most molestations are from family members, friends, or clergy. It's just that they were hushed up back then; a family around the block from me in the late 50s/early 60s had two children that were molested by their own fathers.

The same goes for child abductions. In this case there are more, but again, the reason is that there were few divorces compared to today. Most abductions are the child's own parent who loses custody kidnapping the kid; there is virtually no chance of your child being abducted by a stranger.

There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found.

Absolute bullshit. Penalties have gotten more and more harsh as time has gone by. There were no "three strikes laws" or sex offender registries back then.

As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.

Nope. Incorrect, wrong. We'd get on our bicycles and be gone all day. A dozen of us would play baseball in the vacant field all afternoon without being bothered or hassled by a single adult, and IMO it was good for us.

Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality.

What appears to be a decline in morality is actually a decline in hypocracy. Now as then, most people were good, honest folks, but there have always been thieves, adulterors, and the like. The difference is that the antisocial thieves who ran corporations were a bit more discrete in their antisocial theivery. Now they revel in it and rub our noses in it, and it's seen as normal.

These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals.

That hasn't changed a bit. There were always bad parents with bad kids, although with most kids now being raised by babysitters and in child care centers, there are more bad kids, because they're not getting the love they need.

Another big factor is that spanking is now seen as abuse. Today's spoiled brats could use a few good swats.

The only vote I'll cast

[Anonymous Coward]

Is from a clock tower.

Re:Somebody tell 4chan!

[neumayr]

I'm sure they've already got their own plans..
But honestly, there is no real danger. What kid would voluntarily play games with such titles, games designed not for fun, but for indoctrination?

Just feed them less

[nten]

The whole "get out and play" thing is backwards according to this study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100707212127.htm

Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level. The lower weight makes them more active. This is consistent with how I finally got the weight of and kept it off (calorie counting while sitting in front of a monitor all day), and its really quite intuitive.

May I be the first to say.... Thermodynamics *works* bitches!

Re:Just feed them less

[Joce640k]

Eating less worked for me, too.

The whole 'gym' mentality is broken. The problem is that people eating less doesn't make anybody rich. Gyms and diet products, OTOH...

Re:Just feed them less

[AigariusDebian]

There is a certain problem with 'get out and play' if your outside is a ghetto ridden with gangs, drug dealers and gun violence. Better to stay inside then.

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a certain problem with 'get out and play' if your outside is a ghetto ridden with gangs, drug dealers and gun violence. Better to stay inside then.

See, now you're missing the point.
 
Ever been in a fight? You'll start working out muscles you didn't even know you had.

Re:Just feed them less

[somersault]

Yes, eat less* to lose weight.

Being lighter makes you feel good on its own as basic things like getting out of a chair and climbing stairs become easier - but getting some form of regular exercise (even just going for a 30 minute walk every couple of days) will make you feel even better.

I don't think there's anything wrong with gyms as long as you're not using them as an excuse to eat crap. I actually started going to the gym because I wanted to put on weight after losing 20lbs through trying various methods of eating and regular walking. I now eat a low GI diet, not just for weight control but because it helps keep my mood stable when I'm not going through sugar rushes and crashes all the time.

*eat less shit anyways - you can keep eating the same volume if you just eat less calorific foods. sugar+fat in the same meal is bound to pile on the pounds.

Re:Just feed them less

[FourthAge]

Backwards? But it isn't just about the exercise. It's also about social skills. Keep them "safely" indoors all day and, well, you know what happens... you'll have met kids like this in forums and online games. They are not pleasant to be with; they are rude, selfish people, and it's because they are poorly socialised. Some of them are technically adults - they are the saddest examples. We can get used to ignoring the flames, the trolls and the gamer rage on the Internet, but imagine how such people cope in the real world. "Not very well" is the answer.

Re:Just feed them less

[aussie_a]

Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level.

That is so insightful. I thought people gained weight by eating less food. That explains why my diet hasn't been working.

Re:Just feed them less

[aussie_a]

The gym works perfectly. If you're prepared to continue that level of commitment for the rest of your life. Most people aren't. So for most people moderating your diet is more effective. Dieting however is not a good idea. Any change you make must be forever. If you can't handle doing it (or doing without) for the rest of your life, don't bother starting.

Re:Just feed them less

[Hognoxious]

I, on the other hand, used to eat like a navvy - but I burnt it all off riding a bike and playing Rugby [1].

[1] Not at the same time, but it sounds like a fun idea.

Re:Just feed them less

[fluffy99]

Yes, it can be as simple as weigh change = calories in - calories burned. The complications are that the type of foods and eating habits make a difference and that cutting back on calories alone can't affect significant weight loss. A starvation diet going below 1200 calories a day with zero exercise (which usually backfire, btw) can only drop 1 lb of weigh a week. The best best is diet improvment and getting mild to moderate exercise.

Besides, there is more to health than simply weigh. Percent fat and cardio health are just as important. Dieting your way to a skinny body doesn't imply that you have either. You might just be an out of shape, weak hearted thin person. That 200-lb guy that runs ironman will probably outlive you.

I agree on the commercialization of weight loss. Too many diet products on the shelves when the answer is get off the f-ing couch, do a bit of exercise, and stop buying crap food that puts on lbs like Doritos, Taco Bell, McDonalds.

Re:Just feed them less

[fluffy99]

"Diets" don't work. In particular crash diets that just send your body into starvation/storage mode leaving with zero energy. Increase the quality of your food (no pre-prepared food and stop eating out) and pay attention to the calorie totals. Eating less more often and earlier in the day helps too. The magic ingredient is to start getting some exercise to increase your metabolism and burn more calories. If you're well over 200lbs, you can burn up to 200 calories fast walking a mile. Don't expect huge changes in weight. A slow steady and _lasting_ improvement takes time.

Re:Just feed them less

[dogsbreath]

Sure, but they go together. Feed healthy and act healthy. Let the ozone sniffers (sci guys) figure out if the chicken or egg came first.

Re:Just feed them less

[plastbox]

As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories" says, workout out makes you hungry. Everyone has heard about "Working up an appetite" but for some strange reason forgets it when they talk about exercise. If you just eat based on hunger, working out will do nothing to lower your weight. It will of course help cardiovascular health, and weight lifting helps keep your metabolism and good hormones up, your stress hormones down, helps your mental health and staves off the debilitating weakness of ageing.

As Mr. Taubes says in the book, it's not all about the calories though. A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates. Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on. If you eat bread/pasta/rice/etc. 5 times a day because many small, supposedly healthy meals will help you loose weight, your insulin levels will be chronically high and it will be exceedingly hard to burn off any fat.

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep them "safely" indoors all day and, well, you know what happens... you'll have met kids like this in forums and online games. They are not pleasant to be with; they are rude, selfish people, and it's because they are poorly socialised.

no u h0m0

Re:Just feed them less

[betterunixthanunix]

I would say they go hand in hand. Kids just need to be outdoors more, playing with other kids -- rather than spending that time eating. Just cutting the snacks out of their diet would make a huge difference, and an easy way to do that is to just not have them stay indoors all day, with snacks readily available.

Re:Just feed them less

[FourthAge]

I assume this must be a reply to a different post.

Re:Just feed them less

[thrawn_aj]

How the hell is this modded troll? Seems like a legitimate matter of practicality to me. But (to the trigger-happy mod-) go ahead and live in your cozy comfortable world and assume that anyone can just "go out and play". Numbnut.

Re:Just feed them less

[Jeremy Erwin]

The chicken came first

Re:Just feed them less

[Mr. Slippery]

The whole 'gym' mentality is broken. The problem is that people eating less doesn't make anybody rich.

Well, neither does running the trails in a several-year-old pair of Chuck Taylor knock-offs.

You don't need to join a gym to exercise. Second-hand bikes are cheap; if you want to go running, if you shun expensive, injury-producing running shoes it's pretty cheap (and contrary to common practice, you don't actually need an iPod or other music player to go running); walking remains free, as do calisthenics; and you can usually find some sucker in your neighborhood teaching yoga or karate or something along those lines at little above cost.

It's certainly true that our massive caloric intake -- which increased 24.5 percent between 1970 and 2000, and I'm sure has only gone up since then -- tends to swamp weight-loss effects from exercise for many people. You won't burn off an extra 500 calories a day with moderate exercise. But exercise has benefits apart from weight loss; and once caloric intake is down to something more sane, it will help burn off minor excesses.

Re:Just feed them less

[Runaway1956]

Better to live in fear, than to get out and face life? I'm not so sure. Isn't that how prey animals live in the wild? Look at the cute little bunny - a shadow passes over him, and he huddles, frozen in fear, until the big cat/dog/bird snatches him up, and eats him.

I'd say that if life in the ghetto is as bad as people say, then parents need to teach their kids how to cope with that life, instead of hiding in their basements.

Re:Just feed them less

[fluffy99]

As Mr. Taubes says in the book, it's not all about the calories though. A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates. Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on

Eating lots of cheap, quickly absorbed carbs in the absence of exercise can indeed be a contributor to all those problems. I'd same the lack of exercise and overall weight are just as responsible for heart disease. It's interesting to note some studies which show that artificial sweeteners and some food additives such as msg also induce the glycemic response of raised insulin levels. In fact some studies show the act of swishing with a sugar solution and not even swallowing induces a response.

During exercise, its normal to see higher insulin levels as insulin is also responsible for prompting the muscles to uptake the sugars for burning and/or storage. The higher levels post-exercise are what drop the blood sugar levels and make you hungry.

Re:Just feed them less

[Hurricane78]

Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level.

Oh how mind-boggingly dumb and primitive. As if we were in the 19th century!

Eating less will not work at all in practical reality. It only works in a theoretical reality that is completely ignorant of all indirect effects and psychology. It’s why all diets are doomed to fail, and why when you want to lose weight permanently, a diet is even worse than eating normally.

See, when you eat less, there are three things happening:
1. You still are hungry as hell! Even more so than with an empty stomach, since that bit of food activated your digestive system, and now it expects the usual amount, or it will bring the pain!
2. Your body switches to an emergency mode, where in the first two weeks it only uses up all the energy depots in your heart, liver, etc. But those are required to stay healthy. Which means they have to be filled up anyway, and you will be at a very high risk of catching the next disease coming your way.
3. Then your body, who previously was very wasteful with processing what he got, becomes more efficient, and learns to get more energy out of the food. Which means if you eat as much as previously ever again, you will first become fat quicker. Hence the yo-yo effect.

Also, all the nutritionists and doctors seem to be completely ignorant of the psychology. But usually, being overweight is nearly completely a psychological problem. Ask any fat person on how to eat right. They all are experts, and often do know more than professional nutritionists. But does that mean they actually eat right? No!
Why not? Well, again, ask them. Their answer will be something, that is obviously psychological. Like they don’t have the power to not eat. It feels bad. They become depressive. Etc, etc, etc.
It’s an addiction too. And hence it’s very hard to free yourself from it.

We found out about the length of carbohydrates in what, the 20s? And about the reason for dietary fibers in the 60s!
The whole carbohydrate metabolism is well understood since a looong time ago.

What you really need to do, to lose weight, is:
1. Eat the same quantities as before!
2. But, eat stuff that
a. takes longest to process (the longer the chains of the carbohydrates, the longer it takes, the better it is), and
b. has the lowest energy density (e.g. vegetables and indigesible fibers).
That way, you won’t be hungry, while your body gets less energy. Which means it it not nearly as likely that it will trigger emergency mode. Its sensors still tell it everything is normal.
3. Eat less carbohydrates and more proteins. The body prefers carbohydrates before fat. And fat before proteins. So he prefers to simply burn your own fat, before wanting to do the harder work to cut up and process the proteins.
4. Sports are actually a great way to assist this. For two reasons:
a. They raise your base energy requirements. Your body will use up more energy, just to sit there. Because it expects that there could be sports at any time, and it must be ready. (Also psychology. So do sports irregularly, to prevent your body from detecting a pattern and only raising the energy usage then.) And because your muscles need more energy to be sustained.
b. Your immune system does not have a pump, like the heart is for the blood. Its pump is your movement. When you move, the channels get pressed together. And because they have valves, the fluid can only move forward. so you support your immune system too.

Oh, and have fun becoming even fatter than before, or counting calories ’til the end of your life! While keeping your all-around unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle. (There is no life-form on the planet which is more enduring at walking and running. We literally are made for walking. We are extremely dependen

Re:Just feed them less

[Scrameustache]

I don't think there's anything wrong with gyms

I think there's the terrible boredom and monotony, but I OH! Shiny!

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I was one of those kept "safely" indoors. I'm invariably polite, not rude and anything but selfish. Why? Because of good examples in the home. Oh and I do consider myself "poorly socialized" because I find socialization--oft filled with lies, political maneuvering and spiteful gossip--boring in my adult life. I'd rather be reading. Or coding. Or helping someone in need.

Re:Just feed them less

[eugene ts wong]

Do you think that keeping kids indoors only exasperates poor socialization? I am 36, and many/most of the people that I don't get along with are older than me. I think that they weren't caught up in the indoor lifestyle that you speak of.

I ask because I'm beginning to wonder if there is a way to come up with objective numbers that reflect how nice people are.

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

>> If you eat ...rice... 5 times a day ...it will be exceedingly hard to burn off any fat.

That explains all those lard-ass Chinese people.

Re:Just feed them less

[somersault]

If what you are doing really is monotonous then you have plenty of time to think because you can just leave your body on autopilot.

I found going for walks rather tedious the first couple of weeks because I was so used to being online, watching TV or playing games all the time, having content fed to me. Having to think for myself was "boring" to me, but then I started finding it interesting and useful, a time to reflect on past and current events, planning for future ones etc.

As they say "'Bored' people are boring".

Re:Just feed them less

[Scrameustache]

If what you are doing really is monotonous then you have plenty of time to think because you can just leave your body on autopilot.

I found going for walks rather tedious the first couple of weeks

Going for a walk != walking on a treadmill;

Re:Just feed them less

[dogsbreath]

[Grin] I knew someone would point that out...

Re:Just feed them less

[FourthAge]

In this subject there are no definite answers. Avoiding contact with other people when young certainly does not help, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the skills will not be acquired at all, or that they cannot later be learned. You are absolutely right that there is no way to measure this. I posted a comment here only to point out that exercise is just one of the benefits of letting your children play out with other children, and it may even be quite a marginal one in comparison to socialisation.

Re:Just feed them less

[Mr. Slippery]

As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"...

Taubes is a scientific and journalistic fraud, who pushes nutritional pseudoscience and misrepresents the positions of people he interviews. See http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html and http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/105/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest.htm.

A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates.

No, in fact the bulk of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now, highly refined carbs do make it easier to overeat -- as do fatty foods. But the bulk of our problem is very simple: we eat something on the order of 25% more calories now than we did three or four decades ago. When you're overeating by 500 calories a day, shuffling around the proportions of macronutrients is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on

Yeah, that's why you see so many fat Japanese people, all that rice. And why we've had all these "western diseases" for centuries, as we ate a grain-centered diet since, like, the beginning of human civilization.

Oh, wait a minute...obesity rates in Japan, where the typical diet gets about 55 to 60% of calories from carbs, are about 1/10 those of the U.S. -- but are rising as carb levels decrease and fat and protein levels increase.

And the fact that for most of human history[*] the majority of the human race has eaten a grain-centered high carbohydrate diet -- these "diseases of affluence" were awfully rare until the 20th century.

([*]To be taken literally: history starts with writing, which comes after the Neolithic revolution.)

And a high protein meal will also raise insulin levels -- good, since insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids protein synthesis.. And people who are exercising lose weight and improve insulin response on high carb diets better than on high fat ones. And a high-complex carbohydrate diet will have you lose much more weight that a low-carb, high fat diet.

So, in summary: Taubes, full of shit; low carb diets, not backed by science.

Re:Just feed them less

[somersault]

It may as well be if you're lost in your thoughts. I've gone for hour long walks along the beach front and not even looked towards the sea. My body was on autopilot while my brain focused on other things.

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

May I be the first to say.... Thermodynamics *works* bitches!

P90X "works" bitches!! lol

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of those people function perfectly well in the real world. They basically have two personalities. The one they use online, and the one they show the rest of the world. I dunno about you, but the person I appear to be online is drastically different from the person I am.

Re:Just feed them less

[Scrameustache]

It may as well be if you're lost in your thoughts. I've gone for hour long walks along the beach front and not even looked towards the sea. My body was on autopilot while my brain focused on other things.

*Sigh...* Seems you need more than pseudocode.

My initial claim: The gym is boring as hell.
Your repartee: Going for a walk is not boring.

Because you need it in long form: No, going for a walk is not the same as doing a repetitive task in the same spot for hours on end. On a walk you have many things killing the boredom such as animals, weather, navigational hazards, etc.

Explanation of my dwindling respect for you: If I say "the gym is boring", replying "going to the beach isn't boring" is... it's fucking stupid. That's like telling me that you really enjoyed movie B when I say movie A is boring. It's not relevant, and I expect people of my species to know this without needing it explained twice.

Re:Just feed them less

[badkarmadayaccount]

That ought to teach kids some basic respect, and how to make acquaintances. I'm serious. That's how I grew up, and frankly that turned me from that smart ass snobby kid into a the nutty but fun neighborhood genius. Gangs have territory and other issues, but very few would start knocking kids around for no good reason (they are people too, ya know), drug dealers, even less so. They are out to do business, nothing else. Gun violence? Well, that may be an issue, I agree.

Re:Just feed them less

[somersault]

Walking was just an example, I started off by mentioning monotonous activities in general, and I qualified how walking outside can sometimes be no different to walking on a treadmill (and yes, I've done both).

I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills such as learning to play an instrument well or become an expert in sports ranging from race driving to mountain climbing, and even less physical things like getting good at computer games. These all involve monotonous and rigorous training to become good, but you know what, they can all be entertaining. Even just the act of walking, on a treadmill, in a blank room. Even if you're not using your time to be on autopilot and think about your life, you can just focus on improving your gait, you can do "walking meditation" etc. You may consider most of the things that you can do physically to be uninteresting, but there is great pleasure to be had in simple movement.

Again as an example, I started doing Parkour a few months ago and it has really changed how I view the world. The whole way I've moved has changed, even just when sitting down or walking around I am much more aware of my body and trying to make my movement more efficient. I find it quite fascinating to consider how modern life has changed the way we think of the world, how modern contrivances affect our health and posture compared to those of aboriginal peoples etc.

If you want then keep acting like an asshole and complain and say how boring this all is to you and how dumb people must be if they actually enjoy going to the gym. I'm just trying to demonstrate how in fact some people might find life more interesting than you even when they aren't being spoonfed drivel from a tech blog or TV program.

Re:Just feed them less

[Scrameustache]

I used walking as an example that I thought you might be able to relate to, seeing as your smugly superior attitude must preclude you from doing anything that involves what you consider "boredom and monotony", which basically is anything to do with improving physical skills

So much bullshit. Dude, the gym is boring, I know because I went. If you're fine with boredom, go ahead, go the gym, knock yourself out. But stop telling how much you like walks on the beach to prove that the gym isn't boring.

Seriously, stop telling me about all the outdoorsy things you think prove the gym isn't boring; it's ridiculous.

Re:Just feed them less

[somersault]

You have completely missed the point of all my posts, well done. My first post even said that I found walking boring at first. You have to stick with these things until your brain learns to think for itself again. Never mind. Please continue your trolling somewhere with people who are at your level of comprehension.

Re:Just feed them less

[plastbox]

I don't even know why I bother responding, but if you live on a what is, in essence a starvation diet and do hard physical labor pretty much every waking hour of the day, well of course you're going to be skinny.

Re:Just feed them less

[plastbox]

*sigh* So what about Dr. Robert Atkins? Dr. Michael R. Eades and his wife Dr. Mary Dan Eades? Dr. Sofie Hexeberg? Professor Wolfgang Lutz? Dr. Fedon Lindberg? Dr. Torkil P. Andersen? I could go on, and on, and on, but you get the point.

No, in fact the bulk of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now, highly refined carbs do make it easier to overeat -- as do fatty foods. But the bulk of our problem is very simple: we eat something on the order of 25% more calories now than we did three or four decades ago. When you're overeating by 500 calories a day, shuffling around the proportions of macronutrients is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yes, it's almost impossible to gain weight without consuming too many calories total, but have you read or heard any of the science Mr. Taubes often quotes? There are many places around the world where children die from malnutrition while their mothers are overweight. Now, most mothers would easily starve themselves to feed their children. How do you explain the coexistence of malnutrition and obesity within a community?

Yeah, that's why you see so many fat Japanese people, all that rice. And why we've had all these "western diseases" for centuries, as we ate a grain-centered diet since, like, the beginning of human civilization. Oh, wait a minute...obesity rates in Japan, where the typical diet gets about 55 [diet-i.com] to 60% [kikkoman.com] of calories from carbs, are about 1/10 those of the U.S. [nationmaster.com] -- but are rising as carb levels decrease and fat and protein levels increase. And the fact that for most of human history[*] the majority of the human race has eaten a grain-centered high carbohydrate diet -- these "diseases of affluence" were awfully rare until the 20th century. ([*]To be taken literally: history starts with writing, which comes after the Neolithic revolution.)

Japanese people also work far harder than most us Westeners, in addition to eating a lot of fish, shellfish, eggs and meat. Their overall sugar consumption is also faaar lower than most so-called "Americanized" societies. Obviously you should get a fair bit of complex carbs and it's not impossible to live well with quite a bit of them (all else being fairly optimal).

As I said, inflammation is one of the primary causes of pretty much every "life-style" disease out there, which is a fact. Insulin is pro-inflammatory, as is an Omega-3/Omega-6 balance too far in favor of Omega-6. You know how to get a lot of Omega-3? Fish, shellfish, eggs, (grass fed) red meats, etc. You know who eats a lot of these things? The Japanese.

Also, what we have done in recorded history has nothing to do with our biology or evolution. The fact is, we've been growing crops for the past ~10.000 years which in evolutionary terms is just barely a blip on the radar. Hunter/gatherers collected fruits and berries when they could and fattened up for winter, but otherwise ate what the hunters brought home. After all, wild carbohydrates aren't exactly "in stock" all year around while meat and fish is.

You know who has the lowest incidents of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and so on? The Eskimo, Inuit, Masai, and other "primitive" populations who have next-to no carbohydrates and a ton of meat and fats in their diets. These people aren't special, they are part of the exact same gene pool as us.

I'm sick of this debate, because all that should be necessary is to look at rates of obesity and diabetes before and after we suddenly got all the fatphobic propaganda. Hint: diabetes was almost a non-issue and obesity levels had been stable for decades. Out goes the fat (obviously replaced by carbs, because they had to be replaced by something), and BAM, obesity/diabetes epidemic.

And a high protein meal will also raise insulin levels [medbio.info] -- good, since insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids protein synthesis.. blablabla..

Re:Just feed them less

[plastbox]

Holy crap, I meant "a pound of steak"! I was proof reading my post and clicked "Submit" instead of "Continue Editing". Sorry, I do not "eat stake". -__-'

Re:Just feed them less

[Mr. Slippery]

So what about Dr. Robert Atkins?

You do realize that Atkins has been roundly criticized in the literature by every nutritional authority, right? The National Academy of Sciences, the AMA, the ADA, the ACS, the AHA, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, the American Kidney Fund, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health has all criticized the Atkins plan. See the AtkinsExposed website I linked above.

You can find a handful of people with "Dr." before their name who will tell you than smoking cigarettes is fine and dandy, or with "PhD" afterward who will tell you that climate change is a hoax -- or that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, or that we never went to the moon, or whatever. This does not change the science.

How do you explain the coexistence of malnutrition and obesity within a community?

Malnutrition includes deficiency of micronutrients -- kwashiorkor, for example. Empty calories are cheap calories.

Japanese people also work far harder than most us Westeners, in addition to eating a lot of fish, shellfish, eggs and meat. Their overall sugar consumption is also faaar lower than most so-called "Americanized" societies.

None of which addresses the point that their consumption of carbs is high, putting the lie to the "high carb diets make you fat!" theory. And no, they don't eat a lot of meat -- though the consumption of meat is trending upward, along with the incidence of obesity, heart disease, and all the other fun stuff a high-protein, high-fat diet brings with it.

Yes, their sugar consumption is far lower. Large amounts of sugar are a bad idea, I think we can all agree on that shocking conclusion.

Insulin is pro-inflammatory

No, in fact insulin has an anti-inflammatory effect (see also here.)

Also, what we have done in recorded history has nothing to do with our biology or evolution. The fact is, we've been growing crops for the past ~10.000 years which in evolutionary terms is just barely a blip on the radar. Hunter/gatherers collected fruits and berries when they could and fattened up for winter, but otherwise ate what the hunters brought home. After all, wild carbohydrates aren't exactly "in stock" all year around while meat and fish is.

Ah, bad anthropology rears its head again. First, our existence as hunter-gatherers was a blip in evolutionary terms; our digestive metabolism remains mostly the same as our primarily herbivorous primate ancestors and our primarily herbivorous chimp and gorilla cousins. (Yes, chimps eat some flesh -- mostly insects; that does not change the fact that they are primarily herbivorous.) Second, carbohydrates are indeed in stock all year round in the areas where we evolved -- what do you think those animals our ancestors were hunting were eating? Not just fruits, but roots, tubers, seeds, nuts, leaves...we've been eating grains for 20,000, perhaps even 100,000, years, well before the Neolithic revolution.

The idea that our paleolithic ancestors were mostly hunters is not based on good evidence, but on "me mighty hunter!" mythology. Contemporary hunter-gathers get the bulk of their nutrition from plant foods.

But finally, the evolutionary tale tells us jack shit about what makes for a healthy diet . Evolutio

Re:Just feed them less

[Scrameustache]

Please continue your trolling

You got me, troll. I kept telling you to stop replying instead of simply abstaining from feeding the troll... should have seen it sooner... shouldn't even post this, but your "use outdoorsy activities to prove the gym isn't boring" trolling routine obviously works. No point in denying it now.

Re:Just feed them less

[plastbox]

You do realize that Atkins has been roundly criticized in the literature by every nutritional authority, right? The National Academy of Sciences, the AMA, the ADA, the ACS, the AHA, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, the American Kidney Fund, the American College of Sports Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health has all criticized the Atkins plan. See the AtkinsExposed website [atkinsexposed.org] I linked above.

I have read the link and it didn't exactly convince me. Every person quoted in that article uses a horrid Strawman-argument. Taubes repeatedly says in interviews, debates and lectures that overeating obviously causes "excess accumulation of fatty tissue". The entire article seems to be based around the idiotic Strawman that that you can eat 10.000 calories of fat a day and loose weight which obviously isn't the case.

You can find a handful of people with "Dr." before their name who will tell you than smoking cigarettes is fine and dandy, or with "PhD" afterward who will tell you that climate change is a hoax -- or that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, or that we never went to the moon, or whatever. This does not change the science.

Agreed. This goes both ways though, especially when there is funding involved. In fact, most doctors risk huge lawsuits and revoked medical licenses if they recommend anything but the established high-carb diet and something does indeed go wrong (at least here in Scandinavia), no matter how stupid or unrelated it might be. This put together with the fact that ADA/AHA/ACA/etc. (just like the Norwegian government) can't suddenly start funding research trying to prove that said governmental instances has indeed been killing people for 40 years paints a pretty clear picture of why so many medical professionals are stuck in their dogma. Also, God complex. Again, due to my diabetes I know all to well that medical doctors and nutritionists quite nearly have a seizure if you so much as ask "why?" or "what if?" because there is no bloody way their 30-50 years old "facts" might be wrong.

No, in fact insulin has an anti-inflammatory effect [liebertonline.com] (see also here [buffalo.edu].)

Yes, sure. This is why Dr. Atkins, Dr. Hexeberg and Drs. Eades to name a few have treated thousands of deadly ill heart disease (inflammation of blood vessels) patients with a low carb diet and seen time and time again full recovery. This is why reducing carbohydrate intake lets fibromyalgia (basically inflammation of muscle tissue) sufferers get back to living life.

I'm sick of that argument, because fat never went out! This is the biggest lie in Taubes' collection of whoppers. There was a tiny drop, about 8%, in the use of added fats and oils between 1993 and 1997 at the height of the "low fat" push -- followed by a 17% increase between 1997 and 2000 [usda.gov]. Fat intake increased between 1971 and 1991 [cdc.gov]. I repeat: when you're overeating by 500 calories a day, shuffling around the proportions of macronutrients is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. (What did dip slightly was percent of calories as fat -- because our overeating of refined grain products grew slightly faster than our overeating of added fats and oils. Overeating being the key here.)

It all started in the 1950'es with Ancel Keys and his "7 countries study" that showed a clear correlation between heart disease mortality and fat intake, which was in fact a "22 countries study" that showed absolutely no such correlation at all. In fact, in the original data, countries like Greece and Norway consumed a huge amount of fat and had little to no heart disease at all but because of his need to be right and receive further funding, he did what any respected scientist would do and cherry-picked the data he needed.

You don't strike me as an idiot. Compare what your parents or grandparents ate to what you find on display in most supermarkets these days. My gra

Re:Just feed them less

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been on a diet for the past 2 years. I'd say its worked pretty well for me.

When I was a kid...

[gravos]

When I was a kid I was writing my own apps. Now get off my lawn!

Re:When I was a kid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing apps is for old people. Now days, kids have apps to write apps for them.

Re:When I was a kid...

[maxwell demon]

Well, I also use apps to write apps for me. Those apps are usually known as compilers. I give them a description of the program I want to have, in a language they understand (usually known as programming language), and then they write the program I described for me.

Re:When I was a kid...

[neumayr]

While your comment is kinda 'meh', you'd get +1 from me for your sig alone ^_^

Re:The only vote I'll cast

[MRe_nl]

Anonymous Coward's frustrations with his dysfunctional family were complicated by abuse of amphetamines and health issues including headaches that he reported in one of his final notes as "tremendous."
A glioblastoma, which is a highly cancerous brain tumor, was discovered during autopsy that experts on the "Cowards Commission" claimed may have conceivably played a role in causing his actions. He was also affected by a court martial as a United States Marine, failings as a student at the University of Texas, ambitious personal expectations and psychotic features he expressed in his slashdot post.

What the hell???!!!

[flajann]

Now the government wants to start influencing our kids at the gaming level? Eeeewwwwwww! How creepy is that?

Government, leave our kids the hell ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:What the hell???!!!

[maxwell demon]

Didn't they get the message that computer games are harmful? Just wait until we have the first case of balanced meal amok!

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Pharmboy]

Indoctrinate the children when they are young and they are yours for life. Even Hitler knew this. Not the same thing obviously, but I still don't like any political party working so hard to program children with their version of "wisdom".

Re:What the hell???!!!

[neumayr]

Even Hitler knew this.

Yes well, so did a great many people before him.

Not the same thing obviously

So why bother bringing it up? Wasn't there some kind of law against that?

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, give peas a chance!

Re:What the hell???!!!

[easyTree]

you'll find exciting titles like Balanced Meal (6 votes), Blubber Blaster (9 votes), Calorie Quest (10 votes), and Count Peas (7 votes)

Notably absent is "Stay Safe - avoid being sent to fight wars for your government".

Re:What the hell???!!!

[GameboyRMH]

Came in to see Republi-rage, ideally with Godwin, leaving very satisfied.

Re:What the hell???!!!

[drsquare]

Government, leave our kids the hell ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, how dare the government want to make children healthier.

Perhaps your rage would be better reserved for the fast food companies who use similar tactics to influence kids to eat shit.

Re:What the hell???!!!

[westlake]

Now the government wants to start influencing our kids at the gaming level? Eeeewwwwwww! How creepy is that?

About as creepy as The Oregon Trail.
1971. Still in print after 39 years. The Oregon Trail

Re:What the hell???!!!

[N!k0N]

I tried to ford the river, and my ox fucking died ... then John died of Dysentery, and Emily of Tuberculosis...

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Runaway1956]

MOD PARENT ^ PLEASE

It's perfectly alright for CORPORATE America to spend millions every morning, pitching their poisonous wares to impressionable young minds. But, let "da gubbermint" get in on the act, and lo and behold, it's an evil scheme!

"Eat an apple instead of that Ding Dong, Susie, it will make you healthier!"

Mommy screams, "Don't listen to that television, Susie! It's all GOVERNMENT LIES!! You can't believe ANYTHING the government tells you!"

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Nethead]

That sounds like Good Eats!

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Belial6]

Well, to be fair, the government (as well as the medical and insurance industries) are batshit insane when it comes to defining "fat", "overweight", and "obese".

At 5'11" the insurance, medical and government accepted standard, the BMI, says that I would not be "normal" weight until I reached 178 pounds. Just yesterday I was hydrostatically weighed. My lean body mass was 164 pounds. That means that at 8% body fat, I would be considered "overweight" or "fat". This is with virtually no exercise. I build muscle REALLY fast. If I worked out with any kind of weight training for 3 or 4 months, I could easily break the 178 pounds that defines me as "fat" in lean body mass. The BMI would also call my weight "normal" at 133 pounds. The government, medical, and insurance industries declare that not only should I reach 0% body fat (which will kill you by the way), but that to be "normal", I should start deciding what body parts I want amputated. Maybe an arm and a leg would do it. I have to be careful not to choose both legs though, because then I would be "fat" again.

Just to put it in perspective, this is what the government, medical and insurance industries call "obese".

So, is the OP crazy for wanting the government out of the weight loss game, or are the people supporting them?

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you always name your party members after the school yard bullies. Or at least, we did.

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Shotgun]

Bodybuilders are some of the most unhealthy people I know. Your body does not store that much muscle and that small a percentage of supporting fat without an extremely abnormal diet (and hormonal supplements).

As always, the problem with big government is the requirement to oversimplify the world in order to make it manageable. Body weights, like so many other things, do not necessarily fall within a 'normal' range. Big government can't work without a systematic way to handle the abnormal.

It's good that the First Lady is raising the issue and making noise about childhood obesity. It's even better that she doesn't have the power of government to shove broccoli down all our throats ('cause I detest the taste of broccoli! Ugh!!)

Re:What the hell???!!!

[Belial6]

No, it is not good it is very very bad. She may not be able to shove broccoli down all our throats, but she does have the power to influence people who can, she can make if far more difficult to eat right and be healthy, she can and is trying to marshal huge amounts of pressure on children to do things that are very bad for their health.

Body builders might be unhealthy, but the First Lady is not suggesting that people with 3% body fat add fat to their body. She is suggesting that Mr. Universe was flat out obese, and that he should REDUCE his body fat even farther.

The government's definitions of healthy, overweight, and obese are dangerous. The current climate concerning the moves to regulate eating is a serious concern for people like me. According to the First Lady, I cannot be considered "normal" weight until I get down to at least 8% body fat. The only reason she would consider that high of body fat to be "normal" is because I live a sedentary lifestyle. If I exercised, she would tell people I am fat at 0% body fat. I have been hydrostaticlly weighed. At 5' 11", my lean body mass is 164 pounds. The only reason that my muscle mass is that low is because I don't get much exercise. I build muscle extremely fast. If I were to do light exercise, I could easily reach 178 pounds of lean muscle mass in just a few months. 178 pounds is the point that a 5'11" man is considered "overweight" by the government, medical and insurance industries.

So, not only will I have the First Lady targeting children to tell them that there is something genetically wrong with me, by I get to watch her create a dark future for my child at the same time.

Re:What the hell???!!!

[flajann]

Indoctrinate the children when they are young and they are yours for life. Even Hitler knew this. Not the same thing obviously, but I still don't like any political party working so hard to program children with their version of "wisdom".

I've already got the equivalent of "anti-virus software" installed in my kids. It's called Critical Thinking!!!! ;-)

Physical games

[Timmmm]

What they should reaally do, is physical games. I.e. like Wii Fit, but not really boring. E.g. something like whack-a-mole, but with boxing instead of a hammer!

Re:Physical games

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most kids when they get old enough would prefer to play whack-off with their favourite porn sites...

Re:Physical games

[somersault]

They could introduce martial arts into school PE sessions, and encourage fighting in the schoolyard? That would be awesome.

Re:Physical games

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon to Kenect.

Re:Physical games

[6Yankee]

Bring back Prop Cycle! That thing got me to exercise!

Re:Physical games

[srothroc]

What about the educational aspect of it? I played the crap out of the Oregon Trail and enjoyed it when I was a kid. It seems to me that you could do the same thing in a different setting -- say, captaining a ship across the Atlantic in the Age of Sail, or even from Earth to Mars. Put the kid in charge of outfitting his ship with radiation shielding, balancing between fuel/engineering tools/plants/dried food/vitamin supplements, and let him go. I would play the hell out of a game like that, too... and it would be both relevant AND informative!

Re:Physical games

[Timmmm]

Yeah that is a great idea. E.g. I haven't played it but dwarf fortress could easily teach you about geology.

It has to be fun, plus informative though. I think many times they don't bother with the fun.

Re:Physical games

[drinkypoo]

They could introduce martial arts into school PE sessions, and encourage fighting in the schoolyard? That would be awesome.

My school experience suggests that they've already done this. Except, you know, without any martial arts training beyond hard knocks.

Re:Physical games

[metrometro]

> What they should really do, is physical games.

Check out HopeLab, which is a hardware & software shop doing pretty much that, as a public benefit.

They started with clinical trials of software that was anecdotally doing cool things for cancer patients (Chemo Warrior, or something like that, that roleplayed nuking cancer by taking meds. Results: kids took their meds on schedule.)

From what I've seen of them (I saw their CEO present once) are committed to a) making the games attractive to kids by doing really good behavioral observation and dialogue and b) doing real clinical trials to evaluate results. Their latest effort is a suit with accelerometers that logs activity then downloads it, earning points, rewards, unlocking levels, etc. They aren't making much noise yet, but they're pretty far along with the hardware (one of their testers took it surfing). I believe the goal is a commercially successful product, perhaps in partnership with another platform.

http://www.hopelab.org/innovative-solutions/gditty/

Also, they say the name will change before launch.

Re:Physical games

[selven]

Normal games but where you have to keep the laptop charged with pedal power.

Re:Physical games

[The_mad_linguist]

You mean like dance dance revolution?

It's pretty easy to build a high quality pad for cheap - make it a family project while you're at it.

Technically

[ninjacheeseburger]

I would expect that in an intense game of halo you probably burn off more calories than you would playing these "healthy games".

Re:Technically

[Anonymous Coward]

But the goal is to get the kids to put the games away and do something more active, right? Most kids will stay healthy by not playing the healthy games than by playing Halo.

Simpsons...

[Robotron23]

Ah this topic reminds me of when Bart Simpson gets bought, by Marge, a golf game named "Lee Carvallo's Putting Challenge" instead of the hip and happening "Bonestorm" which is a Mortal Kombat style beat em' up that all the kids play.

Re:Simpsons...

[Hurricane78]

The thing is: There is absolutely no point for Bonestorm not being the game that is more healthy, mentally and in terms of fitness.
It’s all a matter of design.

Also, what’s wrong with fighting? It’s fun! We’re made for it since the dawn of time. And when we do in in games, there is less need to do it in real life. It’s a win-win.
The whole concept of “being manly and fighting is bad” smells of the matriarchal sexism that is so fashionable nowadays.

Re:Simpsons...

[mqduck]

The whole concept of “being manly and fighting is bad” smells of the matriarchal sexism that is so fashionable nowadays.

I'd say it's your idea of "being manly" that's sexist. Saying that fighting is bad is neither sexist, nor is it going with the mainstream; our culture fucking loves violence.

Re:Somebody tell 4chan!

[somersault]

You mean titles similar to "Wii Fit" and "Wii Sports"? There's no guarantee that a game is not fun just because of the title, it has to be judged on its own merits..

Keep it up!

[pieisgood]

No seriously, good job. You're sure to reel in the fatties with titles like "blubber blaster". I'm sure the most popular game is going to be something like "Lardass Limbo" and "Stop eating so much fatty". With titles like that, I'm sure the kids will start playing them by the droves. /sarcasm

Do they think kids are that stupid?

Re:Keep it up!

[betterunixthanunix]

Do they think kids are that stupid?

Yes they do.

Re:Keep it up!

[Grygus]

And why shouldn't they? Look what the parents have been putting up with from their politicians for the last ten years.

Re:Keep it up!

[AnonymousClown]

They're not marketing them to the kids: they're marketing them to the parents. The parents will buy "Blubber Blaster" and "encourage" their kids to use it. Of course, it'll probably stay on the shelf but the parents will feel good that they "did" something - kind of like the folks who buy the exercise equipment, use it once or twice, and give up.

In the meantime, the parents still buy the kids Coke, potato chips, crap from fast food joints (if it has a takeout window, it's crap), and they watch their parents sit in front of the TV all night.

I saw this guy buy his little pudgeball one of those 20oz Cokes the other day. She was 8 years old and already a fatty.

Re:Keep it up!

[Runaway1956]

"Do they think kids are that stupid?"

They are obese little bastards, right?

Re:Keep it up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue lawsuits from child anorexia and bulimia victims parents' associations. Won't anybody PLEASE think of the children?

Re:Keep it up!

[Shotgun]

I don't know. If the idea is to go around beating up on the fat kid, most high schoolers will love it.

Re:Somebody tell 4chan!

[neumayr]

My judgement isn't based on the title alone, rather the whole context in which they're produced.
Comparing a US gov't project to something Nintendo pulled off doesn't work very well..

Oxymoron inside

[nu1x]

Why oh why would healthy kids require games such as blubber blaster ?

They should be called apps for big boned, sensitive kids.

And now what ? You're trying to blast their blubber away ? Seems like recipe for insecurity ... :/

Better to create a game called "Life Challenged" wherein the object is to increase the worth of society by stopping being an oxygen thief - and there's only one way to do that. Achievement points for creative solutions ! :P

Re:Oxymoron inside

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to win, is not to play.

Re:Oxymoron inside

[Hurricane78]

No, the game should be called “DOOMSDAY OF TERROR 2010 — Monster-Ass Monster Nuke Attack (With tits!)” for boys, and “My Secret Princesses-Only Pony Stable Garden Online.” for girls.

And if you think that can’t be made into a game to promote healthy living and self-help, then that’s because you’re not a professional game designer. Believe me, it’s not only doable, but not even hard to do.

Re:Oxymoron inside

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa whoa whoa!

You're telling me that nuking it from orbit isn't a way to be sure?

Or instead...

[betterunixthanunix]

On the one hand, we can continue to encourage kids to play video games and be antisocial, and hope that games with anti-fast-food themes will out-compete games like Halo. On the other hand, we can encourage kids to not play video games, and spend their time outdoors socializing and engaging in physical activity with each other, and hope that such activity will out-compete video games. Gee, which plan is going to be more effective (not that either one will be enormously effective)?

Of course, if we devote as much effort to telling kids that hang out with each other and play outdoors as we do to telling them that there is something wrong with enjoying the effects of drugs, we will hurt the profits of the corporations that produce video games. Since "the business of the United States is business," any plan that involves hurting corporate profits is a plan that will never actually happen.

Re:Or instead...

[drinkypoo]

What we seem to need is a reality overlay video game, that way you can make the kids run around in meatspace in order to play a game. And you make the game boundaries exist in the safest possible locations so they're not running into the ghetto to pick up an epic drop. (I got a baggie of magic powder!)

Re:Or instead...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to discount your point but video games can be very social. Not all games are, but most games these days that take hours of a person's time are likely to include interactions with other humans. Some Wii games even include a mild amount of physical activity while offering a multiplayer experience.

You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[AnonymousClown]

Modded "Flamebait" eh?

Well, rest assured that you're right and at least I know it.

My wife is in medical and it's a HUGE problem among kids because they're not getting enough exercise and the biggest culprits are video games and lack of greenspace for kids to run around - suburban American life is making kids fat. She asks the kids what they do all day: sit in school, go home and do home work and then sit and play video games - all of them have that story.

And being fat at such a young age leads to horrible health consequences later on: diabetes and all the issues with that, heart disease, high blood pressure and all the issue with that, etc....

Our health costs are just going to continue to balloon because of this and we're, of course, going to blame the insurance companies, big pharma, and everyone else but ourselves.

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[Eevee]

...and lack of greenspace for kids to run around - suburban American life is...

Umm, isn't suburbia the place with all those lawns? There's a lot more (and bigger) backyards to run around in when you're out in the suburbs compared to the city. It's not the lack of space, it's the rampant paranoia that the precious darlings can't be left to their own. <getoffmylawn>When I was a kid, we'd disappear after school--we'd all meet at somebody's backyard and play without parental control. I could bike around the neighborhood on my own; wander up to the playground, maybe play a pickup game of kickball; even go to a local shop and spend my meager allowance.</getoffmylawn> It's today's fear culture that's keeping kids indoors.

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[couchslug]

Nice theory, but when I was growing up (late 60s/early'70s) in da 'burbs we did the SAME FUCKING THING except we watched TV. (It sucked, computers and video games are far more mentally stimulating. TV is still shit.)

The difference? Modern FOOD is mostly good for fattening livestock (hooray for corn byproducts!) and turns youngsters into hambeasts.

Want to fix (some of) this? PT, every school day, in gym class.

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[xaxa]

I live in an inner city area with lots of blocks of flats, surrounded by grass and with various small parks and playgrounds.

The young children play outside all the time. Dusk is very late in summer in the UK, I expect I'll still hear a few children playing outside at 9-10pm.

But, I don't see many teenagers outside. They're obviously not being kept inside. I expect they're either sitting in the corner of a park somewhere, or at someone's house playing computer games and watching TV.

My parents were early adopters of the "you may not leave the house" thing, so I only have a vague idea of what most 14 year olds were doing 10 years ago, when I was 14. They had a big garden, but it was boring "playing" there with only my sister for company.

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[Anonymous Coward]

it was boring "playing" there with only my sister for company.

I know a very enjoyable thing you and your sister can do, just don't let your parents catch you doing it...

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[aronschatz]

You mean playing cards, right?

What???

Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain had passed a bunch of laws to keep the teenagers "off the streets". The 'anti-social' laws do more to reduce social behavior than any video games could, and mean letting your teenager outside opens up the possibility for harassment by police. Then again, one hypothesis for why this recession hasn't been accompanied by a rise in crime is because the people who can't get jobs are busy playing video games instead of robbing liquor stores and getting smashed, so Britain may be on to something.

I'm waiting for the government-sponsored video game SOMA personally. I hear it is amazing.

Yeah...no.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not going to work. I'm sorry, it was a cool idea, but it will not work.
I really cannot imagine kids going on this site and playing the games, unless their parents force them, which kind of defeats the purpose of games.

Winning Concept

[crow_t_robot]

If you want to make a game to encourage kids to be healthy, make a really shitty game like the orginal E.T. for Atari. Kids will play it for about 2 minutes before turning it off and going outside to make a tree-house.
In my opinion, making a good game and encouraging physical fitness and healthy eating are mutually-exclusive activities. I can tell when I have bought a really good game by the amount of time I have been stuck in the house glued to the game and all the garbage food I eat while playing it because I'm too busy to get up and prepare a healthy meal.

Re:Winning Concept

[jfenwick]

Quality not quantity. Portal only takes 3 hours to beat but it is arguably one of the most innovative and well produced games in years.

Re:Winning Concept

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you have a permit for that tree-house. Oh and it is going to need to be inspected. And since its an occupied structure, it needs to be at least 120 square feet, have a wheelchair ramp, and probably marked handicapped parking.

Re:Winning Concept

[Anonymous Coward]

When I'm in full on gaming mode, I tend to have similar eating habits. The contents of my fridge are just slightly different, is all.

e.g. An apple, a slab each of ham and cheese and a handful of lettuce, chuck them on a plate and let play resume.

Best way to stop kids getting fat is not to feed it to them in the first place.

Re:Winning Concept

[danmart1]

Hey, I played that game. It lasted for about 5 mins, then got switched to tanks. Which has helped me with conceptualizing angles, so I can scam people playing pool.

How about have good food in school. Not low cost h

[Joe The Dragon]

How about having good food in school. Not low cost high fat stuff? also give the kids time to eat so they use the full 30 min lunch standing in line to just have 10 min or less to eat it. NO MORE recess time shared with launch. Make it it's own time.

Get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Inactivity isn't healthy, but Mrs. Obama has her priorities out of order.
Why doesn't she focus on the real problem, diet?
Perhaps she could lead efforts to tear down the corn subsidies.
These are the root of the problem, the ones that make it very hard to avoid products that aren't chock full of high fructose corn syrups, etc.
Video games don't make people fat, food does.
And besides, no one wants to play the games she's putting out.

1)

[Finallyjoined!!!]

No, it's accepted in this particular medium.
2) A "Kid" is a young goat & should definitely be kept away from a PC.
3) My youngest (just turned 10) can build a PC from components, install dual boot Windows/Linux & can touch type (I signed him up to the PICA course when he was 8). I've been in this game for 35 years, but I now get him to do the 'support'.
4) He comes home from school complaining that in his ICT lessons they are teaching him how to create a Word document or an Excel spreadsheet.
5) That's it!

Re:1)

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's accepted in this particular medium.

No it isn't. People only do it because they're retarded.

Re:1)

[drinkypoo]

No, it's accepted in this particular medium.

No, it isn't. You only think it is because you have poor netiquette.

2) A "Kid" is a young goat & should definitely be kept away from a PC.

"Your honor, we all agree that my client ran this lady down with an Impala. But I believe that I can show that it was actually a quadruped, one Aepyceros melampus." Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Go back to first grade with these masterful debating tactics.

Re:1)

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's accepted in this particular medium.

Incorrect. It's annoying.

Then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.

Incorrect. You have an extra period above one of your commas, making it a semicolon.

Funny though.

Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos

[Phroggy]

How about having good food in school. Not low cost high fat stuff? also give the kids time to eat so they use the full 30 min lunch standing in line to just have 10 min or less to eat it. NO MORE recess time shared with launch. Make it it's own time.

Yes, this. Also, have a class that teaches kids how to cook. A lot of kids move into adult life not knowing how to prepare any food more complicated than macaroni & cheese, so it's no wonder they go to McDonald's when they're tired of their diet of mac&cheese, ramen noodles and ordering pizza.

30 minutes is enough time to eat if you brought your lunch from home. Otherwise, it's insane.

Re:Somebody tell 4chan!

[Jeremy Erwin]

Is "Privates" any good?

A Mandate For Games

[Garrett Fox]

Note that under the new health care law, if it stands, the federal government claims the right to order you to buy stupid propaganda games, play them, and write a report on how wonderful they are. IRS is the new DRM!

Depends on initial weight

[nten]

I was losing 2lbs a week every week for 2/3rds of a year doing nothing but sit at my sedentary job and count calories of crap food. You shouldn't lose more than 2lbs a week no matter what you do, its unhealthy. I didn't go below my BMR (around 1460 at the time), I didn't eat better, I still ate plenty of carbs, just less over all. I did use portion control for dinner by purchasing prepackaged meals. And I avoided foods I knew I would have trouble eating sensible portions of. After loosing the weight I had tons of energy and couldn't help but go running, with less fear of joint problems this time.

The first time I tried to get the weight off as an adult my workout buddy told me that I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I was exercising. That was terrible advice. I work a full time sit-still job, work out an hour, and eat the appropriate calories. I can (and have) eaten an extra 4000calories a day without even feeling stuffed, there were times when I averaged that occasionally eating an extra 6000 calories over my needed intake. If I eat how much I *want* to eat I'd have to do ten hours of cardio a day. I could cut that down by doing weight training on large muscle groups, but still, there are quite literally not enough hours in the day to burn off the amount of food I want to eat, if I keep my job and sleep healthily. That isn't even accounting for the fact that working out that much would make me want to eat even more.

But yeah, you can still eat crap food (good food is better obviously), as long as its not the sort you are addicted to and can't stop eating, cause you got to eat less than you want to. The physical activity will be a result of the weight loss just like the study said.

Re:Depends on initial weight

[fluffy99]

Congratulations on the weight loss. You're another example of why one plan doesn't fit everyone. I'd say I'm another. I eat okay quality food, avoiding most of the junkier stuff loaded with msg & salts and other ingredients that actually increase hunger. I still drink regular sodas and eat fast food on occasion. I run about 40 miles a week and bike about 100 miles.

I'm atypical as I have the opposite issue of most in that I need to pay attention to calorie intake so I don't lose weight or have low blood sugar problems. I'm also blessed in that exercise typically decreases my hunger. Based on my BMR(about 2100) plus running a very hilly 25k race this morning, I need to eat about 4500 calories today. There are days when I've needed 7000 calories, which is hard to get without resorting to high calorie foods.

you know what they say

[Anonymous Coward]

an app a day keeps the doctor away!

AntiSocial?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why everyone here thinks playing videogames will result in "anti-social" behavior, that really isn't even the right word for it, as someone how is anti-social is typically destructive and violent.

Let me tell you guys a little story. I had a very very abusive childhood. I stayed inside all day except for school, and the only real human interaction I had was playing xbox live with my online friends, people I never knew in real life. To be honest, without xbox live and the suppport of those people I probably would have off'd myself a long time ago.

Now that I have moved out and I am on my own, I can say that initially I had trouble talking to people, but I think thats mostly because I had such bad experiences with people in the past, after I got over my initial fear, I went right back to forming friends, only this time they were real life friends.

I can't argue with the health effects of not getting enough exercise, but please don't tell me that video games aren't an extremely social experience.

Cowbama

[Anonymous Coward]

As though that fat-assed bitch is the right person to be talking about fitness.

Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos

[xaxa]

How easy is it to get decent "ready meals" (in American: TV dinners?) in the US? I think Britain is pretty much a world leader in this (there's nowhere near as much variety or quality meals available in the rest of Europe, but it's a while since I was in the US).

Here ready meals are available from less than £1 to over £5 per portion, with a wide variety of dishes (perhaps 80 options in a small inner-city supermarket, large supermarkets have hundreds). It's not so difficult to avoid anything unhealthy, and mostly the nutrition info is prominently shown on the front. The ones costing £3 or more tend to be better than what I can cook from scratch for myself in a reasonable time (e.g. this.)

(Some of this stuff is ridiculous. Can't people microwave a potato any more?!)

Supermarket pizza is still cheaper though, and plenty of young people can't cook very well.

Lunchtime at school is one hour (I think that's a legal requirement...), and every school I've seen staggers when various classes are allowed to go and queue.

Anthropomorphic cannibalism

[Scrameustache]

The first thing wrong is their graphic: Why would I want to murder and devour these happy looking anthropomorphic plants? What kind of sick message does that send to the kids? Why not make them play a game based on the movie Alive while we're at it? It promotes team sports, mountain climbing, and cannibalism, seems perfectly in tune with their displayed values.

Geo caching? Outdoors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mapping skills, greater world understanding, fresh air..

Where are the kid friendly GPS devices?

Adventuring to special places and secret spots were critical to exhilarating play for me, maybe this is my domain?

Yes - Virtua-Wood Chopping

[Anonymous Coward]

VR goggles, fluorescent plastic 'axe' with accelerometer and safety padding. You can come to know the extent of America's deranged native measurement systems.

"We need 52.2 cords of cedar shakes, 42 hogsheads of pine tent-pegs, and maple toothpicks for three score and 5."

The bonus rounds take you on 'pub-tour' of turn-of-the-century industrial suburbs, where you wow the yokels with axe-tricks for an increased tab at the general store.

My stepson complains about this a lot

[FoolishOwl]

My stepsons go to a really good, progressive private school (with generous tuition assistance), yet there's still an issue with recess time shared with lunch. My eight-year-old stepson eats slowly. We provide him with good, healthy food, which he likes, but he doesn't actually have time to eat it. Naturally, much of the trouble is he'd rather play than eat -- and he should be able to play on recess, of course.

Wrong chain of causality

[AlejoHausner]

Pahhleeze, Mrs. Obama!

Yet another bunch of blather about weight loss from a skinny person! Hasn't anyone read the research? The simple equation

(weight loss) = (calories in) - (calories exercised)

is wrong! Well, at least the usual assumptions about it are wrong. Read Gary Taubes' "The Scientist and the Stairmaster" (http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/). The "common sense" approach to weight loss (eat less, exercise more) misses a really big factor: the body is charge. You are not a detached mind, your brain is inside your body, and your body doesn't want to let go of that fat. So, your body is going to tell your brain to exercise, or to eat. The body is in charge, your will is not. YOU ARE NOT IN CHARGE.

When fat people eat, and their blood sugar rises after a meal, insulin tells their cells to grab that sugar, and store it as fat. They run out of blood sugar, so their bodies tell them to

1. stop moving, to conserve energy.
2. eat more (NOW!) to get the blood sugar up.

the poor brain (and its side-effect, the will) are helpless before the body's command.

From the outside, it looks like fat people are lazy gluttons, so that's why they gain weight. But it's backwards: they gain weight (they turn sugar into fat), so they become inactive and hungry.

We skinny people (myself included) are just the opposite. When we eat, our blood sugar doesn't get turned into fat. There's lots of sugar around, so our body tells the brain to start moving, to burn the sugar off, and to stop eating, to keep the sugar from going up again.

Again, it looks like skinny people can control themselves, and exercise and THEREFORE lose weight, but again the causality is backwards.

What is actually going is a bunch of skinny snotty people imposing their prejudices on fat people. This has to stop.

Re:Wrong chain of causality

[Belial6]

"(weight loss) = (calories in) - (calories exercised)"

This is even simpler to dispel by any sane halfway intelligent human. Every human on the planet either has an anus, or some medically constructed equivalent. The calorie counter group loves to throw out the laws of thermodynamics. Well, clearly they don't understand it, because as long as you have a functioning anus, it is physically impossible for their calculation to be accurate.

Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos

[Phroggy]

Oh, those are available, sure. Some of them are vaguely healthy-ish, and they're certainly faster and cheaper than what I can make from scratch (for small quantities - cooking from scratch gets cheaper when you scale it up). But if you grew up with parents who didn't know how to cook and couldn't afford to go to nice restaurants, it's quite likely you've never had duck in plum sauce with fried rice before, and have no idea whether it would taste good or not. Exposure to eating good food is even more important than learning how to cook good food; if you know what you want to make, figuring out how to make it isn't that hard.

Aaargh

[conscarcdr]

How about "Can You Eat More Sandwich In One Minute Than Heavy?"

Anthony

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for Stavo: Food Flight OS!

The pollyannish mindset of our overlords

[FreedomFirstThenPeac]

This PC to PC stuff is typical of the mindset of the collective. See (NPR) story where they quote the evangelical prohibitionist Billy Sunday proclamation (on the day prohibition became the law of the land)

"The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."

Beware of wackos bearing bayonets! Keep your powder dry.

Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos

[Shotgun]

Also, have a class that teaches kids how to cook.

It's called "English Class". If they can't read the directions on the side of the box....

(I jest, sir. I jest.)

Lwerewolf

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB6fq9Aadwk&feature=related
This explains it.