Obesity is caused by both cultural and genetic factors. The fact that the incidence of obesity has risen over time is due to cultural and economic factors--however, the fact that any one person is or isn't obese is often due to genetic factors as well. After all, your argument would (if applied to a different situation) imply that there is no genetic factor in the incidence of cancer just because the incidence of cancer changes when there's a radiological incident or because people smoke less or more.
Nice try but obesity in every age group has been increasing.
You asked me why obesity in general has risen, and I answered. Statistically, an aging population is still a contributing factor to that. Of course, the things I mentioned about food products and manual labor apply to other age groups as well, but you're apparently too caught up in your own alleged cleverness to notice that I answered your objection before you stated it.
The first season, and possibly the entire series, revolves round an integer sequence (4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 -- and possibly 108). I say, again, the show revolves around an integer series.
No, you had it right the first time. It's a sequence, not a series. A series is the sum of a sequence--in this case 108, or possibly 216. Of course, finite series are not very interesting because they have boring sums like 108 or 216.
Close, but not quite. Shatner would actually run several words together and THEN pause. ("We...aretheCreator!") The infamously-repeated meter of emphasizing Every! Single! Word! is a lot closer to the technique of Avery Brooks, who overacted the role of Commander Sisko on DS9.
That's nice too but if that was true then why are obesity rates rising? If the above were true, the percentage of obese people would remain constant throughout the decades but obesity rates have risen over 15% in the US in the past 20 years.
I might as well ask you the same question. Unfortunately for you, I have a good answer, and you don't: over the past 20 years, the average age of the US population has risen due to aging baby boomers and plummeting birth rates. (Slower metabolism, and by extension weight gain, is a symptom of aging.) Food has changed, with high fructose corn syrup replacing cane sugar in many food products throughout the 1980's, and with bovine growth hormone being used more, among other things. There are fewer manual laborers due to robotics. This makes it more difficult for more people living a normal lifestyle to avoid gaining weight, and for many of them, it makes it not worth the effort. Honestly, you're taking the joy out of this by asking easy questions.
And before you say people are just "lazier" these days (or have some other character defect), well, unlike my explanations (which are based on well-known and verifiable facts), yours would be a vague judgment that contradicts half the evidence available if we were to even try verifying it.
The TV programs from overseas are insanely cruel to fat people. Fat women are always typecast as horny comic reliefs whereas fat men are typecast as idiot comic reliefs.
You've watched representative samples of the TV output from every other TV-producing country in the world and come to this conclusion? Or you can cite me a study of researchers who have? Or you're talking out of your ass?
Most countries don't even produce their own TV programs, so even if you're right, the fact remains that fat-accepting cultures are being changed by foreign (to them) television.
Fascists are anti-communist the same way fundamentalist Christians are anti-fundamentalist-Islam. There's little functional difference between communism and socialism--sure, one involves charismatic politicians colluding with industry to take over the government while the other entails charismatic politicians taking over the government and then nationalizing the industry, but in both cases you have the same group of ideological assholes controlling everything.
"Liberal" as used in the United States usually applies to what everyone else refers to as either social democrats or socialists, but these words are taboo in America due to their association with communist socialism. What the rest of the world refers to as "liberal" is a slightly less fanatical and kookish form of what we call "libertarian". It wouldn't be accurate to say that US-liberals are "the first step to fascism", but they aren't as diametrically opposed as you suggest.
Still you can't get if calorie intake is less than calorie ingested. Period.
That's nice, but if I need to eat x calories in order to get all the nutrients I need (and to avoid the discomfort of actual hunger), while my body only burns.6x calories during a normal day of normal activity and.1x extra calories per every hour of exercise, I would have to exercise over 4 hours per day, on average, to lose weight. Given the 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work necessary to maintain a healthy brain and full-time employment, that means I have to spend half of what's left over working out--leaving only 4 hours a day, total, for eating, reading, playing with my kids (if any), commuting to work, grocery shopping, watching movies, doing laundry (if any), chasing women, or any of the other things I have to do. Maybe it's worthwhile if exercising is my favorite leisure activity, but otherwise it's just a waste of life just so self-righteous people who want to mess with my life feel satisfied about my body.
Of course, the numbers all change with body weight. Eventually they converge at an equilibrium point, where the amount of energy expended equals the amount eaten, but for many people the best convergence point places them at calorie equilibrium with a little bit of fat on their bodies. The numbers also change depending upon what foods are available and with genetics.
Here's an analogy--if you make more money than you spend, you'll never go broke. That doesn't mean everyone who goes broke is necessarily to blame, if they're the victims of identity theft or went broke paying for emergency medical care or if there just aren't enough jobs in the economy for everyone. Similarly, someone can gain weight for reasons outside what they can reasonably control.
There are more fat people in American TV than in any other TV.
Depends on what you watch--most actors and (especially) actresses in lead roles aren't very fat at all. Also, American TV spreads Hollywood's (if not America's) anti-fat cultural biases around, influencing pro-fat cultures. This is especially true for programs that are exported and shown overseas.
You know, extending lifespan at the expense of quality-of-life is something that medicine turned against in recent years. Not that it's any real dichotomy--after a certain point, weight loss is more for fashion than for health. In any case, if you want to spend all your time working out and none of your time being an informed, intelligent human being, I just wish I didn't have to live in a society where you and people like you were allowed to vote. This is perhaps an exaggeration, but it's equally so on both sides--I can probably have a little excess fat without being in poor health, while you can probably be a fitness enthusiast without taking all that much time away from more important things. You just shouldn't be going around calling people "lazy" because they have different priorities than you.
If you can get fat without eating too much because of genes, then those genes are breaking the laws of thermodynamics. You can't get fat if calorie intake >> calorie expenditure.
First, you only need one greater-than/less-than sign, and second, yours is pointing the wrong way. Third, genetics can effect both--maybe if you put together the minimum amount of calories needed to ingest all the nutrients you want or need, that'll be more than you end up burning in the average time period. Maybe your body is massively efficient and you can run for miles while burning comparatively fewer calories. Or maybe your resting metabolism burns so few calories you'd have to become a full-time marathon runner to expend all the calories you normally intake.
Oh yeah, these mystical cultures where fat people are beautiful. Fits along very nicely with the culture that has reverse polygamy or the one where the women hunt/gather.
They're far more common than the other examples you name, although becoming far less common due to the influence of American TV.
Funny also how this `genetics made me fat' theory breaks down in other cultures as well.
You're saying obesity is a symptom of poor nutrition, lack of exercise etc.
Yeah, but depending on your genes and other factors, you could be overweight (even obese) without having poor nutrition, lack of exercise, etc. Just like you can get a fever without having the flu, except being fat is a lot more comfortable than having a fever. Seriously, do you know what "symptom" even means?
It's good in theory and all but fat people are unattractive - we are genetically programmed to think fat people are ugly.
Funny how this "genetic programming" breaks down in different cultures, where (for instance) telling a woman "you've put on weight!" is a compliment because it suggests they're healthy and well-fed. Morbid obesity might be unattractive, but so is anorexia.
Congratulations! You became a bitter, self-hating prick when you were chubby, and have transferred those self-hating feelings onto people who remind you of the way you used to be.
Our attitude has changed. Being fat is much more accepted now. People complain about the "unfair standard" on TV, but it's not like you have no choice.
Being gay is much more accepted now. Being black or Jewish is much more accepted now. I don't want to get into the "matter of choice" distinction--most people aren't clever enough to make that distinction to begin with, so that's not a factor in this. We're just more tolerant of those who are different than we used to be. And yes, that'll transfer onto fat people, at least insofar as there aren't pricks running around insulting people over their weight.
By the way, the relationship is NOT causal. It may be contributory. It may be "enabling".
That's a form of causality. You can quibble over terminology as much as you want, but if a term is used in a specific way in a specific context consistently, that's the standard meaning within that context. That's how language works. And getting into semantic quibbles over it just to justify your prejudice against fat people is just silly.
I'm not saying obesity is the bee's knees, but unless you're an athlete (well, other than a football lineman or sumo wrestler), it could very well be that accepting a little fatness will actually improve your quality of life, all things considered. There's only 24 hours in a day, and even given the endorphin rush, I don't always want to spend one of those hours on a cardio machine. Maybe I have work, or maybe I want to study the news or read a book. There's a certain point where I'd rather be better informed, better read, and wealthier at the expense of being a little pudgy. I might even complain that I'm a little heavier than I want to be, and while in some crazy possible world you conjure up I'd be skinny because I'd be in a POW camp, that may just be a necessary tradeoff for my overall quality of life. And I may very well complain that food ingredients and additives change so that tradeoff isn't so necessary or severe. Or I might rue my poor genetics--wouldn't be the first time. But if you want to just keep on appointing yourself the giver of unsolicited advice about how I take care of my body, I just might have to sit on you and break some of your ribs.
Bingo. Refusing to do so (becoming a fattie) is laziness.
Possible. I could be "lazy" for not wanting to devote a few hours a week to exercise. On the other hand, I just might have something better to do. I'd rather be fat, wealthy, well-read, and well-informed than skinny, poor and dumb.
Depends on how fat they are. Skinny chicks aren't attractive to me. Better for the wrong parts to be a little too big than for the right parts to be too small.
The Chinese are more interested in having a harmonious society with respect for proper authority. In this light, the firewall is a good thing because it restricts dissent against the government. Also, they think society is better off without "feudalist superstition" (Falun Gong and other religious movements) and other bad stuff. China is not a culture that treasures personal liberty.
Did Japan model their modern society after ours? Partially yes, partially no. Taiwan? Same story. Cultural differences will always exist. A developed Africa would be like us in certain ways, and unlike us in certain ways.
Then you hit "timr", hit the autocorrection bubble to cancel, then type "morf", and then hit the autocorrection bubble to cancel. In principle, more common use cases should be easier than less common use cases, so if you want to type "timr morf" all day, I guess you get the bitch end of that decision. Similarly, I wouldn't try coding on an iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
Obesity is caused by both cultural and genetic factors. The fact that the incidence of obesity has risen over time is due to cultural and economic factors--however, the fact that any one person is or isn't obese is often due to genetic factors as well. After all, your argument would (if applied to a different situation) imply that there is no genetic factor in the incidence of cancer just because the incidence of cancer changes when there's a radiological incident or because people smoke less or more.
You asked me why obesity in general has risen, and I answered. Statistically, an aging population is still a contributing factor to that. Of course, the things I mentioned about food products and manual labor apply to other age groups as well, but you're apparently too caught up in your own alleged cleverness to notice that I answered your objection before you stated it.
No, you had it right the first time. It's a sequence, not a series. A series is the sum of a sequence--in this case 108, or possibly 216. Of course, finite series are not very interesting because they have boring sums like 108 or 216.
Close, but not quite. Shatner would actually run several words together and THEN pause. ("We...aretheCreator!") The infamously-repeated meter of emphasizing Every! Single! Word! is a lot closer to the technique of Avery Brooks, who overacted the role of Commander Sisko on DS9.
I might as well ask you the same question. Unfortunately for you, I have a good answer, and you don't: over the past 20 years, the average age of the US population has risen due to aging baby boomers and plummeting birth rates. (Slower metabolism, and by extension weight gain, is a symptom of aging.) Food has changed, with high fructose corn syrup replacing cane sugar in many food products throughout the 1980's, and with bovine growth hormone being used more, among other things. There are fewer manual laborers due to robotics. This makes it more difficult for more people living a normal lifestyle to avoid gaining weight, and for many of them, it makes it not worth the effort. Honestly, you're taking the joy out of this by asking easy questions.
And before you say people are just "lazier" these days (or have some other character defect), well, unlike my explanations (which are based on well-known and verifiable facts), yours would be a vague judgment that contradicts half the evidence available if we were to even try verifying it.
I've had sex in Second Life. I've had sex in First Life. First Life is better, although both have their advantages.
Fascists are anti-communist the same way fundamentalist Christians are anti-fundamentalist-Islam. There's little functional difference between communism and socialism--sure, one involves charismatic politicians colluding with industry to take over the government while the other entails charismatic politicians taking over the government and then nationalizing the industry, but in both cases you have the same group of ideological assholes controlling everything.
"Liberal" as used in the United States usually applies to what everyone else refers to as either social democrats or socialists, but these words are taboo in America due to their association with communist socialism. What the rest of the world refers to as "liberal" is a slightly less fanatical and kookish form of what we call "libertarian". It wouldn't be accurate to say that US-liberals are "the first step to fascism", but they aren't as diametrically opposed as you suggest.
That's nice, but if I need to eat x calories in order to get all the nutrients I need (and to avoid the discomfort of actual hunger), while my body only burns .6x calories during a normal day of normal activity and .1x extra calories per every hour of exercise, I would have to exercise over 4 hours per day, on average, to lose weight. Given the 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of work necessary to maintain a healthy brain and full-time employment, that means I have to spend half of what's left over working out--leaving only 4 hours a day, total, for eating, reading, playing with my kids (if any), commuting to work, grocery shopping, watching movies, doing laundry (if any), chasing women, or any of the other things I have to do. Maybe it's worthwhile if exercising is my favorite leisure activity, but otherwise it's just a waste of life just so self-righteous people who want to mess with my life feel satisfied about my body.
Of course, the numbers all change with body weight. Eventually they converge at an equilibrium point, where the amount of energy expended equals the amount eaten, but for many people the best convergence point places them at calorie equilibrium with a little bit of fat on their bodies. The numbers also change depending upon what foods are available and with genetics.
Here's an analogy--if you make more money than you spend, you'll never go broke. That doesn't mean everyone who goes broke is necessarily to blame, if they're the victims of identity theft or went broke paying for emergency medical care or if there just aren't enough jobs in the economy for everyone. Similarly, someone can gain weight for reasons outside what they can reasonably control.
Depends on what you watch--most actors and (especially) actresses in lead roles aren't very fat at all. Also, American TV spreads Hollywood's (if not America's) anti-fat cultural biases around, influencing pro-fat cultures. This is especially true for programs that are exported and shown overseas.
You know, extending lifespan at the expense of quality-of-life is something that medicine turned against in recent years. Not that it's any real dichotomy--after a certain point, weight loss is more for fashion than for health. In any case, if you want to spend all your time working out and none of your time being an informed, intelligent human being, I just wish I didn't have to live in a society where you and people like you were allowed to vote. This is perhaps an exaggeration, but it's equally so on both sides--I can probably have a little excess fat without being in poor health, while you can probably be a fitness enthusiast without taking all that much time away from more important things. You just shouldn't be going around calling people "lazy" because they have different priorities than you.
Yes, and also, boobies are a wonderful thing.
But if there aren't any 70's rock artists still trying to use that style unchanged, doesn't that mean that it is a unique product?
Oh shit, that's today. I need to get my coat.
First, you only need one greater-than/less-than sign, and second, yours is pointing the wrong way. Third, genetics can effect both--maybe if you put together the minimum amount of calories needed to ingest all the nutrients you want or need, that'll be more than you end up burning in the average time period. Maybe your body is massively efficient and you can run for miles while burning comparatively fewer calories. Or maybe your resting metabolism burns so few calories you'd have to become a full-time marathon runner to expend all the calories you normally intake.
They're far more common than the other examples you name, although becoming far less common due to the influence of American TV.
Have you ever seen a Samoan?
Yeah, but depending on your genes and other factors, you could be overweight (even obese) without having poor nutrition, lack of exercise, etc. Just like you can get a fever without having the flu, except being fat is a lot more comfortable than having a fever. Seriously, do you know what "symptom" even means?
Funny how this "genetic programming" breaks down in different cultures, where (for instance) telling a woman "you've put on weight!" is a compliment because it suggests they're healthy and well-fed. Morbid obesity might be unattractive, but so is anorexia.
Congratulations! You became a bitter, self-hating prick when you were chubby, and have transferred those self-hating feelings onto people who remind you of the way you used to be.
Our attitude has changed. Being fat is much more accepted now. People complain about the "unfair standard" on TV, but it's not like you have no choice.Being gay is much more accepted now. Being black or Jewish is much more accepted now. I don't want to get into the "matter of choice" distinction--most people aren't clever enough to make that distinction to begin with, so that's not a factor in this. We're just more tolerant of those who are different than we used to be. And yes, that'll transfer onto fat people, at least insofar as there aren't pricks running around insulting people over their weight.
By the way, the relationship is NOT causal. It may be contributory. It may be "enabling".That's a form of causality. You can quibble over terminology as much as you want, but if a term is used in a specific way in a specific context consistently, that's the standard meaning within that context. That's how language works. And getting into semantic quibbles over it just to justify your prejudice against fat people is just silly.
I'm not saying obesity is the bee's knees, but unless you're an athlete (well, other than a football lineman or sumo wrestler), it could very well be that accepting a little fatness will actually improve your quality of life, all things considered. There's only 24 hours in a day, and even given the endorphin rush, I don't always want to spend one of those hours on a cardio machine. Maybe I have work, or maybe I want to study the news or read a book. There's a certain point where I'd rather be better informed, better read, and wealthier at the expense of being a little pudgy. I might even complain that I'm a little heavier than I want to be, and while in some crazy possible world you conjure up I'd be skinny because I'd be in a POW camp, that may just be a necessary tradeoff for my overall quality of life. And I may very well complain that food ingredients and additives change so that tradeoff isn't so necessary or severe. Or I might rue my poor genetics--wouldn't be the first time. But if you want to just keep on appointing yourself the giver of unsolicited advice about how I take care of my body, I just might have to sit on you and break some of your ribs.
Possible. I could be "lazy" for not wanting to devote a few hours a week to exercise. On the other hand, I just might have something better to do. I'd rather be fat, wealthy, well-read, and well-informed than skinny, poor and dumb.
That's true!
Depends on how fat they are. Skinny chicks aren't attractive to me. Better for the wrong parts to be a little too big than for the right parts to be too small.
The Chinese are more interested in having a harmonious society with respect for proper authority. In this light, the firewall is a good thing because it restricts dissent against the government. Also, they think society is better off without "feudalist superstition" (Falun Gong and other religious movements) and other bad stuff. China is not a culture that treasures personal liberty.
Most good schools don't ban books at all, so it's probably more a function of place than of time.
Did Japan model their modern society after ours? Partially yes, partially no. Taiwan? Same story. Cultural differences will always exist. A developed Africa would be like us in certain ways, and unlike us in certain ways.
Call myself with what? My phone is down my pants--and when I call myself on it, I just get my own voicemail.
Then you hit "timr", hit the autocorrection bubble to cancel, then type "morf", and then hit the autocorrection bubble to cancel. In principle, more common use cases should be easier than less common use cases, so if you want to type "timr morf" all day, I guess you get the bitch end of that decision. Similarly, I wouldn't try coding on an iPhone.
Yeah, I just learned that earlier (parent poster pointed it out to me), but thanks!
Most people care more about their own than about people they have no connection to. You haven't figured that out yet?