Fat Tax

Radiantsoul

zenbanana wrote: »

Of course, the magic word 'metabolism' is often invoked here though I'm not sure if 'differences in metabolism' has been established as a medical fact. I do recall reading that people who are 'fidgety and restless' can burn up significantly more calories - even when sitting on a sofa!

The fidgetting diet plan would seem to be a real winner then!

geri1965_2

ninky wrote: »

your walking and cycling will keep you fit to an extent but if it's weight loss you are after have you tried interval training? sounds technical but basically just means short (and i mean a minute or less) or intense effort followed by active recovery. so for example sprint jog sprint jog. doing just 15-20 minutes of such a couple of times a week can make a big difference. try it for a month and you'll see. when i started doing intervals i was amazed at how much improvement - not only weight loss but surprisingly endurance, resting heart rate etc -you see. in fact i had to scale back because i was getting too stripped and the marathon runner look physique is not one i aspire to.

I did buy a skipping rope a few years ago but I haven't used it yet. I want to cycle more but I am too tired after work. We did go for a bike ride yesterday but we ended up at a pub!

Niksan

wageslave wrote: »

Why isn't chocolate taxed to the hilt? Or cakes or crisps?

Noooo My last attempt at stopping smoking increased my intake of these other vices.

neverdespairgirl

bendix wrote: »

Trust ninky to seek to intellectualise why fat people are fat.

Fat people are fat because they choose to consume more calories than they expend through exercise. It's pretty simple.

Or they are pregnant. I went through a stage of looking as if I'd scoffed every pie in sight, but a few weeks after my son was born, I weighed a bit less than I had before getting pregnant. Amazing what a baby, all that fluid etc does to the waistline.

neverdespairgirl

ninky wrote: »

sorry singlesue but scientifically this assertion has been proved to be a load of bollox. a delusion possibly based on people's inability to judge lifestyle over a significant period, instead taking snapshots of scoffing skinnes and jogging fatties that reconciles their possibly understandable cognitive dissonance over their own inability to maintain the correct weight.

My darling OH was sent to various quacks when he got back from his gap year in India, because he'd got very skinny and was having trouble putting on weight again.

He was told that his normal calorific requirements were in the region of 5-6,000 a day, more when he's doing lots of exercise. He simply burns a lot of energy.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

and where does the greed come from? (i can see this going on for some time...)

It comes from themselves.

You can try to externalise it all you like and blame society or bad parenting or media culture (ahem), but at the end of the day people are responsible for their own choices. If you don't accept that, you you - ipso facto - deny freewill and label us all as mindless automatons incapable of making choices ourselves.

It's utter !!!!!!!! to say obesity is a disease or a social problem. !!!!. It's because people eat too much, are too greedy, are lazy and do sod all exercise.

If you want to lose weight, it's very very very easy.

bendix

geri1965 wrote: »

I did buy a skipping rope a few years ago but I haven't used it yet. I want to cycle more but I am too tired after work. We did go for a bike ride yesterday but we ended up at a pub!

Perhaps this thread - more than the others you have posted on this thread - explain why you are obese?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

sorry singlesue but scientifically this assertion has been proved to be a load of bollox. a delusion possibly based on people's inability to judge lifestyle over a significant period, instead taking snapshots of scoffing skinnes and jogging fatties that reconciles their possibly understandable cognitive dissonance over their own inability to maintain the correct weight.

for example, if you were to witness me a couple of saturdays ago you would have found me lounged on the sofa devouring an entire box of ferrero rocher viturally single handedly (not my favourite - i find them horrendously overpackaged and the hazlenut centres disappointing predictable by my OH's iranian friends have a peculiar penchant for unfailingly bringing them as gifts). if you had observed said snapshot you would have marvelled out how i maintain my weight. however this would not paint the entire picture. the rest of my lifestyle more than compensates for such incidents of sloth.

similarly if we were to look at your activity levels and food intake over a significant period - say a year - you'd find the picture that paints perfectly in keeping with the reality of your weight . the physics of it cannot be any different.

you're an enigma, ninky. I can't work out how someone who can post a sensible and erudite post like this, can follow it up with a ludicrous cliche like 'there is no free will' just a few posts later.

An enigma, I tells you.

wotsthat

ninky wrote: »

but nothing is anybody's fault. scientifically speaking.

Scientifically or philosophically? They aren't the same thing.

Also you might be confusing fault with responsibility. Again not the same thing.

The science is based on simple energy out vs. energy in calculations.

FTBFun

bendix wrote: »

If you want to lose weight, it's very very very easy.

I concur with this. I ballooned up to nearly 16 stone last November so made a decision to go on a proper diet and lost in the region of 2.5 stone. It wasn't that tricky - just meant having a bit of willpower.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with obese people. Sorry but it is usually all your own fault.