Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-10-11, 07:24 PM   #26
gyozadude
Senior Member
 
gyozadude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Sunnyvale, California
Bikes: Bridgestone RB-1, 600, T700, MB-6 w/ Dirt Drops, MB-Zip, Bianchi Limited, Nashbar Hounder
Posts: 1,180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1. When a state regulates and provides for general health care, it eventually must regulate diet of it's people. Otherwise, the system goes bankrupt with folks that choose not to take care of their health, but continue to leverage the free health care. It is only natural and a matter of time. The other option would be to become more self-reliant. But that's tough with some many folks being dependent upon the state in one form or another. This is true of Europe and true of America.

2. Fat is somewhat the culprit because it tastes great and it's loaded with calories. The human body naturally like to accumulate fat for rainy starvation days. But without wars, without famine, most populations just over eat. So fat is 9 calories relative to 4 for carb or protein, and 7 calories for alcohol per gram respectively. Do the math. Fat eaters, and booze drinkers! LOL!

3. Fat does give good flavour. I'd pay for fat, or I'd buy land and raise it myself. Feed animals a lot of carbs, and they do the fat conversion and make food tasty! And salt, etc. aren't that bad if you maintain good levels (by sweating it out doing work and exercise!). Salt has only been an issue because our aging population has exhibited more risk due to hypertension. Salt is a contributor.

4. Healthy menu items at fast food places are oxymorons and designed for marketing purposes. They contribute fairly low margins, but with good supply chain management and ERP systems, big chains can minimize costs and this helps give them market a more PC personna rather being fingered as being at fault by a population that doesn't want to take personal responsibility.

5. I wouldn't want to be a business owner in a fast food place computing fat calories. I'd much prefer to own a bike shop where we had tubing sets and lugs and I brazed my own steel frames and good no-frills, hand made in America bikes starting at $250 (okay, so some parts made in Taiwan and China). But at least we'd make and assemble here. But fat chance of that happening here. Maybe someday, when I retire from the lucrative software engineering job... :-)

But I agree. Too much regs by too much gov't because people take too little personal responsibility. But heck, I'm a big clyde who loves McD!

Last edited by gyozadude; 10-10-11 at 07:24 PM. Reason: spelling
gyozadude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 08:04 AM   #27
UberGeek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Bikes: Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)
Posts: 1,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeyba View Post
Sad as it sounds there is a darwinian answer to that. The last thing we need is another invitation for the government to intrude in our lives to protect us from ourselves.
Sorry, but we removed Darwin's answer when we started to improve our medicine. So, natural selection does NOT come into play here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blutarsky View Post
$1 to Karl Marx. Good grief. It has nothing to do with communism, it's a tax to increase state income under the guise of regulating health, as stated above, and with the ridiculous tax rates already in place it's a minimal increase to the consumer. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I shop on the perimeter of the grocery store anyway.

Sayre Kulp had it right - you are responsible for you. If you eat crap, you look/feel like crap. None of the government's business NOR responsibility.
What does what I posted have to do with communism? Denmark is not a communist nation, in fact they are one of the most successful capitalist nations in the world. The creators of capitalism.

In fact, the "fat tax" is capitalism at work: Transferring the cost of health care related to obesity, to the consumer, who can then choose to eat healthier (And thereby less expensive) food.

We tried the "you are responsible for you" thing here in the US. It failed, then we got rid of the Articles of Confederation, and came up with our current document.

Even at the outset of the US, we have a community-centric attitude. We all participated in shared sacrifices. We got rid of it, and now we have what we have here.

Not to mention, Denmark is NOT the US. They have a completely different cultural attitude.
UberGeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 08:58 AM   #28
dcrowell
Fat Guy Rolling
 
dcrowell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Louisville Kentucky
Bikes: Bacchetta Agio, 80s Raleigh Record single-speed, Surly Big Dummy
Posts: 2,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rona View Post
taxing is based on SSCg3d scores.

http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...rientmodel.pdf

http://jech.bmj.com/content/61/8/689.abstract

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712144621.htm

The idea has been around since 2007 so it's not new. It adds about 1.50 dollars to each shopping trip according to one guy's calculations.. which doesn't seem enough penalty to keep people from buying crap food. If someone wants to buy some cheetos, they're gonna buy them regardless of the 5 cent tax on them.

What it does do though is boost tax income during a time of austerity measures in Europe. To me it's not a bad thing since we already pay 17% VAT tax.. what's another few pennies? I really wont notice.
Three problems:
1) It's not enough money to change spending habits
2) It complicates already complicated tax code
3) Fat is the wrong component of food to worry about

If the real reason is to generate income, then raise existing taxes some small amount.
dcrowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 10:22 AM   #29
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 14,043
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeyba View Post
The real question is why should the government have any business telling us what kinds of foods to eat or not eat?
Because people (with the help of lots of advertising for cheap "food") are doing a very bad job of it themselves. It's not that different from why the government has business building roads and hiring police and fire fighters. Anyway, that's just a side question; the real question is whether we're going to do anything about the obesity epidemic or not.

Obesity costs America's medical system more than smoking does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blutarsky View Post
Sayre Kulp had it right - you are responsible for you. If you eat crap, you look/feel like crap. None of the government's business NOR responsibility.
Until you wind up in the emergency room, being treated for a heart attack on the tax payer's dime...
Seattle Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 11:08 AM   #30
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
Because people (with the help of lots of advertising for cheap "food") are doing a very bad job of it themselves. It's not that different from why the government has business building roads and hiring police and fire fighters.
Sorry, but I can't get behind this nanny law any more than I can any other nanny law, like helmets, seat belts, etc. The proper role of government is to protect people from others, not from themselves.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 01:06 PM   #31
Homeyba
Senior Member
 
Homeyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UberGeek View Post
Sorry, but we removed Darwin's answer when we started to improve our medicine. So, natural selection does NOT come into play here...
Sorry, got to dissagree with you but this isn't really the place to argue that so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Homeyba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 01:20 PM   #32
CraigB
Starting over
 
CraigB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Bikes: 1990 Trek 1500; 2006 Gary Fisher Marlin; 2011 Cannondale Synapse Alloy 105; 2012 Catrike Trail
Posts: 4,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm all for personal responsibility, but the problem with that in our current society is that we all end up footing the bill for health problems caused by those who choose to eat themselves sick. Until they're forced to pay for 100% of their own health care, it remains in our best economic interest to do whatever we can to curb that behavior on a large scale. Whether this sort of tactic is the best approach (or whether it's even effective) is another argument entirely, however.
CraigB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 01:22 PM   #33
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Bikes:
Posts: 14,043
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeyba View Post
Based on how many "larger" people I know of who have a hard time finding mates I'm not sure?
No need to worry; if, as you suggest, there was a Darwinian solution to this problem, then we'd all be posting in a different forum because people weighing more than 200 lbs would be extremely rare. But Clydes and Athenas are getting more and more common, not less and less.

The fact that some bigger folks put more work into finding mates would be relevant if humans spent our entire lives producing offspring, like rabbits, but since most people in the world stop after a couple/few, the question isn't how much work it takes, but whether it happens at all. And, at the end of the day, we can see what's going on in the world: obesity is on the rise, and Darwin isn't preventing it.
Seattle Forrest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-11, 07:30 PM   #34
Homeyba
Senior Member
 
Homeyba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Coast, California
Bikes: Colnago C-50, Calfee Dragonfly Tandem, Specialized Allez Pro, Peugeot Competition Light
Posts: 3,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This has only been an issue for the last 30-40 years or so. I don't really know if there is enough evidence to prove it one way or another. Natural selection doesn't really happen in one generation. Interestingly there is a study published from a researcher from Columbia University that just came out that said "a little extra cushion around the waist on a man is not a big deal to attractive women, as long as he's rich" Maybe I am wrong and natural selection will work in the other direction? Interestingly they actually came up with a formula. For every 10% increase in a man's Body Mass Index, his salary must increase by 2% in order to continue dating in the same arena. However, women who weigh more by two BMI units compensate with a year of extra education, rather than money.
Homeyba is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:57 AM.