Overweight Haters Ltd
- Thread starter leaskovski
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2014
- Posts
- 3,887
Where did I say I hated skinny people?
Yeah, last one was when I dislocated my knee mountain biking!
I'm always in and out of the bleedin' hospital - way to active in my younger years - now got arthritis in both ankles and hyper mobile knees as a result of mountain biking, roller/ice hockey and power kiting!
Seriously, if I could redo my late teenage/early twenties I'd cut back on the sports, it's wrecked my body. What good is a resting heart rate of 40bpm if your joints give out? I'd rather be fat than in a wheelchair at 50.
So you're having a go at people for sports injuries and claiming they should get insurance to cover it, yet freely admit to you getting sports injuries and going to the very same hospitals?
I get what you're trying to say, they shouldn't exist in the first place rather then getting rid of current fat people. Sadly, gluttony, sugary foods for profit and cheap fast food don't help matters. If government want to tax sugary foods, they should reduce the price of fruit and veg.
First of all WOW
Secondly - each to their own
Thirdly - Would rather a woman with some meat on her rather than some boney, stick thin twig you see on the catwalks
To end - more thickems for me lol
That's what it comes down to isn't it, every time this discussion comes up all you are bothered about is how it affects you
Well, welcome to living in a society with other people where sometimes the things you want are 'slightly' restricted by whats best for everyone.
And since you don't over eat or overconsume sugar, it's not going to cost you much is it, so I don't see what you're always moaning about
of course it is about how it affects me, because why would i care if some random fat guy is now paying a very small amount more for his gluttony?
if someone chooses to eat and be fat why is it our issue to randomly tax sugar?
its not "best for everyone" its a "look we dont like how you live so we're going to try ineptly and force our way of living on you"
its nonsense.
look everyone keeps saying "sugar" so what're we talking about here glucose, suclalose, fructose?
its a key question because say you tax things by glucose content, manufacturers switch to fructose syrup in stead, you choose fructose then you'll get butchered by the healthy folks who want to know why all their fruit and natural sugars just got taxed.
define "sugar" and also "added" (as opposed to "concentrated") cause theres a lot of ways around that.
also foods with added sugar is going to include nearly every cooking sauce there is. everything from baked beans to generic pasta sauce.
"In 2007, the direct cost of obesity to the NHS was £2.3 billion and the direct cost of being overweight, but not obese, was £1.9 billion. A more recent estimate of the direct cost to the NHS in 2006/07 of people being overweight and obese was £5.1 billion"
Source
When it's taxpayers money that is being used to deal with other people's problems then yes, some feel they have to "interfere".
Welcome to the high horse of amigafan
.You can guarantee that he wouldn't game the system though. Oh no, he'd happily pay for any treatment needed because of his own decision to partake in sports.
Yes but you do not know the story of the stranger, You would have no idea how much that person pay's into the system or even if that person has taken anything out of the system yet (or how much they will use the NHS in later life), It's a lot of assumptions due to the way a person looks, As said are people's lives so boring they like to make stories in their mind about a person they do not know in order to try to push their opinion onto them.
It's a bit like going over to someone who looks like they are on Benefits (not talking about disability) and handing them a "GET A JOB" leaflet because the "look" like they are on Benefits.
Just having a quick look through this thread and I have not seen any mention of people who are taking meds which increase your size. Not all overweight people you see will be this way through choice, so what about people with Thyroid problems, etc?
they dont increase your size though.
mirtazapine and olanzapine were my meds, both come with warnings of "severe weight gain" they do give you the mother of all sweet tooth's but they only make you fatter if you actually eat more.
Don't worry Tefal - I'm on your side. This is just another step by the Nanny State to tell us what we can and cannot do. I'm not the healthiest guy in the world, mainly because I'm lazy and like computer games too much, but I am not fat, and I moderate my sugar intake, knowing that I won't burn it off and it'll metabolise into fat.
I do understand the argument about the costs to the NHS, and that the cost is a shared burden amongst the taxpayer (although I'm willing to bet that most clinically obese people aren't paying tax). My answer is to literally fine people who are fat. Sounds daft, and I'm being silly, but that's no sillier than fining (tax = fine, in my opinion) people for buying sugary drinks.
I do understand the argument about the costs to the NHS, and that the cost is a shared burden amongst the taxpayer (although I'm willing to bet that most clinically obese people aren't paying tax). My answer is to literally fine people who are fat. Sounds daft, and I'm being silly, but that's no sillier than fining (tax = fine, in my opinion) people for buying sugary drinks.
Deliberately obtuse again.
No nutritional value means it has no vitamins, minerals, roughage or anything else beneficial to the body but providing pure energy - which is got from any other food stuff you consume that has other nutritional value
And this is not just about being fat, but the other health problems associated with consuming such large quantities of refined sugar : and before you equate that statement to mean fat gluttonous people, I would say the majority of the population consume more refined sugar than is healthy, just because the food industry uses it as a cheap bulking agent, when it isn't necessary.
And yes, I believe we should be looking to regulate the food industry before doing anything else, but they won't.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/sugary-drinks/
But not worth tackling eh?
So not only do they provide nutritionless calories, they don't even trigger a sated effect, so you consume your normal calories in food as well.
There's a direct health issue right there, so another reason for the medical profession to want something done about it?
It's only talking about 1 can a day, hardly what would be classed as gluttonous behaviour.