It should be against the law to be fat

[Boges]

If the government taxes rich foods and fattening foods then it will little effect on me.

We live near to Caledonia and the Reserves. Already a short trip gets us very cheap cigarettes. The aboriginal government is bringing in alcohol sales so soon we can go over for some cheap smokes and really cheap alcohol. If the federal government now goes after fatty foods then we can start to do most of our shopping on the Reserve.

If people here have there way, soon people will be going to the reserves for donuts as well.

[Moonbox]

Tobacco taxes have curbed smoking rates. A lot of that now comes from contraband tobacco now though.

A lot as in a tiny fraction. Lung cancer rates have been declining steadily for over a decade now, despite the odd person buying bag'o'smokes.

Alcohol taxes don't really curb consumption though. Prices just make people less likely to buy premium brands. The LCBO lies when they say they're about Social Responsibility.

The LCBO, as you know, is a crown corporation. If it wasn't concerned about Social Responsibility, it would be still be allowed to sell Laker for a buck a beer.

If this is all about Healthcare costs then why don't we allow people to buy their own healthcare if they want. That'll reduce costs.

It's about companies pushing highly addictive lifestyle choices on high-risk people. You've obviously never heard of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in the United States. As you're probably aware they don't have universal health care.

[Ash74]

Would it not be easier and cheaper to just do away with health care.

Would not a fair insurance plan be better.

If you live healthy it would be very affordable.

you smoke,drink, eat fatty foods well you be paying for it.

We could cut taxes in half by not funding health care and pay by how we take cre of ourselves

(Not saying I support this idea but it seems to be alot easier than taxing everything)

[Smallc]

Studies show that once fat, becoming unfat is nearly impossible. Anything we do to discourage it is welcome, even if it hurts me personally.

[Bonam]

Studies show that once fat, becoming unfat is nearly impossible.

Cite?

[Smallc]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/health/obesity-research-confirms-long-term-weight-loss-almost-impossible-1.2663585

[Smallc]

Over the last year I've gained back much of the 45 lbs I shed.

[Bryan]

Just because people relapse and return to their addictive behaviour, does not in any way mean that weight loss is not possible. A lot more people do it than the article tries to imply. You might as well try to claim that it's not possible to quit drinking coffee. If you go back to your old behaviours, yeah, you're going to get your old results, that part is not news.

[Smallc]

Just because people relapse and return to their addictive behaviour, does not in any way mean that weight loss is not possible. A lot more people do it than the article tries to imply. You might as well try to claim that it's not possible to quit drinking coffee. If you go back to your old behaviours, yeah, you're going to get your old results, that part is not news.

As you said, everyone needs to eat. It's what separates it from other addictions. If you have evidence to refute the massive study, provide it.

[Bonam]

As you said, everyone needs to eat. It's what separates it from other addictions. If you have evidence to refute the massive study, provide it.

It's very clear from the study you linked, and others, that it is difficult for people to lose weight. But weight gain/loss fundamentally depends on calories in vs calories out. Anyone that can maintain the discipline and willpower needed to ensure that calories in is always less than calories out will lose weight. The problem is after you've lost the weight, you have to keep that same discipline to avoid from gaining it back, which of course is even harder. It's not that losing weight is impossible, it's just that it takes a level of self-discipline and commitment that most people just don't have.

[Smallc]

It seems that something in the human condition makes it nearly impossible. Of course it's mechanically so, I should know, I did it.

[Bonam]

It seems that something in the human condition makes it nearly impossible.

It's not a matter of possibility or impossibility; it's a matter of motivation, and immediacy.

You can "always lose weight later". The consequences of being overweight are health effects that will "happen later". There's always something more pressing to spend time on. There's always that delicious morsel of food you can eat, you can resist it 99 minutes out of 100 but if you eat it in that other 1 minute the other 99 were for nothing. There's no real consequence from those 300 extra calories from that one doughnut in the grand course of your life, right? But it tastes so good for those couple seconds while you eat it!

But make it immediate... you have to be below a certain weight at x date or you won't get the job, won't pass the test, won't win the race, etc, and it's very different.

That's why as an athlete, for example, it's mentally much easier to hone your body to the right level of weight for what you're doing. You're using a much more powerful motivation system... a particular goal, a particular deadline. Not the nebulous idea of generally being healthy, or generally being more attractive.

The key to keeping off the weight is to provide hard, immediate, motivation to do so. Make a pact with your significant other: if either of you is over the red line, no sex til you're both back under. And both be serious about enforcing it.

[Bryan]

As you said, everyone needs to eat. It's what separates it from other addictions. If you have evidence to refute the massive study, provide it.

I'd have to actually see the study before I could refute it. The article conveniently left virtually all relevant information out, including where it was published, if it was peer-reviewed, what the parameters of the study were, etc.

I will say this though: Traci Mann is a psychologist, not a metabolic science professional, not a weight loss expert. She's also the one who wrote the laughable paper that claimed that there is no such thing as comfort food.

[On Guard for Thee]

Unfortunately you seem to have a problem studying/understanding a relatively simple one liner law article. But because it simply goes against your "grain" you refute it. Perhaps you're better at menu's than laws.

[cybercoma]

Anyone arguing that it should be illegal to be fat needs to stop calling themselves a libertarian immediately.

[Big Guy]

The process follows the law of conservation of energy - "the total energy of an isolated system cannot change". Fat is a form of storing energy. Ergo - when one body sheds energy in the form fat then that fat energy has to be absorbed elsewhere within the system.

To put it simply for the physics challenged; When one person "loses" weight that fat does not just disappear. It is transferred to others to be distributed to maintain the homogeneity and equilibrium of the system.

For example, as I have been trying to explain to my bride, the reason I put on weight is because when she goes on a diet, the fat that she "loses" is automatically transferred to me through the law of conservation of energy. Any exercise on my part would reverse that process and cause her to gain weight. The reason I do not exercise is to keep her thin.

Honest!

Edited December 6, 2014 by Big Guy

[Argus]

Anyone arguing that it should be illegal to be fat needs to stop calling themselves a libertarian immediately.

A Libertarian would not care if someone wanted to get fat, but a Libertarian would also insist that every individual's health care costs be solely up to that individual to take care of.

[GostHacked]

Because sugar is necessary for humans to live? The human body burns sugar to produce energy. Foods with sugar are subject to regular sales tax, and all the usual taxes on the companies that produce and distribute said foods, and that's enough.

The issue isn't sugar... it's that for people with sedentary lifestyles, they eat more calories than they burn. The tax (if any) should be on sedentary lifestyles, not on the foods that sustain healthy people with healthy lifestyles. I'm an "athlete" and consume probably an average of 4000 calories a day and am thin. I don't need to be paying more for my food because other people are stupid.

The issue is what they are passing off as sugar. Cane sugar which is processes into refined sugar is not so much the issue. Glucose Fructose, or, corn sugar is now passed off as regular sugar. It is not. It has a drastically different effect on the body contributing to the body's reaction to it. And usually not in a good way.

Natural sugars from fruits are very beneficial for the body. But what about GMO fruits? What about the aspartame they are throwing on fruit crops to make them taste sweeter? The endless and hard to pronounce chemicals in many foods are also contributing to this problem.

I am really starting to think they have a specific ingredient called 'natural flavour'.