The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Heightism and Weightism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Steve Sailer wonders why heightism is not only tolerated but is even encouraged on account of being perceived as humorous. It’s no secret that shorter men are, ceteris paribus, at a disadvantage to taller men in the dating market, but it isn’t much of a focus even for those who concerns themselves fighting body shaming.

Though it is short men who probably suffer most from heightism, they aren’t the only ones who do. A woman who is taller than the average man tends to experience a reduced pool of men who potentially express interest.

And for men the return on heights aren’t just diminishing, at some point they invert. I’d estimate at about two standard deviations above the mean–around 6’3 or 6’4 for white or black men–it becomes a pain. Past that point it generally becomes the first thing other people take notice of. I have a friend who is 6’8 and he says that about half the time he meets someone new he receives a comment on his height. Often it’s a question about playing basketball, something he only did through high school.

Steve also notes historic gaps in social class by height, although speculates they’ve mostly disappeared as nutritional access has improved. Steve is good at noticing, but the GSS allows us an empirical check. In its 2016 and 2018 iterations, the survey recorded respondent height. For both men and women (restricted to non-Hispanic whites to avoid racial confounding) the differences are negligible:

While height disparities by class have converged in modern times, weight differences have flipped. Eating copious quantities of food is no longer a status marker–or at least that marker runs directionally opposite from what it used to:

GSS variables used: HEIGHT, WEIGHT, CLASS(1-2)(3-4), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), SEX

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: Class, GSS, Hbd, Height, Weight 
Hide 236 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn’t realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I’m pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income.
     
    American women today outweigh American men who fought World War II, men who were perhaps the best fed in all of human history up to that point.

    And I’m pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.
     
    Are you kidding? Most American males today wouldn't be able to be accepted into the military due to poor fitness. They are a sad relic of their World War II forefathers, who already had a reputation for having soft feet compared to the Brits, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese (which I attribute to the fact that the U.S. was far more motorized than any other country in the world). Our soldiers - even in World War II - were notorious for not being able to march (while bearing weight) despite being better fed than the rest.
    , @Erik Sieven
    73 kg for 1.66 m for middle-/upper class women as "average" is already an extremely high value I think. Unbelievable
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    It's another effect of liberalism and modernism, which have dreadfully corrupted agriculture.

    Read Wendell Berry; he has outlined most of the solutions.
    , @Justvisiting
    The weight problem (for American men and women) seems to have gotten a lot worse in the last twenty or so years.

    Making "fat shaming" culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.

    Moderate improvements in eating and exercise habits can make a significant difference over time for most people.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    Most people used to perform manual labor for most of the day. A large % of people today are cubicle monkeys. Children don't walk to school anymore (my kids K-4 school banned walking to school) and many schools don't have recess and utilize a substandard physical education regimen.

    It's a sedentary society.
  2. How similar are the weight medians? Could you please post box plots for weight by sex and class?

  3. anon[703] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s not too difficult to understand. “Heightism” is tolerated because it mostly affects men and most of the people who hold power in society are not height challenged men but feminists who like tall men or beta males who are too afraid of offending said feminists and/or other political extremists. Most of Western society now revolves around the religion of grievance mongering as a means of justifying the Ruling Class’s (and aspiring arrivistes) hold on power, despite the equality propaganda to the contrary. Since heightism doesn’t further that objective, it isn’t much of a concern. Who, whom?

  4. A woman who is taller than the average man tends to experience a reduced pool of men who potentially express interest.

    This is yet another reason why it’s great to be a tall man: a tall guy can date gals who are too tall for normal men and date regular and short chicks. They’re all on the menu!

    • Replies: @Screwtape
    You illustrate a point I was going to bring up about tall women: female preference for for taller men, as opposed to male preference for shorter women, is by far the more limiting selection mechanism for the super tall women.

    Men may generally prefer to be taller and bigger than their date, but not as much as women prefer the opposite.

    There are plenty of men (across the height spectrum) who are quite attracted to very tall (taller than them) women.

    If thirsty men are willing to chase heavy women, a tall, relatively lean women will have plenty of suitors as well.

    The real problem is that the super tall women are still women and thus hold firm to their preference for the man to be taller.

    Shorter men tend not to approach/pursue taller women in part due to male preference for smaller women, but a big part of that apprehension is also due to:

    (a) the heightism against them; and (b) the rigidity of female preference for the man to be at least as tall as they (or even “as tall as me when I wear heels”.)

    You see this online all the time. The biggest self-limiting filter for women is male height. Up until a certain age most women will not budge on her preference. And without thinking will click the 6’0” and eliminate 80% of eligible men.

    Its better in real life, of course, because women often misjudge a mans height and relativity plays in as well.

    A shorter man must have good game, outsized confidence, and other readily displayable high status markers to overcome his shortness in the eyes of all women.

    Super tall women are no different tho most learn earlier on that they may have to lower their requirements.

    Even a stud like me at 5’10” is going to have a tough time breaking down the height preference of a 5’10” woman.

    So I may not even bother approaching unless she has other outstanding assets.

    Its just not worth sorting thru all the cultural garbage AND having to hotwire her biological preference. But not approaching is not the same as a lack of attraction or romantic interest. In some ways its similar to why a “10” will get less attention than an “8”, tho nobody would argue that a “10” is not attractive to men.

    Being an athlete for many years, I was around many tall and super tall women.

    From what I saw, the ones with the most rigid height requirement for men were women (aside from the super short) in the tall but not super tall (5’8 to 6’0”) range. Men under 6’0” were invisible to them. They still had enough men taller than them to choose from so they could be picky.

    There was a breakpoint, however, once a woman cracked 6’1 or so. These super tall women were more open to men their height or even a hair under.

    Similar to women over 35 who suddenly unclick the 6’0” filter on their tinders or whatever.

    A good friend is 6’5”. She was a pro basketball player in her youth. She got hit on all the time, airports, restaurants, bars, on the court.

    But she hated “short” guys. FTR i was a short guy to her. It “creeped her out” when they would flirt. Perhaps she sensed some strange fetish thing. But there was no shortage of interest. Just a shortage of 6’5”+ guys to show interest.

    She always dated guys around her height. Shortest probably 6’2”. If not available, she would just not date as opposed to slumming it in the normies range.

    Her options were mostly limited by her preference. But indeed being that tall is very hard on women, mostly because it is hard to project feminine qualities and “feel girly” and all that.

    Because of that, she always wore makeup, kept her hair long and pretty, and wore her heels even tho it made her more giant.

    She ended up marrying a handsome 6’3” pro beach volleyball player who also happened to come from a very well off family. But prior to that she spent a lot of years single. Probably lucky she was in sports to put her in proximity to tall men.
  5. I wonder what the ideal height is in terms of back and knee problems. Maybe, it doesn’t really matter unless you are really up there. Dogs get stiff when they get old, even though they walk on all fours.

  6. High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive
     
    Bollocks.

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter. Dinner, you can get a the club pack of meat when it goes on sale. Freeze the portions you don't use. Eat meat every single day for dinner. Buy canned beans, canned fish for $1 per can. Frozen (un-breaded) fish is also cheap. Buy rice and pasta. Basic fresh fruits (apples, bananas) and veggies (sweet potatoes, brocolli, lettuce) are usually cheap. Price match.

    This comes out MUCH LOWER calories/dollar (not to mention nutrition) than eating shit like McDonalds.

    I hate it so much when idiots whine that they "can't afford" to eat healthy. The cheapest possible meals are sacks of potatoes, beans, and rice. You're just a fat lazy fuck that can't be bothered to cook.
    , @Twinkie

    High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.
     
    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that's called life.
  7. @14wordstofreedom
    High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.

    High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive

    Bollocks.

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter. Dinner, you can get a the club pack of meat when it goes on sale. Freeze the portions you don’t use. Eat meat every single day for dinner. Buy canned beans, canned fish for $1 per can. Frozen (un-breaded) fish is also cheap. Buy rice and pasta. Basic fresh fruits (apples, bananas) and veggies (sweet potatoes, brocolli, lettuce) are usually cheap. Price match.

    This comes out MUCH LOWER calories/dollar (not to mention nutrition) than eating shit like McDonalds.

    I hate it so much when idiots whine that they “can’t afford” to eat healthy. The cheapest possible meals are sacks of potatoes, beans, and rice. You’re just a fat lazy fuck that can’t be bothered to cook.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    No, good foods ARE more expensive because the federal government subsidizes grains such as corn and soy, to the detriment of healthier food, and to the utter devastation of family farmers.

    I am not a libertarian, but government meddling with farming has been a complete disaster.

    , @anon

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter.
     
    this shyte isn't healthy but you won't find out until later

    on peanut butter, if scientists want to induce heart disease in rabbits they feed them peanut oil. probably has something to do with the lectins

    on "whole grain bread" - it often has sawdust added to increase the fiber, lol

    if you want to be healthy eliminate all grains, legumes, nightshades and sadly dairy too

  8. @14wordstofreedom
    High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.

    High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.
     

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic, and people can't help it they have no time to go to the gym. Seriously, when you work ten hours a day, including commute time, sit at a desk all day, and still have to cook, clean, and take care of kids at the end of the day, you're not going to have an active lifestyle.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

    Concordance for overweight or obesity is twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins.

  9. I’ve noticed that making fun of gingers is another acceptable form of isms in English speaking societies, which normally frown upon such things. But yes, weightism is similar.

  10. Eating copious quantities of food is no longer a status marker–or at least that marker runs directionally opposite from what it used to

    I’ve stated this many times on Unz. And I witness it frequently as I travel between my two homes – one in a super zip and the other in Appalachia.

    And being trim as a social status marker is particularly pronounced among women, which is validated by the graph you present. You can see the generational differences play out in my wife’s elite Midwestern family. Her grandmother who came of age during the Depression and World War II was trim throughout her life (even though her family was rich, it was seen as gauche and self-indulgent to overeat when so many others were in strained circumstances). Her mother who was born and grew up in the triumphant and gluttonous post-war years is portly. My wife has maintained her barely three digit weight ever since I’ve known her (close to 30 years now).

    I am curious how this will play out with our future Indian overlords though. Unlike Northeast Asians who are trim, hardy, and healthy*, Indians -despite also being “Asian” – are generally overweight and seem to have poor health genes (doctors who treat them have a term – “Indian heart” – because even non-fat Indians seem to be prone to cardiovascular diseases).

    *The longest living demographic groups in the U.S. have been Asian women in Bergen County, NJ and Asian men in Fairfax County, VA (yes, Asians in super zips, who’d thunk it), and I believe these stats predate the arrival of masses of Indian immigrants.

    • Replies: @res

    I am curious how this will play out with our future Indian overlords though. Unlike Northeast Asians who are trim, hardy, and healthy*, Indians -despite also being “Asian” – are generally overweight and seem to have poor health genes (doctors who treat them have a term – “Indian heart” – because even non-fat Indians seem to be prone to cardiovascular diseases).
     
    Indians seem to be prone to being "skinny fat." I'm having trouble finding research on this, here is one paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21892076

    Short article which links to some studies: https://www.aabc-certification.org/blog/indias-paradox-thin-obese/

    Here is a brief discussion using NHANES data. Unfortunately that lumps all Asians together.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/whats-actually-behind-low-asian-american-obesity-rate-8C11323110

    This paper is short, but I found Figure 3 interesting: https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41430-017-0036-3

    Here's the caption, but what caught my attention is from the picture I would have guessed the high and low bodyfat authors to be reversed. I would be interested to know if others see that differently.

    Fig. 3 The two authors share a near identical body mass index (BMI), but as dual X-ray absorptiometry imagery shows that is where the similarity ends. The first author (figure, right) has substantially more body fat than the second figure (author, left). Lifestyle may be relevant: the second author runs marathons, whereas the first author’s main exercise is running to beat the closing doors of the elevator in the hospital every morning. The contribution of genes to such adiposity is yet to be determined, although the possible relevance of intrauterine undernutrition is supported by the first author’s low birthweight. The image is a useful reminder of the limitations of BMI as a measure of adiposity across populations

     

  11. @Michael S
    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn't realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I'm pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income.

    American women today outweigh American men who fought World War II, men who were perhaps the best fed in all of human history up to that point.

    And I’m pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    Are you kidding? Most American males today wouldn’t be able to be accepted into the military due to poor fitness. They are a sad relic of their World War II forefathers, who already had a reputation for having soft feet compared to the Brits, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese (which I attribute to the fact that the U.S. was far more motorized than any other country in the world). Our soldiers – even in World War II – were notorious for not being able to march (while bearing weight) despite being better fed than the rest.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven't changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren't designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don't even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I'm off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.
  12. @Twinkie

    High carb, high fat, low nutritional value foods are cheap and quick. High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive, and take more time and energy to prepare.
     
    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that's called life.

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic, and people can’t help it they have no time to go to the gym. Seriously, when you work ten hours a day, including commute time, sit at a desk all day, and still have to cook, clean, and take care of kids at the end of the day, you’re not going to have an active lifestyle.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

    Concordance for overweight or obesity is twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Damnit. Already used my old maid dispensed agree cookie.

    Agree
    , @Twinkie

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic
     
    Dumb comment. IQ and conscientiousness are also “substantially genetic.” Most, perhaps all, personality traits are inherited + environmental, usually 50-50 with some variations.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.
    , @Toronto Russian
    But cleaning is exercise. Unless you have a robot vacuum, and even then don't you have to move the furniture out of its way? And calorie input is more important than output. Don't have to burn it off if it didn't get in in the first place! I'm not endorsing anorexia, just the French approach:

    In France, three months seems to be the magic number: French women of all ages keep telling me they ‘got back their ligne’ – their figure – by three months post-partum. Audrey, a French journalist, tells me over coffee that she got her figure back right away after both of her pregnancies – one of which was with twins. ‘Of course. It was natural,’ she says. ‘You too, no?’ (...)

    To lose their baby weight, French women seem to do a slightly more intensified version of what they do the rest of the time.

    ‘I pay a lot of attention,’ is how my friend Virginie, a svelte mother of three, explains it to me over lunch one day, as I gorge on a giant bowl of Cambodian noodle soup. Virginie says she never goes on a diet, known in French as a régime. She just pays a lot of attention, some of the time.

    ‘What do you mean?’ I ask Virginie between slurps.

    ‘No bread,’ she says, firmly.

    ‘No bread?’ I repeat, incredulous.

    ‘No bread,’ Virginie says, with steely, calm conviction.

    Virginie doesn’t mean ‘no bread’ ever. She means ‘no bread’ during the week, from Monday to Friday. On the weekends, and on the occasional night out during the week, she says she eats whatever she wants.

    ‘You mean whatever you want in moderation, right?’ I ask.

    ‘No, I eat whatever I want,’ she says, with that conviction again.

    This is similar to what Mireille Guiliano prescribes in French Women Don’t Get Fat. (Guiliano suggests taking just one day off, and even then not overdoing it too much.) But it’s inspiring to see someone who’s actually implementing this, evidently with great success. I also like the neutral, pragmatic formulation ‘paying attention’ rather than the guilt-laden English ‘being good’ (and its opposites: ‘cheating’ and ‘being bad’).

    Virginie says this way of eating is an open secret among women in Paris. ‘Everyone you see who is thin’ – she draws an imaginary line down her small frame – ‘pays very close attention’. When Virginie feels like she’s put on a few pounds, she pays closer attention still. (My friend Christine, the French journalist, later sums up this system very succinctly: ‘Women in Paris don’t eat very much.’)

    https://readonlinenovel.net/book-reader/french-children-dont-throw-food
     
  13. @Rosie

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.
     

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic, and people can't help it they have no time to go to the gym. Seriously, when you work ten hours a day, including commute time, sit at a desk all day, and still have to cook, clean, and take care of kids at the end of the day, you're not going to have an active lifestyle.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

    Concordance for overweight or obesity is twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins.

    Damnit. Already used my old maid dispensed agree cookie.

    Agree

    • Replies: @Rosie
    One very useful concept from Marx is "the reproduction of labor power," by which he meant the everyday routines that workers have to renew themselves for work, preparing and eating meals, sleeping, taking a shower, doing the laundry, etc. It also includes things like car maintenance, clothes shopping, etc. When you factor all of that in, the modern, full--time salaried worker is essentially a slave. Even your home is not really yours. It's a place you rent from the bank in order to reproduce your labor power for the benefit of your employer.

    Now, a family with only one worker is much better off in this respect, but I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym. You can't bring sick kids to the playroom. When you have a large family, someone always sick. As soon as one gets over it, another has come down with it. Still, we can usually manage it.
  14. @iffen
    Damnit. Already used my old maid dispensed agree cookie.

    Agree

    One very useful concept from Marx is “the reproduction of labor power,” by which he meant the everyday routines that workers have to renew themselves for work, preparing and eating meals, sleeping, taking a shower, doing the laundry, etc. It also includes things like car maintenance, clothes shopping, etc. When you factor all of that in, the modern, full–time salaried worker is essentially a slave. Even your home is not really yours. It’s a place you rent from the bank in order to reproduce your labor power for the benefit of your employer.

    Now, a family with only one worker is much better off in this respect, but I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym. You can’t bring sick kids to the playroom. When you have a large family, someone always sick. As soon as one gets over it, another has come down with it. Still, we can usually manage it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Sounds like someone is not effectively managing the nanny and housekeeper. :)

    The gym is great for keeping fit (cardio, strength), but exercise has minimal impact on weight gain.

    The most important factors are, as you pointed out, genetics and the other is over consumption of carbohydrates relative to other foods.
    , @Twinkie

    I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym.
     
    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese - that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.

    People who seem effortlessly in shape (“They have thin genes!”) usually have a family culture of physical activity. They play sports for fun, walk to shops, play with their kids and dogs in the yard, etc.

    You can see a stark difference even at the playground - moms and dads who sit and stare at their phones the whole time vs. those who climb, hang, and run around with their little ones.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren't doing you much good anyway!
  15. @Rosie
    One very useful concept from Marx is "the reproduction of labor power," by which he meant the everyday routines that workers have to renew themselves for work, preparing and eating meals, sleeping, taking a shower, doing the laundry, etc. It also includes things like car maintenance, clothes shopping, etc. When you factor all of that in, the modern, full--time salaried worker is essentially a slave. Even your home is not really yours. It's a place you rent from the bank in order to reproduce your labor power for the benefit of your employer.

    Now, a family with only one worker is much better off in this respect, but I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym. You can't bring sick kids to the playroom. When you have a large family, someone always sick. As soon as one gets over it, another has come down with it. Still, we can usually manage it.

    Sounds like someone is not effectively managing the nanny and housekeeper. 🙂

    The gym is great for keeping fit (cardio, strength), but exercise has minimal impact on weight gain.

    The most important factors are, as you pointed out, genetics and the other is over consumption of carbohydrates relative to other foods.

    • LOL: Rosie
  16. @Michael S
    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn't realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I'm pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    73 kg for 1.66 m for middle-/upper class women as “average” is already an extremely high value I think. Unbelievable

  17. @Twinkie

    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income.
     
    American women today outweigh American men who fought World War II, men who were perhaps the best fed in all of human history up to that point.

    And I’m pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.
     
    Are you kidding? Most American males today wouldn't be able to be accepted into the military due to poor fitness. They are a sad relic of their World War II forefathers, who already had a reputation for having soft feet compared to the Brits, the Germans, the Russians, and the Japanese (which I attribute to the fact that the U.S. was far more motorized than any other country in the world). Our soldiers - even in World War II - were notorious for not being able to march (while bearing weight) despite being better fed than the rest.

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren’t designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don’t even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I’m off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.

    • Replies: @res

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower.
     
    Excellent point. I think that is one of two important observations. The other is made by Rosie (and tends to be accepted more eagerly because it makes being overweight "not someone's fault").

    Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic
     
    The conclusions I draw are:
    1. Our current environment is incredibly obesogenic.
    2. Susceptibility to that is substantially genetic (within generation).
    3. But that genetic susceptibility is not inevitable (based on earlier generations).

    But that leaves us with the question of: what to do? The wildcard which I think is not well enough understood is how much of the susceptibility in 2 is directly genetic and how much it is influenced by epigenetics and pre-natal (or early childhood) environments which individuals can't control (though parents can to some extent). Note that those latter effects can be influenced by parental genetics. Thus they might show up as genetic in some studies, but I think twin studies would be less subject to that.

    I suspect the indirect genetic effects make things worse than one would expect from 3. above. Not sure how to tease out these effects from research data though.
    , @Johann Ricke

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too.
     
    What makes livestock fat is allowing them to gorge themselves. On average, Americans have equally been gorging themselves, with per capita calorie intake rising 25% since the 70's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet
    , @Johann Ricke
    Americans not only consume more calories - they also take a bigger % of those calories in the form of meat.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2722815/Daily-calorie-intake-countries-world-revealed-surprise-U-S-tops-list-3-770.html
    https://www.businessinsider.com/where-do-people-eat-the-most-meat-2015-9
    , @Prodigal son
    Our genetics have changed dramatically since 1950

    youth of today is 15% Black verse 10% in 1950
    25% Hispanic today compared to 2% in 1950
    55% white today verse 85% white in 1950

    Whites have gotten fatter but a large reason for the change in average weight is due to demographic changes.

  18. @Michael S
    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn't realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I'm pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    It’s another effect of liberalism and modernism, which have dreadfully corrupted agriculture.

    Read Wendell Berry; he has outlined most of the solutions.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Of course very few of Mr. Berry's solutions will be implemented for a long time because we live under a "benevolent" liberal dictatorship that even tries to tell farmers what they can and can't grow for their own, home consumption:

    http://thefilburnfoundation.com/index.html
  19. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive
     
    Bollocks.

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter. Dinner, you can get a the club pack of meat when it goes on sale. Freeze the portions you don't use. Eat meat every single day for dinner. Buy canned beans, canned fish for $1 per can. Frozen (un-breaded) fish is also cheap. Buy rice and pasta. Basic fresh fruits (apples, bananas) and veggies (sweet potatoes, brocolli, lettuce) are usually cheap. Price match.

    This comes out MUCH LOWER calories/dollar (not to mention nutrition) than eating shit like McDonalds.

    I hate it so much when idiots whine that they "can't afford" to eat healthy. The cheapest possible meals are sacks of potatoes, beans, and rice. You're just a fat lazy fuck that can't be bothered to cook.

    No, good foods ARE more expensive because the federal government subsidizes grains such as corn and soy, to the detriment of healthier food, and to the utter devastation of family farmers.

    I am not a libertarian, but government meddling with farming has been a complete disaster.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    So you're telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb... LOL the math works itself out on that one.
  20. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    It's another effect of liberalism and modernism, which have dreadfully corrupted agriculture.

    Read Wendell Berry; he has outlined most of the solutions.

    Of course very few of Mr. Berry’s solutions will be implemented for a long time because we live under a “benevolent” liberal dictatorship that even tries to tell farmers what they can and can’t grow for their own, home consumption:

    http://thefilburnfoundation.com/index.html

  21. I’m still waiting for the post on brow-ridge-ism

  22. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    No, good foods ARE more expensive because the federal government subsidizes grains such as corn and soy, to the detriment of healthier food, and to the utter devastation of family farmers.

    I am not a libertarian, but government meddling with farming has been a complete disaster.

    So you’re telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb… LOL the math works itself out on that one.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Did you actually read the comment?

    No, I didn't say that, since "better deal" necessarily involves quality of the product.

    But it is an unequivocal fact that the government subsidizes bad agriculture and bad food.

    But of course there's more to it than just that. There's also the fact that our malovolent globalist-capitalist overlords market junk food to the poor, who practice a perverse parody form of so-called "libertarian paternalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism

    So, these two things are true:
    1) Bad food is cheaper than it should be
    2) Soulless capitalists are allowed to market various forms of evil as consumable goods

    And, anyway, okay, so the poor person or working slave buys beef at $2.88/LB, but a) he has to have other stuff to go with that beef, besides salt and pepper, to make a meal, and b) if he's a working slave, he might not have the energy or time to cook. Admittedly, I find B to be a mediocre excuse, and I'm sure you do too, but I also have more time than many do.

    Also, you're a Canadian, aren't you? So, quite frankly, what do you know about food choices of the American poor? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, and you do know something about buying food in this country.

    Look, in my daily life I agree with you: I don't eat bullcrap from McDonald's. Where possible, I even grow my own food. And I live in an area where I can get fresh fruit (of outstanding quality) for free by helping out some relatives who farm. And I try to take responsibility for my actions.

    But I'm still right when I say that the tyrants in Washington purposefully make junk food cheaper for the masses, and that it is often an easier to deal to eat like crap than eat well.

    Besides, guess what? Your average grocery store cheap beef is of an inferior quality than what my ancestors ate even within the last century, because the government also subsidizes bad feeding practices for cows! I'm not a beef-raising man, but I know a thing or two. Today's average cheap beef is far fattier than what it should be. That's how bad things are: even someone like you, who's trying to eat healthier, is still gonna get at least something of a seriously raw deal.

    , @res

    So you’re telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb… LOL the math works itself out on that one.
     
    The math works better if you compare with wheat, rice, or beans for something like $0.50 per pound. Or with fresh fruits or vegetables (for those, especially looking at $ per calorie rather than pound).

    Processed junk is often expensive. Though sometimes it can look pretty good on a $ per calorie basis (e.g. something like ice cream).

    But it is hard to dispute how much farm subsidies have resulted in cheap bulk carbohydrates along with certain oils being cheap. And for whatever reason those especially cheap foods also seem to be the ones which are especially bad for us.
  23. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    So you're telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb... LOL the math works itself out on that one.

    Did you actually read the comment?

    No, I didn’t say that, since “better deal” necessarily involves quality of the product.

    But it is an unequivocal fact that the government subsidizes bad agriculture and bad food.

    But of course there’s more to it than just that. There’s also the fact that our malovolent globalist-capitalist overlords market junk food to the poor, who practice a perverse parody form of so-called “libertarian paternalism”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism

    So, these two things are true:
    1) Bad food is cheaper than it should be
    2) Soulless capitalists are allowed to market various forms of evil as consumable goods

    And, anyway, okay, so the poor person or working slave buys beef at $2.88/LB, but a) he has to have other stuff to go with that beef, besides salt and pepper, to make a meal, and b) if he’s a working slave, he might not have the energy or time to cook. Admittedly, I find B to be a mediocre excuse, and I’m sure you do too, but I also have more time than many do.

    Also, you’re a Canadian, aren’t you? So, quite frankly, what do you know about food choices of the American poor? I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, and you do know something about buying food in this country.

    Look, in my daily life I agree with you: I don’t eat bullcrap from McDonald’s. Where possible, I even grow my own food. And I live in an area where I can get fresh fruit (of outstanding quality) for free by helping out some relatives who farm. And I try to take responsibility for my actions.

    But I’m still right when I say that the tyrants in Washington purposefully make junk food cheaper for the masses, and that it is often an easier to deal to eat like crap than eat well.

    Besides, guess what? Your average grocery store cheap beef is of an inferior quality than what my ancestors ate even within the last century, because the government also subsidizes bad feeding practices for cows! I’m not a beef-raising man, but I know a thing or two. Today’s average cheap beef is far fattier than what it should be. That’s how bad things are: even someone like you, who’s trying to eat healthier, is still gonna get at least something of a seriously raw deal.

    • Replies: @iffen
    2) Soulless capitalists are allowed to market various forms of evil as consumable goods

    Do you agree with the woke SJWs that say Dollar General is racist because they sell foodstuffs to POCs cheaper than Trader Joes and Whole Foods?

    I'm not going to get into what is a factual matter with regard to agricultural economics, but if the government is involved, I will put my money on the premise that the cost to consumers is higher because of that involvement.
  24. @Twinkie

    Eating copious quantities of food is no longer a status marker–or at least that marker runs directionally opposite from what it used to
     
    I've stated this many times on Unz. And I witness it frequently as I travel between my two homes - one in a super zip and the other in Appalachia.

    And being trim as a social status marker is particularly pronounced among women, which is validated by the graph you present. You can see the generational differences play out in my wife's elite Midwestern family. Her grandmother who came of age during the Depression and World War II was trim throughout her life (even though her family was rich, it was seen as gauche and self-indulgent to overeat when so many others were in strained circumstances). Her mother who was born and grew up in the triumphant and gluttonous post-war years is portly. My wife has maintained her barely three digit weight ever since I've known her (close to 30 years now).

    I am curious how this will play out with our future Indian overlords though. Unlike Northeast Asians who are trim, hardy, and healthy*, Indians -despite also being "Asian" - are generally overweight and seem to have poor health genes (doctors who treat them have a term - "Indian heart" - because even non-fat Indians seem to be prone to cardiovascular diseases).

    *The longest living demographic groups in the U.S. have been Asian women in Bergen County, NJ and Asian men in Fairfax County, VA (yes, Asians in super zips, who'd thunk it), and I believe these stats predate the arrival of masses of Indian immigrants.

    I am curious how this will play out with our future Indian overlords though. Unlike Northeast Asians who are trim, hardy, and healthy*, Indians -despite also being “Asian” – are generally overweight and seem to have poor health genes (doctors who treat them have a term – “Indian heart” – because even non-fat Indians seem to be prone to cardiovascular diseases).

    Indians seem to be prone to being “skinny fat.” I’m having trouble finding research on this, here is one paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21892076

    Short article which links to some studies: https://www.aabc-certification.org/blog/indias-paradox-thin-obese/

    Here is a brief discussion using NHANES data. Unfortunately that lumps all Asians together.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/whats-actually-behind-low-asian-american-obesity-rate-8C11323110

    This paper is short, but I found Figure 3 interesting: https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41430-017-0036-3

    Here’s the caption, but what caught my attention is from the picture I would have guessed the high and low bodyfat authors to be reversed. I would be interested to know if others see that differently.

    Fig. 3 The two authors share a near identical body mass index (BMI), but as dual X-ray absorptiometry imagery shows that is where the similarity ends. The first author (figure, right) has substantially more body fat than the second figure (author, left). Lifestyle may be relevant: the second author runs marathons, whereas the first author’s main exercise is running to beat the closing doors of the elevator in the hospital every morning. The contribution of genes to such adiposity is yet to be determined, although the possible relevance of intrauterine undernutrition is supported by the first author’s low birthweight. The image is a useful reminder of the limitations of BMI as a measure of adiposity across populations

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Razib Khan was talking about this the other day on his Brown Pundits pod, er, browncast so I trust it's legit.
  25. @Daniel Williams

    A woman who is taller than the average man tends to experience a reduced pool of men who potentially express interest.
     
    This is yet another reason why it’s great to be a tall man: a tall guy can date gals who are too tall for normal men and date regular and short chicks. They’re all on the menu!

    You illustrate a point I was going to bring up about tall women: female preference for for taller men, as opposed to male preference for shorter women, is by far the more limiting selection mechanism for the super tall women.

    Men may generally prefer to be taller and bigger than their date, but not as much as women prefer the opposite.

    There are plenty of men (across the height spectrum) who are quite attracted to very tall (taller than them) women.

    If thirsty men are willing to chase heavy women, a tall, relatively lean women will have plenty of suitors as well.

    The real problem is that the super tall women are still women and thus hold firm to their preference for the man to be taller.

    Shorter men tend not to approach/pursue taller women in part due to male preference for smaller women, but a big part of that apprehension is also due to:

    (a) the heightism against them; and (b) the rigidity of female preference for the man to be at least as tall as they (or even “as tall as me when I wear heels”.)

    You see this online all the time. The biggest self-limiting filter for women is male height. Up until a certain age most women will not budge on her preference. And without thinking will click the 6’0” and eliminate 80% of eligible men.

    Its better in real life, of course, because women often misjudge a mans height and relativity plays in as well.

    A shorter man must have good game, outsized confidence, and other readily displayable high status markers to overcome his shortness in the eyes of all women.

    Super tall women are no different tho most learn earlier on that they may have to lower their requirements.

    Even a stud like me at 5’10” is going to have a tough time breaking down the height preference of a 5’10” woman.

    So I may not even bother approaching unless she has other outstanding assets.

    Its just not worth sorting thru all the cultural garbage AND having to hotwire her biological preference. But not approaching is not the same as a lack of attraction or romantic interest. In some ways its similar to why a “10” will get less attention than an “8”, tho nobody would argue that a “10” is not attractive to men.

    Being an athlete for many years, I was around many tall and super tall women.

    From what I saw, the ones with the most rigid height requirement for men were women (aside from the super short) in the tall but not super tall (5’8 to 6’0”) range. Men under 6’0” were invisible to them. They still had enough men taller than them to choose from so they could be picky.

    There was a breakpoint, however, once a woman cracked 6’1 or so. These super tall women were more open to men their height or even a hair under.

    Similar to women over 35 who suddenly unclick the 6’0” filter on their tinders or whatever.

    A good friend is 6’5”. She was a pro basketball player in her youth. She got hit on all the time, airports, restaurants, bars, on the court.

    But she hated “short” guys. FTR i was a short guy to her. It “creeped her out” when they would flirt. Perhaps she sensed some strange fetish thing. But there was no shortage of interest. Just a shortage of 6’5”+ guys to show interest.

    She always dated guys around her height. Shortest probably 6’2”. If not available, she would just not date as opposed to slumming it in the normies range.

    Her options were mostly limited by her preference. But indeed being that tall is very hard on women, mostly because it is hard to project feminine qualities and “feel girly” and all that.

    Because of that, she always wore makeup, kept her hair long and pretty, and wore her heels even tho it made her more giant.

    She ended up marrying a handsome 6’3” pro beach volleyball player who also happened to come from a very well off family. But prior to that she spent a lot of years single. Probably lucky she was in sports to put her in proximity to tall men.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The tall get taller!
  26. @Mark G.
    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven't changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren't designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don't even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I'm off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower.

    Excellent point. I think that is one of two important observations. The other is made by Rosie (and tends to be accepted more eagerly because it makes being overweight “not someone’s fault”).

    Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic

    The conclusions I draw are:
    1. Our current environment is incredibly obesogenic.
    2. Susceptibility to that is substantially genetic (within generation).
    3. But that genetic susceptibility is not inevitable (based on earlier generations).

    But that leaves us with the question of: what to do? The wildcard which I think is not well enough understood is how much of the susceptibility in 2 is directly genetic and how much it is influenced by epigenetics and pre-natal (or early childhood) environments which individuals can’t control (though parents can to some extent). Note that those latter effects can be influenced by parental genetics. Thus they might show up as genetic in some studies, but I think twin studies would be less subject to that.

    I suspect the indirect genetic effects make things worse than one would expect from 3. above. Not sure how to tease out these effects from research data though.

  27. o/t

    Generational Eclipse

    We need our own institutions and countries.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Thanks Bannon. You've stuck us with that idiot Roy Moore.

    Mo Brooks is *obviously* the right choice.
  28. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    So you're telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb... LOL the math works itself out on that one.

    So you’re telling me a $6.50 quarter pounder from McDonalds is a better deal than buying beef at $2.88/lb… LOL the math works itself out on that one.

    The math works better if you compare with wheat, rice, or beans for something like $0.50 per pound. Or with fresh fruits or vegetables (for those, especially looking at $ per calorie rather than pound).

    Processed junk is often expensive. Though sometimes it can look pretty good on a $ per calorie basis (e.g. something like ice cream).

    But it is hard to dispute how much farm subsidies have resulted in cheap bulk carbohydrates along with certain oils being cheap. And for whatever reason those especially cheap foods also seem to be the ones which are especially bad for us.

  29. LOL

    Read the reply threat to see a window in how the left views Simple Jack.

    Mme. Ioffe can avoid all this harassment with one weird trick

    https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/ministry_of_aliyah_and_integration

    • Replies: @216
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/AskJackAtTed?src=hash

    For all of the threats and harassment that supposedly exists, it never seems to convince them to use the block button. (Apparently stalkers will get violent if a fempoaster does this)

    PROFIT OFF HATE!!!!

    Report button

    https://twitter.com/Malbecandpie/status/1118207213397475328

  30. @Mark G.
    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven't changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren't designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don't even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I'm off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too.

    What makes livestock fat is allowing them to gorge themselves. On average, Americans have equally been gorging themselves, with per capita calorie intake rising 25% since the 70’s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    It would be interesting to speculate why number of calories consumed has increased by 25% only since the seventies. Food was widely available in the U.S. long before that. The McGovern report came out in the seventies encouraging people to consume more carbohydrates. Carbs may encourage sudden increases in blood sugar levels followed by crashes and that may lead to hunger followed by increased levels of eating. So changes in the types of food eaten may have led to changes in the amounts of calories consumed. In addition to the McGovern report encouraging increased consumption of carbohydrates, the government also started subsidizing carbs. It subsidizes corn which is then turned into high fructose corn syrup which is then put into junk foods that can be sold more cheaply and consumed in larger amounts.
  31. @Mark G.
    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven't changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren't designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don't even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I'm off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.
  32. @Johann Ricke

    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven’t changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too.
     
    What makes livestock fat is allowing them to gorge themselves. On average, Americans have equally been gorging themselves, with per capita calorie intake rising 25% since the 70's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet

    It would be interesting to speculate why number of calories consumed has increased by 25% only since the seventies. Food was widely available in the U.S. long before that. The McGovern report came out in the seventies encouraging people to consume more carbohydrates. Carbs may encourage sudden increases in blood sugar levels followed by crashes and that may lead to hunger followed by increased levels of eating. So changes in the types of food eaten may have led to changes in the amounts of calories consumed. In addition to the McGovern report encouraging increased consumption of carbohydrates, the government also started subsidizing carbs. It subsidizes corn which is then turned into high fructose corn syrup which is then put into junk foods that can be sold more cheaply and consumed in larger amounts.

    • Replies: @Travis
    food is less costly today , due to advances in farming. Food production got more efficient.

    our spending on food has actually declined dramatically since 1970. Back in the 1970s families spent 50% more on food and ate less calories.We are purchasing more food for less money, and we are purchasing our food for less of our income. Back in 1970 Americans spent 15% of our income on food compared to just 9% today.

    Americans are fatter for several reasons. Food is cheaper thus it is easier to consume more calories, our jobs are less physically demanding, our commutes are longer and we sleep less. We also consume more carbs and less fat. Demonizing fat was very destructive and resulted in more obesity. Fat is more satiating and when we eat more fat we consume less carbs. We replaced fat with carbs. Few people drink whole milk anymore, the schools do to even offer whole milk to children. People eat less eggs and less butter and more carbs.

    would be interesting to see the demographics of obesity. One of the reasons for rising childhood obesity is due to the demographic changes in America since 1980.

    the percentage of obese children and adolescents has more than tripled since the 1970s. Data from 2015-2016 show that 19% of young people (6 to 19 years) in the United States has obesity. Back in the 70s just 6% were obese. But the obesity rate among whites has not increase so dramatically. in the 70s Blacks were 12% of the youth population , today they are 15% of the Youth population. Hispanics were 5% of the population and today are 30% of the youth population. Whites were 80% of the youth population in the 70s and just 50% of the youth population today.

    25% of hispanic teens are obese. 23% of Black teens are obese. 13% of White teens are obese.
  33. @Michael S
    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn't realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I'm pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    The weight problem (for American men and women) seems to have gotten a lot worse in the last twenty or so years.

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.

    Moderate improvements in eating and exercise habits can make a significant difference over time for most people.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.
     
    That's because you need to learn to think more creatively about finding solutions that are clearly societal in origin, as evidenced by the scope of the problem. Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel. Now, I would submit that there are any number of alternatives to fat-shaming that could be tried.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    Some here claim that diet rather than physical activity is the key to weight control, but I find this puzzling. Diet and exercise must be in balance, and the less exercise we get, the harder it is to maintain that balance, especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.
  34. There are a couple of very peculiar advances here.

    1. that body weight is unmanagable because of genetics. That may be accurate with height. But there is no reason why someone cannot change their weight regardless of their genetics, unless some extreme genetic disorder is in play, and even then, the mechanics that impact weight are not without a lot of variables under the control of the weight holder. And one need not be an extreme athlete to do so.

    2. While high carb foods are cheaper, and those of us that are poor find them more affordable, the long term consequences indicate that more deliberate food choices, even if costlier, will pay off with substantial dividends in the long term.

    3. Government’s meddling in food has it’s downsides. But it also has served to standardize safety in food production and delivery.

    4. Weight management:

    a. content
    b. amount, depending on content
    c. combinations
    d. exercise or exertion
    e. water: my biggest concern at the moment. A strange near refusal to intake water, even when my mouth is as the Mohave Desert.

    This week I am decreasing my workouts by half, I think. I usually don’t make my decrease goals for weeks. But through diet and exertion, I have substantially changed my body. But whether intense, moderate or even mild enough time and the correct modifications in diet and exercise can give control over one’s weight to the holder of the same.

    Neither the government or anyone else is holding a gun to one’s head regarding food choices and there are no shoot to kill orders that prevent one from taking a walk.

  35. Laughing.

    There are plenty of reasons to appreciate tall women. As for me, it’s about legs. long legs on tall women, longs legs on medium height women, long legs on short women.

    Laugh

  36. What joy it is to send American walruses to Hell in a reinforced handbasket!

    I refuse to indulge in it myself because I have between 5 and 10 pounds of Winter weight to lose myself, and I just won’t attack portly people, whether they be short or tall.

    I hereby challenge FAT-assed baby boomer backstabber Donald John Trump to a debate on mass legal immigration and illegal immigration and globalization and financialization and foreign policy.

    Trump is a FAT bastard who wants to flood the USA with foreigners.

    Having seen Trump a few times in person, I would say Trump looks like an overweight, retired NFL linebacker. Trump could lose 30 or 40 pounds if he put his ever changing mind to it. I’ve no doubt Trump was a good athlete in his day.

    Trump can have Jared Kushner and Teddy Cruz on his debate team. I’d rhetorically smash all of them at once.

    A conspiracy theory on the internet suggests that Trump has gotten as fat as a house because Shelly Adelson lets him eat for free at his Las Vegas casino all-you-can-eat buffet. Sounds outlandish to me!

  37. @216
    o/t

    Generational Eclipse

    https://twitter.com/hxccagefighter/status/1118145798036971521

    We need our own institutions and countries.

    Thanks Bannon. You’ve stuck us with that idiot Roy Moore.

    Mo Brooks is *obviously* the right choice.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks Bannon. You’ve stuck us with that idiot Roy Moore.

    It would be interesting to know who advised Trump to endorse Big Luther in order to curry favor with M. McConnell.

    That will be Moore's high point in the polling. This poll is dated, as Tommy Tuberville has announced that he is going to run and he is not listed.

    Re: Doug Jones

    Unless the Republican candidate proves to be deeply flawed like Moore or Strange they will defeat Jones. However, it will be closer than expected in this red state because the % of voters in Alabama who vote for the incumbent regardless of any other factor has to be as high as in any state.

  38. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Did you actually read the comment?

    No, I didn't say that, since "better deal" necessarily involves quality of the product.

    But it is an unequivocal fact that the government subsidizes bad agriculture and bad food.

    But of course there's more to it than just that. There's also the fact that our malovolent globalist-capitalist overlords market junk food to the poor, who practice a perverse parody form of so-called "libertarian paternalism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_paternalism

    So, these two things are true:
    1) Bad food is cheaper than it should be
    2) Soulless capitalists are allowed to market various forms of evil as consumable goods

    And, anyway, okay, so the poor person or working slave buys beef at $2.88/LB, but a) he has to have other stuff to go with that beef, besides salt and pepper, to make a meal, and b) if he's a working slave, he might not have the energy or time to cook. Admittedly, I find B to be a mediocre excuse, and I'm sure you do too, but I also have more time than many do.

    Also, you're a Canadian, aren't you? So, quite frankly, what do you know about food choices of the American poor? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, and you do know something about buying food in this country.

    Look, in my daily life I agree with you: I don't eat bullcrap from McDonald's. Where possible, I even grow my own food. And I live in an area where I can get fresh fruit (of outstanding quality) for free by helping out some relatives who farm. And I try to take responsibility for my actions.

    But I'm still right when I say that the tyrants in Washington purposefully make junk food cheaper for the masses, and that it is often an easier to deal to eat like crap than eat well.

    Besides, guess what? Your average grocery store cheap beef is of an inferior quality than what my ancestors ate even within the last century, because the government also subsidizes bad feeding practices for cows! I'm not a beef-raising man, but I know a thing or two. Today's average cheap beef is far fattier than what it should be. That's how bad things are: even someone like you, who's trying to eat healthier, is still gonna get at least something of a seriously raw deal.

    2) Soulless capitalists are allowed to market various forms of evil as consumable goods

    Do you agree with the woke SJWs that say Dollar General is racist because they sell foodstuffs to POCs cheaper than Trader Joes and Whole Foods?

    I’m not going to get into what is a factual matter with regard to agricultural economics, but if the government is involved, I will put my money on the premise that the cost to consumers is higher because of that involvement.

  39. Dunno why the issue of height is making the rounds thee days, but to me it’s a non-starter. We’ve always had tall women and short men, and people always sorted themselves out. There are always “height Nazis” and always couples who don’t fit the mold.

    But what we haven’t had, at least in the U.S., is a large (heh) number of fat adults. Weight, I think, is the more important issue here. It’s both a health issue and an aesthetic one.

    We have a media that pretends otherwise. We’re starting to have a society that pretends otherwise. This is leading to disaster. Health care is expensive because so many people have weight-related issues. On a personal note, I can’t look out the car window without wincing in disgust at how people look these days. Back in ’82 (when I could throw a pigskin a quarter mile), I would almost drive off the road from distraction because American women were so hot. Short AND tall.

  40. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Thanks Bannon. You've stuck us with that idiot Roy Moore.

    Mo Brooks is *obviously* the right choice.

    Thanks Bannon. You’ve stuck us with that idiot Roy Moore.

    It would be interesting to know who advised Trump to endorse Big Luther in order to curry favor with M. McConnell.

    That will be Moore’s high point in the polling. This poll is dated, as Tommy Tuberville has announced that he is going to run and he is not listed.

    Re: Doug Jones

    Unless the Republican candidate proves to be deeply flawed like Moore or Strange they will defeat Jones. However, it will be closer than expected in this red state because the % of voters in Alabama who vote for the incumbent regardless of any other factor has to be as high as in any state.

  41. @Mark G.
    It would be interesting to speculate why number of calories consumed has increased by 25% only since the seventies. Food was widely available in the U.S. long before that. The McGovern report came out in the seventies encouraging people to consume more carbohydrates. Carbs may encourage sudden increases in blood sugar levels followed by crashes and that may lead to hunger followed by increased levels of eating. So changes in the types of food eaten may have led to changes in the amounts of calories consumed. In addition to the McGovern report encouraging increased consumption of carbohydrates, the government also started subsidizing carbs. It subsidizes corn which is then turned into high fructose corn syrup which is then put into junk foods that can be sold more cheaply and consumed in larger amounts.

    food is less costly today , due to advances in farming. Food production got more efficient.

    our spending on food has actually declined dramatically since 1970. Back in the 1970s families spent 50% more on food and ate less calories.We are purchasing more food for less money, and we are purchasing our food for less of our income. Back in 1970 Americans spent 15% of our income on food compared to just 9% today.

    Americans are fatter for several reasons. Food is cheaper thus it is easier to consume more calories, our jobs are less physically demanding, our commutes are longer and we sleep less. We also consume more carbs and less fat. Demonizing fat was very destructive and resulted in more obesity. Fat is more satiating and when we eat more fat we consume less carbs. We replaced fat with carbs. Few people drink whole milk anymore, the schools do to even offer whole milk to children. People eat less eggs and less butter and more carbs.

    would be interesting to see the demographics of obesity. One of the reasons for rising childhood obesity is due to the demographic changes in America since 1980.

    the percentage of obese children and adolescents has more than tripled since the 1970s. Data from 2015-2016 show that 19% of young people (6 to 19 years) in the United States has obesity. Back in the 70s just 6% were obese. But the obesity rate among whites has not increase so dramatically. in the 70s Blacks were 12% of the youth population , today they are 15% of the Youth population. Hispanics were 5% of the population and today are 30% of the youth population. Whites were 80% of the youth population in the 70s and just 50% of the youth population today.

    25% of hispanic teens are obese. 23% of Black teens are obese. 13% of White teens are obese.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.
     
    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60's, so it's not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else's fault. It's high fructose corn syrup. It's carbs. It's big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.
  42. @Justvisiting
    The weight problem (for American men and women) seems to have gotten a lot worse in the last twenty or so years.

    Making "fat shaming" culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.

    Moderate improvements in eating and exercise habits can make a significant difference over time for most people.

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.

    That’s because you need to learn to think more creatively about finding solutions that are clearly societal in origin, as evidenced by the scope of the problem. Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel. Now, I would submit that there are any number of alternatives to fat-shaming that could be tried.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    Some here claim that diet rather than physical activity is the key to weight control, but I find this puzzling. Diet and exercise must be in balance, and the less exercise we get, the harder it is to maintain that balance, especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.

    • Replies: @Michael S
    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming.

    It's not any more "cruel" than giving someone a bad performance review, informing them about their B.O., or staging an intervention for a drug addict. People need to know the truth about themselves, and shielding them from it can only make their problems worse.

    Moreover, most people tend to follow whatever is socially acceptable. Obesity definitely correlates with social acceptance of obesity.
    , @Twinkie

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.
     
    And yet the amount of time kids devote to digital entertainment and “social media” has skyrocketed. Where do they find the time despite “more hours of instruction and more homework”?

    Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel.
     
    Seems to work well among upper crust women.

    As with any virtuous cycle (e.g. chastity) things were better when there was shaming against violating the norms and the lower classes tried their darndest to emulate the upper class rather than setting social trends, let alone being tolerated.

    To put bluntly, much of social dissatisfaction today comes from the fact that people do dumb things and expect rewards.

    especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.
     
    You can always hope, eh? :)

    Caloric intake is and has been “adaptive” only on a J-curve. Too little, people malfunction (women don’t get periods, for example) and too much, people also malfunction (female fertility craters - it’s one of the first things fertility specialists tell women who have trouble getting pregnant- “Lose some weight”).
    , @Screwtape
    Yes, it (obesity and other so called lifestyle diseases) is largely dietary.

    But to your point, “diet” is a nebulous term, as it isn’t just food but also total caloric intake, the macronutrient content and ratio, micronutrient content and quality, and other cofactors like hydration and electrolyte balance.

    All of these things are also subject to individuation based on genetic and genetic expression that can be somewhat rigid but also include a number of factors reactive to diet, sleep, activity, and other environmental cues.

    Genetic dispositions vis a vis hormones that influence hunger, satiety, glucose/insulin response etc are all hige issues for some people, which sets them on a course toward obesity. But that is the minority.

    The culprit seems to be the combination of increased sugar (carbohydrate) intake as a % of total calories, total caloric intake increases, and the role of inflammation - which is highly associated with sugar and poor gut bacteria health.

    The sugar/carbohydrate intake (very high) in conjunction with lower quality fats found in processed foods is the main driver. The war on saturated fats is misguided when not conjoined with a war on sugar.

    Also, the gut microbiome health also plays a huge role in obesity, diabetes, heart and vascular diseases as well as suspected roles in cognitive disorders like ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and Alzheimer's.

    The gut-brain connection and the systemic chronic inflammation response is where most of our modern health issues will be borne out in the coming years.

    Obesity is way up. Its not just sedentary life, though that is also a factor.

    The pareto of “activity” means you get most of the benefits from a very low baseline level of activity; It really takes very little regular moderate (30 min of brisk walking 2x per week can be enough) activity to get most of the benefits in terms of preventative health.

    Walking 15 min after meals vis a vis digestive health and glycemic response is is also well founded.

    The idea that people suddenly have no time to source and prepare whole foods (not processed ‘feed’) or go for a walk is a cultural myth. Its a matter of priorities. But if someone has no time for that, then simply cutting processed sugars, grains, and poly fats would work wonders.

    And this doesnt even touch periodic fasting, which requires no extra work or shopping.

    Tl;dr The west is addicted to sugar. Until nutrition is forced thru the gateway of addiction and approached as such, big pharma and big ag will keep winning.
  43. @216
    LOL

    https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1117968251219263491

    Read the reply threat to see a window in how the left views Simple Jack.

    Mme. Ioffe can avoid all this harassment with one weird trick

    https://www.gov.il/en/Departments/ministry_of_aliyah_and_integration

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/AskJackAtTed?src=hash

    For all of the threats and harassment that supposedly exists, it never seems to convince them to use the block button. (Apparently stalkers will get violent if a fempoaster does this)

    PROFIT OFF HATE!!!!

    Report button

    https://twitter.com/Malbecandpie/status/1118207213397475328

  44. Teddy Cruz has tried to use the Orson Welles Beard Strategy to conceal his fat, bloated face. The Orson Welles Beard Strategy is used by obese, bloated men to create the illusion of a jawline using beard hair instead of an actual jawline created by the jaw bone.

    Orson Welles grew a beard to regain his jawline after decades of drinking booze and eating fattening food bloated his face out like a bastard. Teddy Cruz has taken to the Orson Welles Beard Strategy to conceal the fact that Teddy Cruz is a bloated Goldman Sachs husband.

    Many Canadians, such as Teddy Cruz, find it shockingly easy to gain unsightly weight after they hit 45 years old.

    As part of a good will gesture with our friends to the North, Canada, I will pledge to repatriate Teddy Cruz back to Canada when I am elected president of the USA. Teddy Cruz goes back whether or not the Canadians want him! That’s the main difference between Trump and me, I don’t give a damn what these other nations do, I’ll act act unilaterally on behalf of the USA to advance and protect our interests.

    Fifty-Four Forty Or Fight!

    Teddy Cruz Back To Canada!

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    We don't want him, thanks!
  45. @Rosie

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.
     
    That's because you need to learn to think more creatively about finding solutions that are clearly societal in origin, as evidenced by the scope of the problem. Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel. Now, I would submit that there are any number of alternatives to fat-shaming that could be tried.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    Some here claim that diet rather than physical activity is the key to weight control, but I find this puzzling. Diet and exercise must be in balance, and the less exercise we get, the harder it is to maintain that balance, especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.

    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming.

    It’s not any more “cruel” than giving someone a bad performance review, informing them about their B.O., or staging an intervention for a drug addict. People need to know the truth about themselves, and shielding them from it can only make their problems worse.

    Moreover, most people tend to follow whatever is socially acceptable. Obesity definitely correlates with social acceptance of obesity.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming
     
    Yes, there is. It's a pharmaceutical called phentermine. It is a powerful appetite suppressant that enables at- risk patients to bring their caloric intake into balance with their energy expenditures, if they are motivated. There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don't care about finding and using a solution that actually works.

    Obesity us either a health crisis, or it isn't. Why are we denying people health care?
  46. @Mark G.
    People now say current day obesity is genetic but our genes haven't changed that much since World War II when average weights were much lower. The attack on high fat foods and the USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of breads and grains was counterproductive. This diet is used to fatten cows and pigs before being slaughtered and it makes people fat too. The average person now spends five hours a day in front of the television and more hours in front of a computer screen. They also drive everywhere. Cities aren't designed for pedestrians as much as formerly. I don't even spend five hours a week watching television and take three mile hikes on the weekend when I'm off work. I see few people out walking at the same time I am but if I stop at a sports bar on the way home there are fifty people there sitting and watching other people exercising while engaged in sports.

    Our genetics have changed dramatically since 1950

    youth of today is 15% Black verse 10% in 1950
    25% Hispanic today compared to 2% in 1950
    55% white today verse 85% white in 1950

    Whites have gotten fatter but a large reason for the change in average weight is due to demographic changes.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Our genetics have changed since 1950 with larger numbers of poor minorities prone to obesity. If you just look at whites, though, there are weight changes just among whites. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentages of obese adult white males and females went from 10% and 14% in 1960 to 21% and 24% currently. Part of that too could be attributed to genetic changes if poor whites are now a larger percentage of the total white population. I accept your point about genetic changes and agree you are right about that but I think the increases in obesity have been too large over too short a period of time for a primarily genetic explanation and you also have to look at changes in the amounts and types of food eaten, changes in physical activity, and social factors like the fat acceptance movement.
  47. @Michael S
    Those average weights are terrifying, regardless of income. I knew it was bad, but didn't realize just how bad. 5 1/2 ft women weighing over 170? And I'm pretty sure most of those 200 lb guys are not bodybuilders and powerlifters.

    And this is the white population. I really wish we could blame racial confounding here.

    Most people used to perform manual labor for most of the day. A large % of people today are cubicle monkeys. Children don’t walk to school anymore (my kids K-4 school banned walking to school) and many schools don’t have recess and utilize a substandard physical education regimen.

    It’s a sedentary society.

  48. I’m 6’4″. I’ve learned to duck without thinking. I’m right in between normal clothes shopping and the big and tall places, so that is annoying. Sports sedans are out. As far as people interaction, I have run into a few, not too many, shorter men suffering from Napoleon’s Complex. My tolerance for it wanes as I get older.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That's right on the edge. What's your ideal height? Maybe an inch or two shorter than you are?
  49. @Prodigal son
    Our genetics have changed dramatically since 1950

    youth of today is 15% Black verse 10% in 1950
    25% Hispanic today compared to 2% in 1950
    55% white today verse 85% white in 1950

    Whites have gotten fatter but a large reason for the change in average weight is due to demographic changes.

    Our genetics have changed since 1950 with larger numbers of poor minorities prone to obesity. If you just look at whites, though, there are weight changes just among whites. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the percentages of obese adult white males and females went from 10% and 14% in 1960 to 21% and 24% currently. Part of that too could be attributed to genetic changes if poor whites are now a larger percentage of the total white population. I accept your point about genetic changes and agree you are right about that but I think the increases in obesity have been too large over too short a period of time for a primarily genetic explanation and you also have to look at changes in the amounts and types of food eaten, changes in physical activity, and social factors like the fat acceptance movement.

  50. @Rosie

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.
     

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic, and people can't help it they have no time to go to the gym. Seriously, when you work ten hours a day, including commute time, sit at a desk all day, and still have to cook, clean, and take care of kids at the end of the day, you're not going to have an active lifestyle.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

    Concordance for overweight or obesity is twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins.

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic

    Dumb comment. IQ and conscientiousness are also “substantially genetic.” Most, perhaps all, personality traits are inherited + environmental, usually 50-50 with some variations.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Dumb comment.
     
    You're an asshole.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.
     
    Genetics and environment work together. Before Whites came to America, I understand there was no alcoholism among the Red Indians. Obviously, that doesn't mean Indians are not genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Rather, an environmental change exposed a genetic weakness that was always there.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.
     
    I never said they didn't. Lots of things correlate with lots of other things. That doesn't mean you can make assumptions about individuals, as you implied.

    Whites differ tremendously from each other in our proneness to weight gain, so limiting the inquiry to Whites only does not control for genetics. Mediterranean Whites are much more obesity resistant than Nordic whites, presumably because the latter had to withstand long winter food shortages.
  51. @Travis
    food is less costly today , due to advances in farming. Food production got more efficient.

    our spending on food has actually declined dramatically since 1970. Back in the 1970s families spent 50% more on food and ate less calories.We are purchasing more food for less money, and we are purchasing our food for less of our income. Back in 1970 Americans spent 15% of our income on food compared to just 9% today.

    Americans are fatter for several reasons. Food is cheaper thus it is easier to consume more calories, our jobs are less physically demanding, our commutes are longer and we sleep less. We also consume more carbs and less fat. Demonizing fat was very destructive and resulted in more obesity. Fat is more satiating and when we eat more fat we consume less carbs. We replaced fat with carbs. Few people drink whole milk anymore, the schools do to even offer whole milk to children. People eat less eggs and less butter and more carbs.

    would be interesting to see the demographics of obesity. One of the reasons for rising childhood obesity is due to the demographic changes in America since 1980.

    the percentage of obese children and adolescents has more than tripled since the 1970s. Data from 2015-2016 show that 19% of young people (6 to 19 years) in the United States has obesity. Back in the 70s just 6% were obese. But the obesity rate among whites has not increase so dramatically. in the 70s Blacks were 12% of the youth population , today they are 15% of the Youth population. Hispanics were 5% of the population and today are 30% of the youth population. Whites were 80% of the youth population in the 70s and just 50% of the youth population today.

    25% of hispanic teens are obese. 23% of Black teens are obese. 13% of White teens are obese.

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.

    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60’s, so it’s not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else’s fault. It’s high fructose corn syrup. It’s carbs. It’s big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else’s fault. It’s high fructose corn syrup. It’s carbs. It’s big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.
     
    Amen, brother.

    People fixate on magic fixes - pills, diets, food composition, etc. In reality, those are all marginal in effect. It’s really very simple: increased caloric intake + reduced work output = excess storage of energy on the body.

    When you have higher IQ and time horizon, you can foresee the long-term consequence of this. And when you have high conscientiousness, you do something about it - everyday.
    , @Mark G.
    The journal JAMA Internal Medicine found in a recent study that we now receive 15% of our calories in added sugars. Sugar consumption has tripled between 1950 and today. Not all fat comes from meat so you can decrease fat consumption while increasing meat consumption. According to the USDA, fat consumption dropped from 45% of calories in 1965 to 35% in 1995. Butter consumption dropped by half between 1950 and 2000. Egg consumption dropped. The low fat diet pushed by the government caused people to stay away from healthy fats like monounsaturated fats and omega 3 fats in things like olive oil, fish and nuts. We do eat much more but saying we eat more then leads to the question of why we eat much more. I believe in personal responsibility for one's dietary choices too but you have to be aware that dietary choices are influenced by the relative costs of various foods and the dietary recommendations passed out by trusted health authorities and the types of food eaten can affect the amount of food eaten.
    , @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.
    , @anon
    Well, then what is it due to? Did the American people suddenly become lazy and slothful, compared to the 50s? You can attribute some of it to demographic changes, but Whites didn't suddenly decide to eat a lot more for no particular reason. What did change is the agro policy and the way food is manufactured . Food scientist for major manufacturers work very hard to design foods that hit all the neurochemical triggers to make them irresistible. Also, portion sizes in most restaurants are enormous, suitable for 2-3 people at least, and yet most people will eat the whole portion when it's put in front of them.
    It's not any change in genetics, because Europeans who move to the U.S. tend to gain weight, and Americans who move to Europe tend to become thinner. It's partly the foods and partly the culture that reinforces it. Seeing lots of obese people around makes it "OK" to be overweight, whereas when you are surrounded by fit, trim people, it puts pressure on you to control your weight.
  52. @Rosie
    One very useful concept from Marx is "the reproduction of labor power," by which he meant the everyday routines that workers have to renew themselves for work, preparing and eating meals, sleeping, taking a shower, doing the laundry, etc. It also includes things like car maintenance, clothes shopping, etc. When you factor all of that in, the modern, full--time salaried worker is essentially a slave. Even your home is not really yours. It's a place you rent from the bank in order to reproduce your labor power for the benefit of your employer.

    Now, a family with only one worker is much better off in this respect, but I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym. You can't bring sick kids to the playroom. When you have a large family, someone always sick. As soon as one gets over it, another has come down with it. Still, we can usually manage it.

    I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym.

    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese – that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.

    People who seem effortlessly in shape (“They have thin genes!”) usually have a family culture of physical activity. They play sports for fun, walk to shops, play with their kids and dogs in the yard, etc.

    You can see a stark difference even at the playground – moms and dads who sit and stare at their phones the whole time vs. those who climb, hang, and run around with their little ones.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese – that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.
     
    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn't be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.

    When we say "make it to the gym," we are not saying it is a chore, but rather a luxury that we don't always have time for.
  53. @Johann Ricke

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.
     
    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60's, so it's not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else's fault. It's high fructose corn syrup. It's carbs. It's big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else’s fault. It’s high fructose corn syrup. It’s carbs. It’s big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Amen, brother.

    People fixate on magic fixes – pills, diets, food composition, etc. In reality, those are all marginal in effect. It’s really very simple: increased caloric intake + reduced work output = excess storage of energy on the body.

    When you have higher IQ and time horizon, you can foresee the long-term consequence of this. And when you have high conscientiousness, you do something about it – everyday.

  54. @Rosie

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.
     
    That's because you need to learn to think more creatively about finding solutions that are clearly societal in origin, as evidenced by the scope of the problem. Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel. Now, I would submit that there are any number of alternatives to fat-shaming that could be tried.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    Some here claim that diet rather than physical activity is the key to weight control, but I find this puzzling. Diet and exercise must be in balance, and the less exercise we get, the harder it is to maintain that balance, especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    And yet the amount of time kids devote to digital entertainment and “social media” has skyrocketed. Where do they find the time despite “more hours of instruction and more homework”?

    Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel.

    Seems to work well among upper crust women.

    As with any virtuous cycle (e.g. chastity) things were better when there was shaming against violating the norms and the lower classes tried their darndest to emulate the upper class rather than setting social trends, let alone being tolerated.

    To put bluntly, much of social dissatisfaction today comes from the fact that people do dumb things and expect rewards.

    especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.

    You can always hope, eh? 🙂

    Caloric intake is and has been “adaptive” only on a J-curve. Too little, people malfunction (women don’t get periods, for example) and too much, people also malfunction (female fertility craters – it’s one of the first things fertility specialists tell women who have trouble getting pregnant- “Lose some weight”).

  55. @Rosie

    Sounds like an IQ + conscientiousness test.

    I think that’s called life.
     

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic, and people can't help it they have no time to go to the gym. Seriously, when you work ten hours a day, including commute time, sit at a desk all day, and still have to cook, clean, and take care of kids at the end of the day, you're not going to have an active lifestyle.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/359582

    Concordance for overweight or obesity is twice as high for monozygotic twins as for dizygotic twins.

    But cleaning is exercise. Unless you have a robot vacuum, and even then don’t you have to move the furniture out of its way? And calorie input is more important than output. Don’t have to burn it off if it didn’t get in in the first place! I’m not endorsing anorexia, just the French approach:

    In France, three months seems to be the magic number: French women of all ages keep telling me they ‘got back their ligne’ – their figure – by three months post-partum. Audrey, a French journalist, tells me over coffee that she got her figure back right away after both of her pregnancies – one of which was with twins. ‘Of course. It was natural,’ she says. ‘You too, no?’ (…)

    To lose their baby weight, French women seem to do a slightly more intensified version of what they do the rest of the time.

    ‘I pay a lot of attention,’ is how my friend Virginie, a svelte mother of three, explains it to me over lunch one day, as I gorge on a giant bowl of Cambodian noodle soup. Virginie says she never goes on a diet, known in French as a régime. She just pays a lot of attention, some of the time.

    ‘What do you mean?’ I ask Virginie between slurps.

    ‘No bread,’ she says, firmly.

    ‘No bread?’ I repeat, incredulous.

    ‘No bread,’ Virginie says, with steely, calm conviction.

    Virginie doesn’t mean ‘no bread’ ever. She means ‘no bread’ during the week, from Monday to Friday. On the weekends, and on the occasional night out during the week, she says she eats whatever she wants.

    ‘You mean whatever you want in moderation, right?’ I ask.

    ‘No, I eat whatever I want,’ she says, with that conviction again.

    This is similar to what Mireille Guiliano prescribes in French Women Don’t Get Fat. (Guiliano suggests taking just one day off, and even then not overdoing it too much.) But it’s inspiring to see someone who’s actually implementing this, evidently with great success. I also like the neutral, pragmatic formulation ‘paying attention’ rather than the guilt-laden English ‘being good’ (and its opposites: ‘cheating’ and ‘being bad’).

    Virginie says this way of eating is an open secret among women in Paris. ‘Everyone you see who is thin’ – she draws an imaginary line down her small frame – ‘pays very close attention’. When Virginie feels like she’s put on a few pounds, she pays closer attention still. (My friend Christine, the French journalist, later sums up this system very succinctly: ‘Women in Paris don’t eat very much.’)

    https://readonlinenovel.net/book-reader/french-children-dont-throw-food

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But cleaning is exercise.
     
    Not really. It barely raised your heart rate. The most you can say is that it burns more calories than watching TV. Mostly it just makes your feet and joints ache.
  56. @Charles Pewitt
    Teddy Cruz has tried to use the Orson Welles Beard Strategy to conceal his fat, bloated face. The Orson Welles Beard Strategy is used by obese, bloated men to create the illusion of a jawline using beard hair instead of an actual jawline created by the jaw bone.

    Orson Welles grew a beard to regain his jawline after decades of drinking booze and eating fattening food bloated his face out like a bastard. Teddy Cruz has taken to the Orson Welles Beard Strategy to conceal the fact that Teddy Cruz is a bloated Goldman Sachs husband.

    Many Canadians, such as Teddy Cruz, find it shockingly easy to gain unsightly weight after they hit 45 years old.

    As part of a good will gesture with our friends to the North, Canada, I will pledge to repatriate Teddy Cruz back to Canada when I am elected president of the USA. Teddy Cruz goes back whether or not the Canadians want him! That's the main difference between Trump and me, I don't give a damn what these other nations do, I'll act act unilaterally on behalf of the USA to advance and protect our interests.

    Fifty-Four Forty Or Fight!

    Teddy Cruz Back To Canada!

    We don’t want him, thanks!

  57. @Rosie

    Making “fat shaming” culturally acceptable is the only way I know to turn it around.
     
    That's because you need to learn to think more creatively about finding solutions that are clearly societal in origin, as evidenced by the scope of the problem. Fat shaming might help some, but it has the substantial disadvantage of being cruel. Now, I would submit that there are any number of alternatives to fat-shaming that could be tried.

    First of all, schools are attempting to mask societal cognitive decline with a more-is-better approach to education. More hours of instruction and more homework means less recess, less PE, less time for youth sports, etc.

    Some here claim that diet rather than physical activity is the key to weight control, but I find this puzzling. Diet and exercise must be in balance, and the less exercise we get, the harder it is to maintain that balance, especially for people who have a healthy appetite, which was almost certainly adaptive until very recently, and will no doubt be again.

    Yes, it (obesity and other so called lifestyle diseases) is largely dietary.

    But to your point, “diet” is a nebulous term, as it isn’t just food but also total caloric intake, the macronutrient content and ratio, micronutrient content and quality, and other cofactors like hydration and electrolyte balance.

    All of these things are also subject to individuation based on genetic and genetic expression that can be somewhat rigid but also include a number of factors reactive to diet, sleep, activity, and other environmental cues.

    Genetic dispositions vis a vis hormones that influence hunger, satiety, glucose/insulin response etc are all hige issues for some people, which sets them on a course toward obesity. But that is the minority.

    The culprit seems to be the combination of increased sugar (carbohydrate) intake as a % of total calories, total caloric intake increases, and the role of inflammation – which is highly associated with sugar and poor gut bacteria health.

    The sugar/carbohydrate intake (very high) in conjunction with lower quality fats found in processed foods is the main driver. The war on saturated fats is misguided when not conjoined with a war on sugar.

    Also, the gut microbiome health also plays a huge role in obesity, diabetes, heart and vascular diseases as well as suspected roles in cognitive disorders like ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, and Alzheimer’s.

    The gut-brain connection and the systemic chronic inflammation response is where most of our modern health issues will be borne out in the coming years.

    Obesity is way up. Its not just sedentary life, though that is also a factor.

    The pareto of “activity” means you get most of the benefits from a very low baseline level of activity; It really takes very little regular moderate (30 min of brisk walking 2x per week can be enough) activity to get most of the benefits in terms of preventative health.

    Walking 15 min after meals vis a vis digestive health and glycemic response is is also well founded.

    The idea that people suddenly have no time to source and prepare whole foods (not processed ‘feed’) or go for a walk is a cultural myth. Its a matter of priorities. But if someone has no time for that, then simply cutting processed sugars, grains, and poly fats would work wonders.

    And this doesnt even touch periodic fasting, which requires no extra work or shopping.

    Tl;dr The west is addicted to sugar. Until nutrition is forced thru the gateway of addiction and approached as such, big pharma and big ag will keep winning.

    • Agree: Travis
  58. @Johann Ricke

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.
     
    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60's, so it's not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else's fault. It's high fructose corn syrup. It's carbs. It's big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.

    The journal JAMA Internal Medicine found in a recent study that we now receive 15% of our calories in added sugars. Sugar consumption has tripled between 1950 and today. Not all fat comes from meat so you can decrease fat consumption while increasing meat consumption. According to the USDA, fat consumption dropped from 45% of calories in 1965 to 35% in 1995. Butter consumption dropped by half between 1950 and 2000. Egg consumption dropped. The low fat diet pushed by the government caused people to stay away from healthy fats like monounsaturated fats and omega 3 fats in things like olive oil, fish and nuts. We do eat much more but saying we eat more then leads to the question of why we eat much more. I believe in personal responsibility for one’s dietary choices too but you have to be aware that dietary choices are influenced by the relative costs of various foods and the dietary recommendations passed out by trusted health authorities and the types of food eaten can affect the amount of food eaten.

  59. @Johann Ricke

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.
     
    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60's, so it's not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else's fault. It's high fructose corn syrup. It's carbs. It's big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.

    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It’s lower in fat but it’s higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. … The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it’s highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What’s really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it’s become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That’s because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that’s somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.
     
    I'd like to believe this narrative, except for the fact that the really fat people I know are mostly dairy and meat eaters. They just eat a lot of dairy and meat. In fact, all the fat people I know are practically on the paleo diet, where they've cut out every carb they can from their diet. Whereas all the thin people I know are on mostly carb diets.
    , @Rosie

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.
     
    Travis, my experience is very much in line with your view. Avoiding fat just makes me hungrier for more carbs.
    , @Johann Ricke
    Ever wonder why Brits are thinner than Americans? Because a lunch sandwich looks like this:



    Whereas here, a lunch sandwich looks like this:



    But they are gaining, as restaurant portion sizes start catching up to the US:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/10/britain-sixth-fattest-nation-world-rising-faster-united-states/
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I think the most important thing is to stick with natural food. If it goes bad, you can eat it. If you can pronounce the ingredients, you can eat it.

    Fat is clearly very health. Olives oil, fish, milk, yogurt, coconut oil are all extremely healthy. It also helps the skin.

    The best example is the Mediterranean diet. Everybody I know on the Med diet eats like kings, extremely high in fat and calories, plus wine, yet have beautiful, moist skin and never get fat beyond the gut. When you see Europeans, you notice they are never fat apart from the belly. Americans get fat all over. White people can have beautiful skin, but unfortunately the majority don't eat enough fats to get this way. Only by eating a high fat diet of cheese, fish, oils and (wine) can you keep this nice skin.

    Basically - fuck the experts. My ancestors lived long and healthy lifespans despite their backbreaking field work. Grandpaw is 95 and going strong. They ate eggs, milk, meat, whatever fish they could catch, and root vegetables. The (((experts))) will send us on a path that is not natural and is not healthy, but is good for profits.

    , @Johann Ricke
    Pret A Manger (UK) sandwich:
    https://media.timeout.com/images/102537516/380/285/image.jpg

    Subway (US) sandwich:
    https://www.subway.com/ns/images/menu/USA/ENG/[email protected]jpg
  60. And there are bit a few resolved physicians to challenge the trend.

    One that began in the 1950’s and the shift into into higher production yields in the 1970’s with additives (i.e. glucose)accelerated that the harm.

    Dr. Atkins paved that trail by going public about carbohydrates in a manner no else had.

  61. @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    I’d like to believe this narrative, except for the fact that the really fat people I know are mostly dairy and meat eaters. They just eat a lot of dairy and meat. In fact, all the fat people I know are practically on the paleo diet, where they’ve cut out every carb they can from their diet. Whereas all the thin people I know are on mostly carb diets.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    I observe something similar. A lot of thin people I know eat bread for breakfast, bread for lunch, cake in the afternoon and spaghetti for dinner. But they move and they just never eat to much. Obese people just tend to eat to much of everything.
    , @Prodigal son
    Fat people lie about their diets....paleo diets are difficult to maintain - very few carbs , no milk , no cheese, no potatoes, no rice, no wheat, no oats...

    Two obese guys lived in my fraternity house...they were always dieting and attempted to follow the recommended diets of the time , which was low fat and high carb. Fat free cookies was a favorite of them.

    In my twenties I lived shared a house with 4 people. One girl was obese...she was a vegetarian.

    When my best friend became a vegetarian we were surprised that he gained 20 gradually became fat.
  62. My old self was 5′ 7″ and 310 lbs. of flab. Two years I decided to something about it. Today, I self-identify as 6’2 and 200 lbs. of muscle. Looks good, feels great. Tho too many people still identify me as a fatty. Very annoying.

  63. @Twinkie

    Not really. Proneness to weight gain is substantially genetic
     
    Dumb comment. IQ and conscientiousness are also “substantially genetic.” Most, perhaps all, personality traits are inherited + environmental, usually 50-50 with some variations.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.

    Dumb comment.

    You’re an asshole.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.

    Genetics and environment work together. Before Whites came to America, I understand there was no alcoholism among the Red Indians. Obviously, that doesn’t mean Indians are not genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Rather, an environmental change exposed a genetic weakness that was always there.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.

    I never said they didn’t. Lots of things correlate with lots of other things. That doesn’t mean you can make assumptions about individuals, as you implied.

    Whites differ tremendously from each other in our proneness to weight gain, so limiting the inquiry to Whites only does not control for genetics. Mediterranean Whites are much more obesity resistant than Nordic whites, presumably because the latter had to withstand long winter food shortages.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You’re an asshole.
     
    I knew you were not a lady.
  64. @Twinkie

    I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym.
     
    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese - that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.

    People who seem effortlessly in shape (“They have thin genes!”) usually have a family culture of physical activity. They play sports for fun, walk to shops, play with their kids and dogs in the yard, etc.

    You can see a stark difference even at the playground - moms and dads who sit and stare at their phones the whole time vs. those who climb, hang, and run around with their little ones.

    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese – that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.

    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn’t be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.

    When we say “make it to the gym,” we are not saying it is a chore, but rather a luxury that we don’t always have time for.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn’t be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.
     
    My observations and prescriptions lead to objectively better lives. For everyone. Including you.

    Your constant whining is self-indulgence masked as white advocacy. You want to sleep around, but end up with an honorable husband, you want government to pay for harlots with bastards, you want to eat, eat, eat and somehow magically remain trim, you think you are a great martyr, because you work and have kids, and you complain about having no time (and not having a maid), but write here all the time. Nothing is ever your fault - it’s always something or someone else - and you are always right even in the face of data to the contrary smacking you in the face.

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.

    I feel sorry for your husband and your children.
  65. @Toronto Russian
    But cleaning is exercise. Unless you have a robot vacuum, and even then don't you have to move the furniture out of its way? And calorie input is more important than output. Don't have to burn it off if it didn't get in in the first place! I'm not endorsing anorexia, just the French approach:

    In France, three months seems to be the magic number: French women of all ages keep telling me they ‘got back their ligne’ – their figure – by three months post-partum. Audrey, a French journalist, tells me over coffee that she got her figure back right away after both of her pregnancies – one of which was with twins. ‘Of course. It was natural,’ she says. ‘You too, no?’ (...)

    To lose their baby weight, French women seem to do a slightly more intensified version of what they do the rest of the time.

    ‘I pay a lot of attention,’ is how my friend Virginie, a svelte mother of three, explains it to me over lunch one day, as I gorge on a giant bowl of Cambodian noodle soup. Virginie says she never goes on a diet, known in French as a régime. She just pays a lot of attention, some of the time.

    ‘What do you mean?’ I ask Virginie between slurps.

    ‘No bread,’ she says, firmly.

    ‘No bread?’ I repeat, incredulous.

    ‘No bread,’ Virginie says, with steely, calm conviction.

    Virginie doesn’t mean ‘no bread’ ever. She means ‘no bread’ during the week, from Monday to Friday. On the weekends, and on the occasional night out during the week, she says she eats whatever she wants.

    ‘You mean whatever you want in moderation, right?’ I ask.

    ‘No, I eat whatever I want,’ she says, with that conviction again.

    This is similar to what Mireille Guiliano prescribes in French Women Don’t Get Fat. (Guiliano suggests taking just one day off, and even then not overdoing it too much.) But it’s inspiring to see someone who’s actually implementing this, evidently with great success. I also like the neutral, pragmatic formulation ‘paying attention’ rather than the guilt-laden English ‘being good’ (and its opposites: ‘cheating’ and ‘being bad’).

    Virginie says this way of eating is an open secret among women in Paris. ‘Everyone you see who is thin’ – she draws an imaginary line down her small frame – ‘pays very close attention’. When Virginie feels like she’s put on a few pounds, she pays closer attention still. (My friend Christine, the French journalist, later sums up this system very succinctly: ‘Women in Paris don’t eat very much.’)

    https://readonlinenovel.net/book-reader/french-children-dont-throw-food
     

    But cleaning is exercise.

    Not really. It barely raised your heart rate. The most you can say is that it burns more calories than watching TV. Mostly it just makes your feet and joints ache.

  66. @Michael S
    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming.

    It's not any more "cruel" than giving someone a bad performance review, informing them about their B.O., or staging an intervention for a drug addict. People need to know the truth about themselves, and shielding them from it can only make their problems worse.

    Moreover, most people tend to follow whatever is socially acceptable. Obesity definitely correlates with social acceptance of obesity.

    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming

    Yes, there is. It’s a pharmaceutical called phentermine. It is a powerful appetite suppressant that enables at- risk patients to bring their caloric intake into balance with their energy expenditures, if they are motivated. There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don’t care about finding and using a solution that actually works.

    Obesity us either a health crisis, or it isn’t. Why are we denying people health care?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don’t care about finding and using a solution that actually works.
     
    Keep living in the fantasy land where everyone is out to stop you having easy solutions with “moralism.” Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.
    , @Michael S
    Speaking of moralism: this, right here, is why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.

    "Here's a simple solution that's worked for millennia, is highly effective, and costs nothing to implement. Buuuut, it might hurt someone's feelings, so instead of that, let's spend billions of dollars on unproven, barely-understood interventions that don't address the underlying causes and whose long-term side effects on both individuals and society are completely unknown. Because feelings!"

    Stop making excuses and start making better lifestyle choices. Eating healthy is actually cheaper than eating fast food. I work upwards of 10-12 hours a day and still manage to make time to eat properly and work out 4-5 times a week. What's your excuse?

    Obesity isn't a health crisis, it's a responsibility crisis that happens to leads to poor health outcomes. It would still be a huge social problem even if there were no direct health side-effects, because fertility. Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won't lead to people making better decisions, it'll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.
  67. @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    Travis, my experience is very much in line with your view. Avoiding fat just makes me hungrier for more carbs.

  68. @Rosie
    One very useful concept from Marx is "the reproduction of labor power," by which he meant the everyday routines that workers have to renew themselves for work, preparing and eating meals, sleeping, taking a shower, doing the laundry, etc. It also includes things like car maintenance, clothes shopping, etc. When you factor all of that in, the modern, full--time salaried worker is essentially a slave. Even your home is not really yours. It's a place you rent from the bank in order to reproduce your labor power for the benefit of your employer.

    Now, a family with only one worker is much better off in this respect, but I would note that it can even be hard for us SAHM to make it to the gym. You can't bring sick kids to the playroom. When you have a large family, someone always sick. As soon as one gets over it, another has come down with it. Still, we can usually manage it.

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren’t doing you much good anyway!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym.
     
    Body weight exercises are more than adequate for the best majority of people.

    I used to do Ashtanga Yoga and Ginastica Natural as complements to my Judo and Jujutsu training. All you need is a floor.

    Pavel Tsatsouline told me once that, setting aside all the BS, you only needed a barbell and some plates for the most functional strength training even for high level athletes - deadlift and one-arm standing press. High weight and low reps. You get functional strength over multiple planes of movement without bulking up - what he called wiry strength.
    , @Rosie

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren’t doing you much good anyway!
     
    I will probably do this eventually, but for now, I'm afraid to have my kids around such equipment. Part of the draw of the gym is the playroom, where you know your kids are safe and having fun while you enjoy your workout.
  69. @Rosie

    Dumb comment.
     
    You're an asshole.

    Note that the data is for non-Hispanic whites only, which means the inherited part is controlled to some extent. The likely culprit is the change in non-inherited variables.
     
    Genetics and environment work together. Before Whites came to America, I understand there was no alcoholism among the Red Indians. Obviously, that doesn't mean Indians are not genetically predisposed to alcoholism. Rather, an environmental change exposed a genetic weakness that was always there.

    Today’s post-modern society is brutal on those with lower IQ, conscientiousness, self-control, and time horizon. They all correlate with being obese.
     
    I never said they didn't. Lots of things correlate with lots of other things. That doesn't mean you can make assumptions about individuals, as you implied.

    Whites differ tremendously from each other in our proneness to weight gain, so limiting the inquiry to Whites only does not control for genetics. Mediterranean Whites are much more obesity resistant than Nordic whites, presumably because the latter had to withstand long winter food shortages.

    You’re an asshole.

    I knew you were not a lady.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I knew you were not a lady.
     
    ROFL, as if I ever claimed to be one!
  70. @res

    I am curious how this will play out with our future Indian overlords though. Unlike Northeast Asians who are trim, hardy, and healthy*, Indians -despite also being “Asian” – are generally overweight and seem to have poor health genes (doctors who treat them have a term – “Indian heart” – because even non-fat Indians seem to be prone to cardiovascular diseases).
     
    Indians seem to be prone to being "skinny fat." I'm having trouble finding research on this, here is one paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21892076

    Short article which links to some studies: https://www.aabc-certification.org/blog/indias-paradox-thin-obese/

    Here is a brief discussion using NHANES data. Unfortunately that lumps all Asians together.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/healthmain/whats-actually-behind-low-asian-american-obesity-rate-8C11323110

    This paper is short, but I found Figure 3 interesting: https://sci-hub.se/10.1038/s41430-017-0036-3

    Here's the caption, but what caught my attention is from the picture I would have guessed the high and low bodyfat authors to be reversed. I would be interested to know if others see that differently.

    Fig. 3 The two authors share a near identical body mass index (BMI), but as dual X-ray absorptiometry imagery shows that is where the similarity ends. The first author (figure, right) has substantially more body fat than the second figure (author, left). Lifestyle may be relevant: the second author runs marathons, whereas the first author’s main exercise is running to beat the closing doors of the elevator in the hospital every morning. The contribution of genes to such adiposity is yet to be determined, although the possible relevance of intrauterine undernutrition is supported by the first author’s low birthweight. The image is a useful reminder of the limitations of BMI as a measure of adiposity across populations

     

    Razib Khan was talking about this the other day on his Brown Pundits pod, er, browncast so I trust it’s legit.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Razib Khan and I (and a few others) discussed this at some length on his blog at one point.
  71. @Screwtape
    You illustrate a point I was going to bring up about tall women: female preference for for taller men, as opposed to male preference for shorter women, is by far the more limiting selection mechanism for the super tall women.

    Men may generally prefer to be taller and bigger than their date, but not as much as women prefer the opposite.

    There are plenty of men (across the height spectrum) who are quite attracted to very tall (taller than them) women.

    If thirsty men are willing to chase heavy women, a tall, relatively lean women will have plenty of suitors as well.

    The real problem is that the super tall women are still women and thus hold firm to their preference for the man to be taller.

    Shorter men tend not to approach/pursue taller women in part due to male preference for smaller women, but a big part of that apprehension is also due to:

    (a) the heightism against them; and (b) the rigidity of female preference for the man to be at least as tall as they (or even “as tall as me when I wear heels”.)

    You see this online all the time. The biggest self-limiting filter for women is male height. Up until a certain age most women will not budge on her preference. And without thinking will click the 6’0” and eliminate 80% of eligible men.

    Its better in real life, of course, because women often misjudge a mans height and relativity plays in as well.

    A shorter man must have good game, outsized confidence, and other readily displayable high status markers to overcome his shortness in the eyes of all women.

    Super tall women are no different tho most learn earlier on that they may have to lower their requirements.

    Even a stud like me at 5’10” is going to have a tough time breaking down the height preference of a 5’10” woman.

    So I may not even bother approaching unless she has other outstanding assets.

    Its just not worth sorting thru all the cultural garbage AND having to hotwire her biological preference. But not approaching is not the same as a lack of attraction or romantic interest. In some ways its similar to why a “10” will get less attention than an “8”, tho nobody would argue that a “10” is not attractive to men.

    Being an athlete for many years, I was around many tall and super tall women.

    From what I saw, the ones with the most rigid height requirement for men were women (aside from the super short) in the tall but not super tall (5’8 to 6’0”) range. Men under 6’0” were invisible to them. They still had enough men taller than them to choose from so they could be picky.

    There was a breakpoint, however, once a woman cracked 6’1 or so. These super tall women were more open to men their height or even a hair under.

    Similar to women over 35 who suddenly unclick the 6’0” filter on their tinders or whatever.

    A good friend is 6’5”. She was a pro basketball player in her youth. She got hit on all the time, airports, restaurants, bars, on the court.

    But she hated “short” guys. FTR i was a short guy to her. It “creeped her out” when they would flirt. Perhaps she sensed some strange fetish thing. But there was no shortage of interest. Just a shortage of 6’5”+ guys to show interest.

    She always dated guys around her height. Shortest probably 6’2”. If not available, she would just not date as opposed to slumming it in the normies range.

    Her options were mostly limited by her preference. But indeed being that tall is very hard on women, mostly because it is hard to project feminine qualities and “feel girly” and all that.

    Because of that, she always wore makeup, kept her hair long and pretty, and wore her heels even tho it made her more giant.

    She ended up marrying a handsome 6’3” pro beach volleyball player who also happened to come from a very well off family. But prior to that she spent a lot of years single. Probably lucky she was in sports to put her in proximity to tall men.

    The tall get taller!

  72. @Rosie

    “Make it to the gym” says much about people who are obese – that they think of physical activity as a bothersome chore that requires (usually) driving to some location.
     
    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn't be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.

    When we say "make it to the gym," we are not saying it is a chore, but rather a luxury that we don't always have time for.

    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn’t be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.

    My observations and prescriptions lead to objectively better lives. For everyone. Including you.

    Your constant whining is self-indulgence masked as white advocacy. You want to sleep around, but end up with an honorable husband, you want government to pay for harlots with bastards, you want to eat, eat, eat and somehow magically remain trim, you think you are a great martyr, because you work and have kids, and you complain about having no time (and not having a maid), but write here all the time. Nothing is ever your fault – it’s always something or someone else – and you are always right even in the face of data to the contrary smacking you in the face.

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.

    I feel sorry for your husband and your children.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.
     
    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock "bastards," and calling our mothers "harlot" courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!
  73. Rosie,

    I agree with a e on most of his comments about exercise equipment you can buy what you need but my caveat would be you need very little. In fact you know there was a time when isometrics was the big deal and this day and age walking is a great exercise to do and it cost practically nothing except for a good pair of a crossover or walking shoes or tennis shoes to do .

    You don’t have to become an exercise freak you don’t have to be extreme sports you can do modern exercises get your heart rate up your body moving your muscles working and changing your diet primarily to something low carb and you will lose weight and get in shape and you can do that without necessarily over stressing either your body or your mind.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Agree. Half an hour of isometrics is great for balance and muscle definition and it has a very low risk of injury to boot.
  74. @Audacious Epigone
    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren't doing you much good anyway!

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym.

    Body weight exercises are more than adequate for the best majority of people.

    I used to do Ashtanga Yoga and Ginastica Natural as complements to my Judo and Jujutsu training. All you need is a floor.

    Pavel Tsatsouline told me once that, setting aside all the BS, you only needed a barbell and some plates for the most functional strength training even for high level athletes – deadlift and one-arm standing press. High weight and low reps. You get functional strength over multiple planes of movement without bulking up – what he called wiry strength.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun. Sprinting is great for maintaining fitness, there's a reason basketball players and soccer players tend to not just be in good shape, but look good, too. Also, if you have an outdoor hoop you get to spend time outside, which ought to be comfortable for the most part if you live above the 35 parallel of latitude.

    Of course, I just want to feel reasonably good, not be a hulking monster, since in my experience most "gym bodies" come off as narcissistic and attention whoring (having big biceps doesn't impress anyone, it just leads to normies thinking that you have misplaced priorities). And said gym bodies have plagued us since circa 1985, which is exactly when Americans began to look......off. Too thin, or too fat, or too muscular. Not like the modest 1940's-early 1980's, when Americans largely looked interchangeable.
    , @Anon

    the best majority
     
    Is there a worst majority?

    Sorry, couldn't resist.
  75. @Audacious Epigone
    Razib Khan was talking about this the other day on his Brown Pundits pod, er, browncast so I trust it's legit.

    Razib Khan and I (and a few others) discussed this at some length on his blog at one point.

  76. @Rosie

    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming
     
    Yes, there is. It's a pharmaceutical called phentermine. It is a powerful appetite suppressant that enables at- risk patients to bring their caloric intake into balance with their energy expenditures, if they are motivated. There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don't care about finding and using a solution that actually works.

    Obesity us either a health crisis, or it isn't. Why are we denying people health care?

    There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don’t care about finding and using a solution that actually works.

    Keep living in the fantasy land where everyone is out to stop you having easy solutions with “moralism.” Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.
     
    I know exactly what phentermine is and what risks it entails. Now, do the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of phentermine or not? That is the only medical question.
  77. When there is a discussion of social, economic, political, cultural, etc. problems, “be more like me” is not really a valuable suggestion.

    • Agree: Rosie
  78. @Twinkie

    There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don’t care about finding and using a solution that actually works.
     
    Keep living in the fantasy land where everyone is out to stop you having easy solutions with “moralism.” Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.

    Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.

    I know exactly what phentermine is and what risks it entails. Now, do the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of phentermine or not? That is the only medical question.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I know exactly what phentermine is and what risks it entails. Now, do the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of phentermine or not?
     
    Sounds like you don’t with your ignorant “moralism” remark. Obese patients often have cardiovascular issues and Phentermine can greatly exacerbate them. It is simply not a viable long-term solution to obesity. Nothing that stimulates the central nervous system is. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology and how the heart works in particular would realize that.
  79. @Twinkie

    Blah, blah, blahnik. You couldn’t be more wrong, and your self-righteous moralizing is as out-of-touch as it is obnoxious.
     
    My observations and prescriptions lead to objectively better lives. For everyone. Including you.

    Your constant whining is self-indulgence masked as white advocacy. You want to sleep around, but end up with an honorable husband, you want government to pay for harlots with bastards, you want to eat, eat, eat and somehow magically remain trim, you think you are a great martyr, because you work and have kids, and you complain about having no time (and not having a maid), but write here all the time. Nothing is ever your fault - it’s always something or someone else - and you are always right even in the face of data to the contrary smacking you in the face.

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.

    I feel sorry for your husband and your children.

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.

    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock “bastards,” and calling our mothers “harlot” courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock “bastards,” and calling our mothers “harlot” courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!
     
    Look up the dictionary.

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.
  80. @Twinkie

    You’re an asshole.
     
    I knew you were not a lady.

    I knew you were not a lady.

    ROFL, as if I ever claimed to be one!

  81. It’s better than “I want to continue to be me, but want a different result.” And “Why don’t they let me take drugs for that? And, oh, will someone else be paying for that?”

    One of the great ills of today is that shame has disappeared and has been replaced by an aggressive push for those things that are immoral, ugly, and self-indulgent. Meanwhile the elites don’t actually follow those trends (e.g. tech execs who keep their children away from electronic screens).

    Frankly, we need elites who care about those whom they rule – indeed care enough that they’ll speak out against these negative trends and confidently say “Don’t do that – do what I do instead.” Rather than engaging in this push for “not judging” and even paying lip service to celebrating the stupid and the ugly, all the while segregating themselves and their children away from what they publicly embrace.

  82. @Rosie

    Good grief, phentermine’s long-term use is restricted, because its long-term use increases the chance of fatal heart problems and a whole suite of related issues. It’s similar to amphetamine. Look up the darn WebMD if you can’t be bothered to speak to a physician.
     
    I know exactly what phentermine is and what risks it entails. Now, do the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of phentermine or not? That is the only medical question.

    I know exactly what phentermine is and what risks it entails. Now, do the risks of obesity outweigh the risks of phentermine or not?

    Sounds like you don’t with your ignorant “moralism” remark. Obese patients often have cardiovascular issues and Phentermine can greatly exacerbate them. It is simply not a viable long-term solution to obesity. Nothing that stimulates the central nervous system is. Anyone with a basic understanding of biology and how the heart works in particular would realize that.

  83. @Rosie

    I’ve been far more courteous to you than you ever deserved, but even I have limits.
     
    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock "bastards," and calling our mothers "harlot" courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!

    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock “bastards,” and calling our mothers “harlot” courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!

    Look up the dictionary.

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.
     
    Nobody here is going to fall for your bait-and-humiliate tactics. Besides, you didn't insult just me and my mother. You insulted tens of millions of White people. Now GFY.
  84. @Rosie

    So far, no one has actually discovered an intervention that works as well as fat-shaming
     
    Yes, there is. It's a pharmaceutical called phentermine. It is a powerful appetite suppressant that enables at- risk patients to bring their caloric intake into balance with their energy expenditures, if they are motivated. There is an arbitrary restriction of three months length for a prescription. Why is that? Moralism. People enjoy feeling that they are morally better than others, and so don't care about finding and using a solution that actually works.

    Obesity us either a health crisis, or it isn't. Why are we denying people health care?

    Speaking of moralism: this, right here, is why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.

    “Here’s a simple solution that’s worked for millennia, is highly effective, and costs nothing to implement. Buuuut, it might hurt someone’s feelings, so instead of that, let’s spend billions of dollars on unproven, barely-understood interventions that don’t address the underlying causes and whose long-term side effects on both individuals and society are completely unknown. Because feelings!”

    Stop making excuses and start making better lifestyle choices. Eating healthy is actually cheaper than eating fast food. I work upwards of 10-12 hours a day and still manage to make time to eat properly and work out 4-5 times a week. What’s your excuse?

    Obesity isn’t a health crisis, it’s a responsibility crisis that happens to leads to poor health outcomes. It would still be a huge social problem even if there were no direct health side-effects, because fertility. Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won’t lead to people making better decisions, it’ll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    What’s your excuse?
     
    I don't need an excuse. I'm not obese. I don't have to work outside the home, so I can make it to the gym on a regular basis, though not as often as I'd like. I'm not going to judge women who don't have that luxury.


    Here’s a simple solution that’s worked for millennia,
     
    Because we've always done it that way...



    Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won’t lead to people making better decisions, it’ll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.
     
    Sorry, but the facts are not on your side. Phentermine is cheap and effective. It doesn't help with compulsive, recreational eating, but it helps tremendously with appetite control.
    , @Twinkie

    why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.
     
    Not all women, to be sure, but women are more prone to emotionalism. My wife is fully on board with disenfranchising women. She says women should get votes through their husbands.
  85. A rare moment of sentience?

    FOX needs Trump far more than the other way around. If you recall the campaign, remember how much free air time he got on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

    Murdoch is not our friend, one of the bitterest pills to get the average Boomer conservative to swallow.

    The best thing the average conservative voter can do for the cause is to cancel their cable subscription, and delete their Big Social accounts.

    add-on: The fact the Krassensteins can’t be blocked is Anarcho-Tyranny example #1

    This is the worst kind of poasting. Kirk will never be deplatformed, and this adulation bait feeds an ego that needs a massive dose of humble pie.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    What's Kirk trying to prove? Trump is Carter 2.0. He has little clout with anyone to accomplish anything, America is clearly deteriorating under his regime (immigration rages out of control, the deficit balloons further, we still don't have the factories back, wages still stink, personal debt keeps piling up, etc.). His "signature" accomplishments consist of:

    1) Cutting taxes on rich people (gee, what a concept)
    2)Half-assed health care "reform" (people are no longer getting dinged for not purchasing insurance, but there's not much else that's been changed)
    3) Electing Reaganite judges, who any other Republican would've sponsored anyway.

    Now the main difference between 1980 and 2020 is that America is now full of partisan retards who will support their party's standard bearer on the grounds that the other party is definitely worse (boy, your side must suck if your only sales tactic is that the alternative is worse). Whereas in the 1950's-1980's, Americans on both the Left and the Right typically got bored with one party being in power too long, and were willing to give the other party a shot, with very little bitterness that my party didn't get 15 straight terms. Liberals accepted Eisenhower, Nixon (pre-Watergate), and Reagan. Conservatives accepted Truman and Kennedy. Beginning with Clinton, we started to see a lot of seething and idiotic anger and jealousy from conservatives (even though Clinton was, on economic issues, much more conservative than Eisenhower or Nixon), it's tough to tell if this is a zeitgeist issue or a generational issue (with Boomers always being controversial). It got even worse with liberals and GW Bush, with the annoyingly petty refusal to even acknowledge his official presidential status. The "good" news about Obama and Trump is that only the most committed partisan's are even attempting to defend them, at this point. But sadly, the number of partisans is much greater now than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

    Also, saying that Trump "survived" (for the sake of what?) says nothing about his policies, or the effect of them. I'm afraid that chest thumping about your candidate being cool, or being a badass, has nothing at all to do with the material realities of the society we're living in. News flash: presidents are judged based on the societies they create via the policies they support. We don't care how "cool" a president is. One of Bill Clinton's main strategists pointed out that Trump won via his trade policy appealing to the Rust-Belt. Nothing more, nothing less. Had Trump said nothing about the shuttered factories, he probably loses (and at any rate, ft the Dems had run any one less clueless than Hilary, then the Dems win in 2016, since the GOP is still the Reagan zombie party).

    Virtually everyone agrees that this country has slid way down the tubes since the Patriot Act was passed. Virtually everyone agrees that Jimmy Carter really, really, really sucked (being a neo-liberal and an evangelical before most Americans were willing to embrace these things). We're still exploiting nostalgia for the 1950's-early 1990's, because the last 15-25 years have seen us plummet into a new Gilded Age.
  86. @Michael S
    Speaking of moralism: this, right here, is why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.

    "Here's a simple solution that's worked for millennia, is highly effective, and costs nothing to implement. Buuuut, it might hurt someone's feelings, so instead of that, let's spend billions of dollars on unproven, barely-understood interventions that don't address the underlying causes and whose long-term side effects on both individuals and society are completely unknown. Because feelings!"

    Stop making excuses and start making better lifestyle choices. Eating healthy is actually cheaper than eating fast food. I work upwards of 10-12 hours a day and still manage to make time to eat properly and work out 4-5 times a week. What's your excuse?

    Obesity isn't a health crisis, it's a responsibility crisis that happens to leads to poor health outcomes. It would still be a huge social problem even if there were no direct health side-effects, because fertility. Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won't lead to people making better decisions, it'll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.

    What’s your excuse?

    I don’t need an excuse. I’m not obese. I don’t have to work outside the home, so I can make it to the gym on a regular basis, though not as often as I’d like. I’m not going to judge women who don’t have that luxury.

    Here’s a simple solution that’s worked for millennia,

    Because we’ve always done it that way…

    Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won’t lead to people making better decisions, it’ll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.

    Sorry, but the facts are not on your side. Phentermine is cheap and effective. It doesn’t help with compulsive, recreational eating, but it helps tremendously with appetite control.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Phentermine is cheap and effective... it helps tremendously with appetite control.
     
    So is Meth.

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?
    , @Michael S
    Ha ha, it's a little late for you to start pretending that this isn't personal. It's obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.

    Nobody needs to exercise, although most people should for reasons other than weight. The obese just need to control their calorie intake. This idea about maintaining a healthy weight being a "luxury" is indefensible BS, especially for anyone who's actually seen how obese people generally live.

    I have distant family - very distant, let me say - who are morbidly obese. Some of them have literally gone through multiple gastric bypass surgeries. They refuse to change their habits. Everyone in their household is obese, and yet their own close cousins who grew up in different households are not. It's not genetic, but it is familial, as the family are often enablers of such poor lifestyle choices. These people don't need drugs, they need shame and lots of it.

    I don't care if you're not going to judge these people - sorry, these women, as you apparently singled out the female sex for exoneration. I will judge them, and so will most sane people. I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral. At least fat men can bring other qualities to the table in a relationship. The vanity and destructiveness of fat-acceptance freaks like Tess Holiday knows no bounds, and literally all of them are women.

    You reference "facts" and yet you have none. You've literally done nothing but moralize, and then accuse others of doing the same, so right back at ya. I think it's high time you got off the internet and onto an exercise bike.
  87. @Twinkie

    You consider calling those of us who were born out-of-wedlock “bastards,” and calling our mothers “harlot” courtesy? What a ridiculous lightweight you are. GFY!
     
    Look up the dictionary.

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.

    Nobody here is going to fall for your bait-and-humiliate tactics. Besides, you didn’t insult just me and my mother. You insulted tens of millions of White people. Now GFY.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Nobody here is going to fall for your bait-and-humiliate tactics.
     
    This is so typical of people with poor arguments. Stop trying to enlist others. You don’t represent anybody, but you. And whether I am right or wrong has nothing to do with how many people approve or not.

    Besides, you didn’t insult just me and my mother. You insulted tens of millions of White people.
     
    By your logic, I insulted blacks more since they have a higher bastardy rate.

    Anyone who is not stupid can see my remark has nothing to do with race, but morality. This is sad and pathetic, trying to weave race into the argument, because you can’t reason. Per Anatoly Karlin, “only the best people.”

    Now GFY.
     
    I don’t speak Millennial, so I don’t know what that means.
  88. @Audacious Epigone
    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren't doing you much good anyway!

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren’t doing you much good anyway!

    I will probably do this eventually, but for now, I’m afraid to have my kids around such equipment. Part of the draw of the gym is the playroom, where you know your kids are safe and having fun while you enjoy your workout.

    • Replies: @Anon
    See "Twinkie" in reply to the original comment. You don't need heavy weights to stay fit. Most of what you might reasonably consider using is perfectly safe around children; a yoga mat, for instance, though even it is hardly a necessity even for yoga.

    Other advice on this thread is good: find something fun, and do that. Some good examples were given so I'll not repeat them.
  89. i don’t think the data is accurate. but maybe the graph is attempting to compress too much class stratification into only 2 bars.

    the upper class is still taller than the underclass and definitely by more than 1 inch on average. although the underclass has gotten taller over time with access to more food and cheap calories. in fact the underclass getting access to as much food and calories as they need for maximum growth is probably the main driver of population increases in height and intelligence. and the underlying mechanism of both, bone growth.

    so heights might be closer now, but the dumb people are clearly still shorter on average, as they have been for hundreds of years. we’re probably at the end of a century long process now, with the body of almost every american getting as much input as it needs to grow the bones as big as it can. now the incoming calories are being diverted into adipose tissue, and the people are growing outward instead of further upward. this bone growth process is probably entering the same plateau for skull size and skull volume, the thing that was keeping phenotypic intelligence increasing, while genotypic intelligence is slowly decreasing.

    also the 1 percenter extreme high end upper class people are even taller than the rest of the upper class. maybe one inch taller on average. you can see this pretty easily by visiting las vegas, and walking around the high roller hotels and casinos, where suddenly every man is 6 feet tall or more, as if you’ve been transported to the netherlands. exempting the east asian gamblers of course.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    75% of our Boomer presidents have been unusually tall (with Bush the runt at 5-11.5), which suggest several things:

    1)3/4 of them (Bill Clinton being the exception) had fairly affluent backgrounds, which enabled them to eat well and avoid disease (and their mothers weren't getting drunk or being beaten while pregnant), thus making tall stature more likely.

    2) Clinton, Obama, and Trump (before his current senility began to set in) all seem highly intelligent, if not conscientious (Clinton is a borderline sociopath, while Trump is egocentric and has pretty bad ADD; Obama is mostly an aw-shucks puppet). Bush isn't stupid, but he clearly is no genius either, and wouldn't have gotten far without his family brand.

    Basically, being tall is generally evidence of a healthy upbringing and/or class privilege, and also has some positive relationship with intelligence. However, it's evident that class privilege has become very important to political success in America, with not just elected presidents of the last 30 years generally coming from an affluent background in post-war America (and therefore, typically tall), but even recent failed candidates (such as Romney and McCain) came from affluent families. It is interesting that Bush, the most mediocre of recent presidents, needed the support he got from his 6'-2" dad in order to have a career.

    Long story short, we seriously need to do more to bust up the aristocracy we've developed. Intelligence is heritable to some degree, but the fact that our best Boomer president* (Bill Clinton) was the one who came from the poorest family ought to be a cautionary tale about letting nepostim run amok.

    *When was the last time we had a balanced budget? The 1990's, before Bush jacked up military spending and then cut taxes.
    , @Anonymous Jew
    Probably partially true, but there are a lot of short Jewish elites, billionaires included. Since Kraft was just in the news I noticed he's only 5-7. Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.

    I knew a very tall Jew who rowed for the Ivy League. He said all their coxswains were either Puerto Rican or Jewish.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The lower class and upper class samples are pretty small so I grouped them in with the much larger working and middle class samples.
  90. @Twinkie

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym.
     
    Body weight exercises are more than adequate for the best majority of people.

    I used to do Ashtanga Yoga and Ginastica Natural as complements to my Judo and Jujutsu training. All you need is a floor.

    Pavel Tsatsouline told me once that, setting aside all the BS, you only needed a barbell and some plates for the most functional strength training even for high level athletes - deadlift and one-arm standing press. High weight and low reps. You get functional strength over multiple planes of movement without bulking up - what he called wiry strength.

    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun. Sprinting is great for maintaining fitness, there’s a reason basketball players and soccer players tend to not just be in good shape, but look good, too. Also, if you have an outdoor hoop you get to spend time outside, which ought to be comfortable for the most part if you live above the 35 parallel of latitude.

    Of course, I just want to feel reasonably good, not be a hulking monster, since in my experience most “gym bodies” come off as narcissistic and attention whoring (having big biceps doesn’t impress anyone, it just leads to normies thinking that you have misplaced priorities). And said gym bodies have plagued us since circa 1985, which is exactly when Americans began to look……off. Too thin, or too fat, or too muscular. Not like the modest 1940’s-early 1980’s, when Americans largely looked interchangeable.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun.
     
    Yup. I have a passion for combat sports. Even though they are grueling, I enjoy them greatly, because they engage both my mind and body. They are often described as kinetic chess. They never feel like “workouts,” because I’m busy trying to avoid getting my head taken off and trying to do the same to my training partners. Strength- and conditioning-training, on the other hand... it’s pain and suffering.

    I am a big advocate for physical activities that are mentally engaging. You don’t have to train in something rough like I do. You can do basketball, tennis, or even go running together with friends. Or even walk a dog with your family. On top of all the physical and mental benefits, theses are all also social activities that builds a bond with others.

    My training partners are my brothers-in-arms. My kids and I are very close, because we train together.
  91. @Rosie

    What’s your excuse?
     
    I don't need an excuse. I'm not obese. I don't have to work outside the home, so I can make it to the gym on a regular basis, though not as often as I'd like. I'm not going to judge women who don't have that luxury.


    Here’s a simple solution that’s worked for millennia,
     
    Because we've always done it that way...



    Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won’t lead to people making better decisions, it’ll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.
     
    Sorry, but the facts are not on your side. Phentermine is cheap and effective. It doesn't help with compulsive, recreational eating, but it helps tremendously with appetite control.

    Phentermine is cheap and effective… it helps tremendously with appetite control.

    So is Meth.

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?
     
    An arrogant know-it-all to boot.
  92. @Rosie

    And calling someone “an asshole” forfeits you the right to polite company.
     
    Nobody here is going to fall for your bait-and-humiliate tactics. Besides, you didn't insult just me and my mother. You insulted tens of millions of White people. Now GFY.

    Nobody here is going to fall for your bait-and-humiliate tactics.

    This is so typical of people with poor arguments. Stop trying to enlist others. You don’t represent anybody, but you. And whether I am right or wrong has nothing to do with how many people approve or not.

    Besides, you didn’t insult just me and my mother. You insulted tens of millions of White people.

    By your logic, I insulted blacks more since they have a higher bastardy rate.

    Anyone who is not stupid can see my remark has nothing to do with race, but morality. This is sad and pathetic, trying to weave race into the argument, because you can’t reason. Per Anatoly Karlin, “only the best people.”

    Now GFY.

    I don’t speak Millennial, so I don’t know what that means.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  93. @prime noticer
    i don't think the data is accurate. but maybe the graph is attempting to compress too much class stratification into only 2 bars.

    the upper class is still taller than the underclass and definitely by more than 1 inch on average. although the underclass has gotten taller over time with access to more food and cheap calories. in fact the underclass getting access to as much food and calories as they need for maximum growth is probably the main driver of population increases in height and intelligence. and the underlying mechanism of both, bone growth.

    so heights might be closer now, but the dumb people are clearly still shorter on average, as they have been for hundreds of years. we're probably at the end of a century long process now, with the body of almost every american getting as much input as it needs to grow the bones as big as it can. now the incoming calories are being diverted into adipose tissue, and the people are growing outward instead of further upward. this bone growth process is probably entering the same plateau for skull size and skull volume, the thing that was keeping phenotypic intelligence increasing, while genotypic intelligence is slowly decreasing.

    also the 1 percenter extreme high end upper class people are even taller than the rest of the upper class. maybe one inch taller on average. you can see this pretty easily by visiting las vegas, and walking around the high roller hotels and casinos, where suddenly every man is 6 feet tall or more, as if you've been transported to the netherlands. exempting the east asian gamblers of course.

    75% of our Boomer presidents have been unusually tall (with Bush the runt at 5-11.5), which suggest several things:

    1)3/4 of them (Bill Clinton being the exception) had fairly affluent backgrounds, which enabled them to eat well and avoid disease (and their mothers weren’t getting drunk or being beaten while pregnant), thus making tall stature more likely.

    2) Clinton, Obama, and Trump (before his current senility began to set in) all seem highly intelligent, if not conscientious (Clinton is a borderline sociopath, while Trump is egocentric and has pretty bad ADD; Obama is mostly an aw-shucks puppet). Bush isn’t stupid, but he clearly is no genius either, and wouldn’t have gotten far without his family brand.

    Basically, being tall is generally evidence of a healthy upbringing and/or class privilege, and also has some positive relationship with intelligence. However, it’s evident that class privilege has become very important to political success in America, with not just elected presidents of the last 30 years generally coming from an affluent background in post-war America (and therefore, typically tall), but even recent failed candidates (such as Romney and McCain) came from affluent families. It is interesting that Bush, the most mediocre of recent presidents, needed the support he got from his 6′-2″ dad in order to have a career.

    Long story short, we seriously need to do more to bust up the aristocracy we’ve developed. Intelligence is heritable to some degree, but the fact that our best Boomer president* (Bill Clinton) was the one who came from the poorest family ought to be a cautionary tale about letting nepostim run amok.

    *When was the last time we had a balanced budget? The 1990’s, before Bush jacked up military spending and then cut taxes.

  94. @Twinkie

    Phentermine is cheap and effective... it helps tremendously with appetite control.
     
    So is Meth.

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?

    An arrogant know-it-all to boot.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    An arrogant know-it-all to boot.
     

    Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.
     
  95. @Feryl
    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun. Sprinting is great for maintaining fitness, there's a reason basketball players and soccer players tend to not just be in good shape, but look good, too. Also, if you have an outdoor hoop you get to spend time outside, which ought to be comfortable for the most part if you live above the 35 parallel of latitude.

    Of course, I just want to feel reasonably good, not be a hulking monster, since in my experience most "gym bodies" come off as narcissistic and attention whoring (having big biceps doesn't impress anyone, it just leads to normies thinking that you have misplaced priorities). And said gym bodies have plagued us since circa 1985, which is exactly when Americans began to look......off. Too thin, or too fat, or too muscular. Not like the modest 1940's-early 1980's, when Americans largely looked interchangeable.

    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun.

    Yup. I have a passion for combat sports. Even though they are grueling, I enjoy them greatly, because they engage both my mind and body. They are often described as kinetic chess. They never feel like “workouts,” because I’m busy trying to avoid getting my head taken off and trying to do the same to my training partners. Strength- and conditioning-training, on the other hand… it’s pain and suffering.

    I am a big advocate for physical activities that are mentally engaging. You don’t have to train in something rough like I do. You can do basketball, tennis, or even go running together with friends. Or even walk a dog with your family. On top of all the physical and mental benefits, theses are all also social activities that builds a bond with others.

    My training partners are my brothers-in-arms. My kids and I are very close, because we train together.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Tennis is a good one, too (tennis and racquetball, in the 1980's, helped blunt the rising trends of obese or steroid abusing monsters which were beginning to uglify the populace). But Tennis is more of a time-sink than basketball or soccer (you need to know people who understand tennis and like tennis enough to buy the equipment, whereas basketball and soccer are the sports played casually the most often; baseball has really suffered from the equipment and knowledge requirements, by the time I was a kid in the early 90's touch football, basketball, and even soccer seemed to be getting more popular among kids than sandlot (or cul-de-sac) baseball., and by the 2000's I very rarely saw groups of kids playing baseball anymore (it's more common to see dads training their sons). The 1994 strike really alienated Millennials (and their Boomer parents) from baseball, and this was when the NBA and NFL were rapidly gaining popularity.
  96. @Michael S
    Speaking of moralism: this, right here, is why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.

    "Here's a simple solution that's worked for millennia, is highly effective, and costs nothing to implement. Buuuut, it might hurt someone's feelings, so instead of that, let's spend billions of dollars on unproven, barely-understood interventions that don't address the underlying causes and whose long-term side effects on both individuals and society are completely unknown. Because feelings!"

    Stop making excuses and start making better lifestyle choices. Eating healthy is actually cheaper than eating fast food. I work upwards of 10-12 hours a day and still manage to make time to eat properly and work out 4-5 times a week. What's your excuse?

    Obesity isn't a health crisis, it's a responsibility crisis that happens to leads to poor health outcomes. It would still be a huge social problem even if there were no direct health side-effects, because fertility. Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won't lead to people making better decisions, it'll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.

    why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.

    Not all women, to be sure, but women are more prone to emotionalism. My wife is fully on board with disenfranchising women. She says women should get votes through their husbands.

    • Replies: @Michael S
    Fair enough, and a hearty bro-slap for choosing wisely.

    Of course, the most "based" married women are almost always slightly more blue-pilled and liberal than their husbands, so I still stand by my conclusion. I don't think I've ever observed a relationship where a woman pulls her man to the right; either the man pulls her to the right, or she pulls him left.
  97. @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    Ever wonder why Brits are thinner than Americans? Because a lunch sandwich looks like this:

    Whereas here, a lunch sandwich looks like this:

    But they are gaining, as restaurant portion sizes start catching up to the US:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/10/britain-sixth-fattest-nation-world-rising-faster-united-states/

  98. @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    I think the most important thing is to stick with natural food. If it goes bad, you can eat it. If you can pronounce the ingredients, you can eat it.

    Fat is clearly very health. Olives oil, fish, milk, yogurt, coconut oil are all extremely healthy. It also helps the skin.

    The best example is the Mediterranean diet. Everybody I know on the Med diet eats like kings, extremely high in fat and calories, plus wine, yet have beautiful, moist skin and never get fat beyond the gut. When you see Europeans, you notice they are never fat apart from the belly. Americans get fat all over. White people can have beautiful skin, but unfortunately the majority don’t eat enough fats to get this way. Only by eating a high fat diet of cheese, fish, oils and (wine) can you keep this nice skin.

    Basically – fuck the experts. My ancestors lived long and healthy lifespans despite their backbreaking field work. Grandpaw is 95 and going strong. They ate eggs, milk, meat, whatever fish they could catch, and root vegetables. The (((experts))) will send us on a path that is not natural and is not healthy, but is good for profits.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Usually it's the fitness "gurus" who have the worst looking skin. Excessive fat cutting from the diet robs your body of important nutrients, because fatty products contain important stuff, plus that fat allows your body to more easily absorb good stuff.

    As soon as anyone tells you to go for the "lean" diet, and eliminate beef (or meat altogether), tell them to fuck off. It's better to be slightly fat, and have nice skin and hair, than it is to have no body fat with jaundiced and wrinkly skin. Honestly, I think most gym gurus are autistic, because they think that big muscles and no body fat are the only things that people notice. In reality, many people who've never worked out actually have better looking skin, because they're not starving themselves to look more "cut".

    And the verdict on "extreme" diets is not good. Our bodies are better off consuming basic staples of traditional Western diets, rather than emphasizing fruits/veggies and carbs (getting too much of the wrong kinds of calories WRT sugar/carbs, or needlessly starving ourselves of the nutrients offered by normal animal products).
  99. @Rosie

    What’s your excuse?
     
    I don't need an excuse. I'm not obese. I don't have to work outside the home, so I can make it to the gym on a regular basis, though not as often as I'd like. I'm not going to judge women who don't have that luxury.


    Here’s a simple solution that’s worked for millennia,
     
    Because we've always done it that way...



    Giving people free and/or unlimited diet pills won’t lead to people making better decisions, it’ll actually lead to worse decisions and more people becoming/staying obese.
     
    Sorry, but the facts are not on your side. Phentermine is cheap and effective. It doesn't help with compulsive, recreational eating, but it helps tremendously with appetite control.

    Ha ha, it’s a little late for you to start pretending that this isn’t personal. It’s obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.

    Nobody needs to exercise, although most people should for reasons other than weight. The obese just need to control their calorie intake. This idea about maintaining a healthy weight being a “luxury” is indefensible BS, especially for anyone who’s actually seen how obese people generally live.

    I have distant family – very distant, let me say – who are morbidly obese. Some of them have literally gone through multiple gastric bypass surgeries. They refuse to change their habits. Everyone in their household is obese, and yet their own close cousins who grew up in different households are not. It’s not genetic, but it is familial, as the family are often enablers of such poor lifestyle choices. These people don’t need drugs, they need shame and lots of it.

    I don’t care if you’re not going to judge these people – sorry, these women, as you apparently singled out the female sex for exoneration. I will judge them, and so will most sane people. I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral. At least fat men can bring other qualities to the table in a relationship. The vanity and destructiveness of fat-acceptance freaks like Tess Holiday knows no bounds, and literally all of them are women.

    You reference “facts” and yet you have none. You’ve literally done nothing but moralize, and then accuse others of doing the same, so right back at ya. I think it’s high time you got off the internet and onto an exercise bike.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Ha ha, it’s a little late for you to start pretending that this isn’t personal. It’s obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.
     
    In a sense it's personal. I was overweight when I was working outside the home.

    I am very grateful those days are over. Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.


    It’s not genetic,
     
    Maybe if you just keep ignoring the facts, they'll go away.

    I will judge them, and so will most sane people.
     
    And I will judge you for judging them.


    I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral.
     
    Oh. I see.

    You reference “facts” and yet you have none.

     

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?
  100. @Travis
    uring the 1990s, the low-fat craze changed the way Americans eat, and yet they got fatter than ever.

    In the late 1980s reports identified dietary fat as the single most important change that needed to be made in order to improve diet and health. The idea was that if people just reduced the fat content of their diet, they would be improving it.

    the food industry would substitute vegetable trans fats for animal fats in such a profound way, and would also substitute sugars for fats, and keep the calorie content of the products exactly the same. Even junk foods stopped using saturated fats from vegetable sources. Candy bars stopped using coconut oil and started using trans oils because they were not saturated fats like coconut oil. The best example is the Snackwell phenomenon. Snackwell cookies were advertised as no-fat cookies, but they had almost the same number of calories. And in fact if you go to the store today and look at Oreo cookies, they have a reduced-fat Oreo cookie that has the same calories as regular Oreo cookie. It's lower in fat but it's higher in carbohydrates. This campaign to reduce fat in the diet has had some pretty disastrous consequences. ... The reality is that during this campaign for fat-free and reduced-fat products, actual fat consumption did go down, but Americans got much fatter during this period of time. it's highly likely this focus only on fat calories to the neglect of carbohydrate calories has contributed to this epidemic of obesity. We went from being a country that ate about 40% of their calories in fat and 45% carbohydrates, to 34% fat and that over 50% carbohydrates. Conceivably, this belief that set in, that carbohydrates were both heart healthy and the ideal diet

    Whole milk has been banned from schools, children are drinking more Fruit juices and skim milk. Back when I attended grade school in the 70s we all drank whole milk. Juice boxes were not invented yet. Low fat yogurt was not available yet, while even today it is hard to find yogurt made from whole milk. What's really important though is how satisfying a diet is, because we have very complex mechanisms that control our total intake of calories, and it's become apparent that if we have a high-carbohydrate diet, it makes it much more difficult to control our total caloric intake. That's because when we eat refined carbohydrates, we get these swings in blood glucose and insulin that lead to hunger between meals; whereas if we have a diet that's somewhat higher in fat, we tend to be more satisfied over the long run with reduced glucose and insulin spikes, followed by quickly dropping glucose levels which then results in being hungry again.

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.

    Pret A Manger (UK) sandwich:

    Subway (US) sandwich:

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich ("bang for your buck"), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you're chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don't know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John's and Jersey Mike's are way better.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    The bread is the issue in both of these meals.
  101. @Twinkie

    why women should never be allowed to make political decisions.
     
    Not all women, to be sure, but women are more prone to emotionalism. My wife is fully on board with disenfranchising women. She says women should get votes through their husbands.

    Fair enough, and a hearty bro-slap for choosing wisely.

    Of course, the most “based” married women are almost always slightly more blue-pilled and liberal than their husbands, so I still stand by my conclusion. I don’t think I’ve ever observed a relationship where a woman pulls her man to the right; either the man pulls her to the right, or she pulls him left.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I don’t disagree. I pulled my wife rightward, but not by much. We “evolved” together.

    I do, however, know of wives who would not let their husband drift leftward and become swamp creatures. Wives of Justices Thomas and Alito come to mind, as does Mrs. Scalia (though her husband never needed any steeling).

    A good wife strengthens the resolve of her man - witness, famously, Empress Theodora in the Nika riots:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

    Justinian, in despair, considered fleeing, but his wife Theodora is said to have dissuaded him, saying, "Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as empress."[5] Although an escape route across the sea lay open for the emperor, Theodora insisted that she would stay in the city, quoting an ancient saying, "Royalty is a fine burial shroud," or perhaps, "[the royal color] Purple makes a fine winding sheet."[6]

    As Justinian rallied himself
     
  102. @216
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1118317574301863936

    A rare moment of sentience?

    FOX needs Trump far more than the other way around. If you recall the campaign, remember how much free air time he got on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

    Murdoch is not our friend, one of the bitterest pills to get the average Boomer conservative to swallow.

    The best thing the average conservative voter can do for the cause is to cancel their cable subscription, and delete their Big Social accounts.

    add-on: The fact the Krassensteins can't be blocked is Anarcho-Tyranny example #1

    https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1116872326304423936

    This is the worst kind of poasting. Kirk will never be deplatformed, and this adulation bait feeds an ego that needs a massive dose of humble pie.

    What’s Kirk trying to prove? Trump is Carter 2.0. He has little clout with anyone to accomplish anything, America is clearly deteriorating under his regime (immigration rages out of control, the deficit balloons further, we still don’t have the factories back, wages still stink, personal debt keeps piling up, etc.). His “signature” accomplishments consist of:

    1) Cutting taxes on rich people (gee, what a concept)
    2)Half-assed health care “reform” (people are no longer getting dinged for not purchasing insurance, but there’s not much else that’s been changed)
    3) Electing Reaganite judges, who any other Republican would’ve sponsored anyway.

    Now the main difference between 1980 and 2020 is that America is now full of partisan retards who will support their party’s standard bearer on the grounds that the other party is definitely worse (boy, your side must suck if your only sales tactic is that the alternative is worse). Whereas in the 1950’s-1980’s, Americans on both the Left and the Right typically got bored with one party being in power too long, and were willing to give the other party a shot, with very little bitterness that my party didn’t get 15 straight terms. Liberals accepted Eisenhower, Nixon (pre-Watergate), and Reagan. Conservatives accepted Truman and Kennedy. Beginning with Clinton, we started to see a lot of seething and idiotic anger and jealousy from conservatives (even though Clinton was, on economic issues, much more conservative than Eisenhower or Nixon), it’s tough to tell if this is a zeitgeist issue or a generational issue (with Boomers always being controversial). It got even worse with liberals and GW Bush, with the annoyingly petty refusal to even acknowledge his official presidential status. The “good” news about Obama and Trump is that only the most committed partisan’s are even attempting to defend them, at this point. But sadly, the number of partisans is much greater now than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

    Also, saying that Trump “survived” (for the sake of what?) says nothing about his policies, or the effect of them. I’m afraid that chest thumping about your candidate being cool, or being a badass, has nothing at all to do with the material realities of the society we’re living in. News flash: presidents are judged based on the societies they create via the policies they support. We don’t care how “cool” a president is. One of Bill Clinton’s main strategists pointed out that Trump won via his trade policy appealing to the Rust-Belt. Nothing more, nothing less. Had Trump said nothing about the shuttered factories, he probably loses (and at any rate, ft the Dems had run any one less clueless than Hilary, then the Dems win in 2016, since the GOP is still the Reagan zombie party).

    Virtually everyone agrees that this country has slid way down the tubes since the Patriot Act was passed. Virtually everyone agrees that Jimmy Carter really, really, really sucked (being a neo-liberal and an evangelical before most Americans were willing to embrace these things). We’re still exploiting nostalgia for the 1950’s-early 1990’s, because the last 15-25 years have seen us plummet into a new Gilded Age.

  103. @Michael S
    Ha ha, it's a little late for you to start pretending that this isn't personal. It's obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.

    Nobody needs to exercise, although most people should for reasons other than weight. The obese just need to control their calorie intake. This idea about maintaining a healthy weight being a "luxury" is indefensible BS, especially for anyone who's actually seen how obese people generally live.

    I have distant family - very distant, let me say - who are morbidly obese. Some of them have literally gone through multiple gastric bypass surgeries. They refuse to change their habits. Everyone in their household is obese, and yet their own close cousins who grew up in different households are not. It's not genetic, but it is familial, as the family are often enablers of such poor lifestyle choices. These people don't need drugs, they need shame and lots of it.

    I don't care if you're not going to judge these people - sorry, these women, as you apparently singled out the female sex for exoneration. I will judge them, and so will most sane people. I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral. At least fat men can bring other qualities to the table in a relationship. The vanity and destructiveness of fat-acceptance freaks like Tess Holiday knows no bounds, and literally all of them are women.

    You reference "facts" and yet you have none. You've literally done nothing but moralize, and then accuse others of doing the same, so right back at ya. I think it's high time you got off the internet and onto an exercise bike.

    Ha ha, it’s a little late for you to start pretending that this isn’t personal. It’s obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.

    In a sense it’s personal. I was overweight when I was working outside the home.

    I am very grateful those days are over. Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.

    It’s not genetic,

    Maybe if you just keep ignoring the facts, they’ll go away.

    I will judge them, and so will most sane people.

    And I will judge you for judging them.

    I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral.

    Oh. I see.

    You reference “facts” and yet you have none.

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.
     
    https://youtu.be/rksKvZoUCPQ?t=04m34s

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?
     
    What part of obesity still going up within the same demographic do you not understand? You can’t pick and choose data. Science is not a cafeteria (to continue the food metaphor) - you have to account for all significant variables.
    , @Michael S

    And I will judge you for judging them.
     
    Wow, that stings. The pseudonymous griefer at Unz who espouses every single Democratic party platform except for the Hate Whitey stuff is judging me for not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid. However will I go on?

    Tell us, O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids should be legal, or do you only advocate for policies that enable women to be even less responsible than they already are with men having the honor of paying the tab?

    Yes yes, twin studies. We get it. Obviously genes lead to different body types. I'm not gonna look like Arnold even if I go on a Tren-HGH cocktail at 10 times the recommended dose and spend 9 hours at the gym every day for the rest of my life. Likewise, you're not gonna look like Gigi Hadid even if you do a hundred crunches and lunges every day. But genes don't make you 500 pounds. They don't even make you 170 pounds.

    Genes are the difference between between being a perfect 10 if you're disciplined vs. being a Plain Jane if you're disciplined. They're the difference between occasionally eating junk food and still being pretty lean, vs. having to feel hungry sometimes if you want to maintain a trim figure. That's it. There's no gene that's making 100 million Americans into tubbies. It's completely ridiculous and you know that it is.

    The distinction is so totally obvious that I don't see why I or anyone else should take you seriously. You just want easy answers to complex problems - which, to be fair, most women do, so I don't hold it against you, but you're out of your depth here. You can't even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.
  104. @Twinkie

    I started playing basketball again, and lo and behold, I can feel my shoulder muscles developing again. I have ADD too bad to do conventional weight training (just sitting or standing there, lifting up something repetitively? No thanks), and shooting baskets/sprinting around seems like a lot more fun.
     
    Yup. I have a passion for combat sports. Even though they are grueling, I enjoy them greatly, because they engage both my mind and body. They are often described as kinetic chess. They never feel like “workouts,” because I’m busy trying to avoid getting my head taken off and trying to do the same to my training partners. Strength- and conditioning-training, on the other hand... it’s pain and suffering.

    I am a big advocate for physical activities that are mentally engaging. You don’t have to train in something rough like I do. You can do basketball, tennis, or even go running together with friends. Or even walk a dog with your family. On top of all the physical and mental benefits, theses are all also social activities that builds a bond with others.

    My training partners are my brothers-in-arms. My kids and I are very close, because we train together.

    Tennis is a good one, too (tennis and racquetball, in the 1980’s, helped blunt the rising trends of obese or steroid abusing monsters which were beginning to uglify the populace). But Tennis is more of a time-sink than basketball or soccer (you need to know people who understand tennis and like tennis enough to buy the equipment, whereas basketball and soccer are the sports played casually the most often; baseball has really suffered from the equipment and knowledge requirements, by the time I was a kid in the early 90’s touch football, basketball, and even soccer seemed to be getting more popular among kids than sandlot (or cul-de-sac) baseball., and by the 2000’s I very rarely saw groups of kids playing baseball anymore (it’s more common to see dads training their sons). The 1994 strike really alienated Millennials (and their Boomer parents) from baseball, and this was when the NBA and NFL were rapidly gaining popularity.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    But Tennis is more of a time-sink than basketball or soccer
     
    Sure. But tennis requires fewer people than soccer and basketball. It’s something you can do as an elderly couple with your wife.

    It’s not for me though. I’m going to train in Judo/Jujitsu - with my grand kids, God willing - until the day before I die. Like this guy:
    https://youtu.be/NehuwZQmUVY

    I believe he was in his late 80’s when that video was taken. He died at age 95 a few days after his last training session.

    And he’s not alone:
    https://youtu.be/LJpHs2eobq4
  105. @Michael S
    Fair enough, and a hearty bro-slap for choosing wisely.

    Of course, the most "based" married women are almost always slightly more blue-pilled and liberal than their husbands, so I still stand by my conclusion. I don't think I've ever observed a relationship where a woman pulls her man to the right; either the man pulls her to the right, or she pulls him left.

    I don’t disagree. I pulled my wife rightward, but not by much. We “evolved” together.

    I do, however, know of wives who would not let their husband drift leftward and become swamp creatures. Wives of Justices Thomas and Alito come to mind, as does Mrs. Scalia (though her husband never needed any steeling).

    A good wife strengthens the resolve of her man – witness, famously, Empress Theodora in the Nika riots:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

    Justinian, in despair, considered fleeing, but his wife Theodora is said to have dissuaded him, saying, “Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as empress.”[5] Although an escape route across the sea lay open for the emperor, Theodora insisted that she would stay in the city, quoting an ancient saying, “Royalty is a fine burial shroud,” or perhaps, “[the royal color] Purple makes a fine winding sheet.”[6]

    As Justinian rallied himself

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Occam's razor is that female accomplishment is associated with civ. decline and corruption, because women need to tend to child rearing and nurturing. When large numbers of women are, in effect, wannabe men, look out! Female college attendance reached parity with men 1980 (gosh, that year sure seems to be important, huh?), and of course over the last 20 years women have now lept far beyond men in education attainment (coinciding with our slide into a new Gilded Age).

    When society functions well (enough), women are modest and happy to marry the first guy they fall in love with (thus, women often married right after high school in the 1940's and 50's). As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success. Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by). We really need to go back to the norms of the 1940's-1970's, when most men were somewhere in the middle, rather than having a bunch of "losers" getting kicked off the ladder.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!
  106. @Johann Ricke
    Pret A Manger (UK) sandwich:
    https://media.timeout.com/images/102537516/380/285/image.jpg

    Subway (US) sandwich:
    https://www.subway.com/ns/images/menu/USA/ENG/[email protected]jpg

    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich (“bang for your buck”), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you’re chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don’t know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John’s and Jersey Mike’s are way better.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich (“bang for your buck”), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you’re chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don’t know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John’s and Jersey Mike’s are way better.
     
    The point here is that Subway, like Pret A Manger, offers the crappiest little sandwiches for their respective markets. But the Subway sandwich is twice the size of its UK counterpart. The Subway photo looks true to life. I know from personal experience that the Pret A Manger sandwich has literally 1 slice of meat literally 1/16" thick (or thin, if you prefer). So the Pret A Manger photo may have involved Photoshop, meaning that the meat to carb ratio is even lower than Subway. The stats are fairly clear - lower calorie consumption in the UK is correlated with lower obesity rates, despite a higher carb to meat ratio.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Unwiches are my go-to when travelling.
  107. @Rosie

    Ha ha, it’s a little late for you to start pretending that this isn’t personal. It’s obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.
     
    In a sense it's personal. I was overweight when I was working outside the home.

    I am very grateful those days are over. Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.


    It’s not genetic,
     
    Maybe if you just keep ignoring the facts, they'll go away.

    I will judge them, and so will most sane people.
     
    And I will judge you for judging them.


    I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral.
     
    Oh. I see.

    You reference “facts” and yet you have none.

     

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?

    Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.

    https://youtu.be/rksKvZoUCPQ?t=04m34s

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?

    What part of obesity still going up within the same demographic do you not understand? You can’t pick and choose data. Science is not a cafeteria (to continue the food metaphor) – you have to account for all significant variables.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You can’t pick and choose data.
     
    Indeed. Refer to the Alcoholic Indian problem for clarification.
  108. @Twinkie
    I don’t disagree. I pulled my wife rightward, but not by much. We “evolved” together.

    I do, however, know of wives who would not let their husband drift leftward and become swamp creatures. Wives of Justices Thomas and Alito come to mind, as does Mrs. Scalia (though her husband never needed any steeling).

    A good wife strengthens the resolve of her man - witness, famously, Empress Theodora in the Nika riots:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

    Justinian, in despair, considered fleeing, but his wife Theodora is said to have dissuaded him, saying, "Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as empress."[5] Although an escape route across the sea lay open for the emperor, Theodora insisted that she would stay in the city, quoting an ancient saying, "Royalty is a fine burial shroud," or perhaps, "[the royal color] Purple makes a fine winding sheet."[6]

    As Justinian rallied himself
     

    Occam’s razor is that female accomplishment is associated with civ. decline and corruption, because women need to tend to child rearing and nurturing. When large numbers of women are, in effect, wannabe men, look out! Female college attendance reached parity with men 1980 (gosh, that year sure seems to be important, huh?), and of course over the last 20 years women have now lept far beyond men in education attainment (coinciding with our slide into a new Gilded Age).

    When society functions well (enough), women are modest and happy to marry the first guy they fall in love with (thus, women often married right after high school in the 1940’s and 50’s). As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success. Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by). We really need to go back to the norms of the 1940’s-1970’s, when most men were somewhere in the middle, rather than having a bunch of “losers” getting kicked off the ladder.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by).
     
    I am sympathetic to your thesis, but your characterization of SES distribution change is not correct. In the past decades, both the underclass and the upper class have become larger while the middle class has shrunk. That is, in part, responsible for political polarization today. Lots of winners and lots of losers, with the middle contracting.
    , @Rosie

    As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success.
     
    Ackshully, ...

    Women's ambitions are at least in part driven by men's lack of interest I'm early marriage and providerhood.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

  109. @Feryl
    Occam's razor is that female accomplishment is associated with civ. decline and corruption, because women need to tend to child rearing and nurturing. When large numbers of women are, in effect, wannabe men, look out! Female college attendance reached parity with men 1980 (gosh, that year sure seems to be important, huh?), and of course over the last 20 years women have now lept far beyond men in education attainment (coinciding with our slide into a new Gilded Age).

    When society functions well (enough), women are modest and happy to marry the first guy they fall in love with (thus, women often married right after high school in the 1940's and 50's). As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success. Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by). We really need to go back to the norms of the 1940's-1970's, when most men were somewhere in the middle, rather than having a bunch of "losers" getting kicked off the ladder.

    Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by).

    I am sympathetic to your thesis, but your characterization of SES distribution change is not correct. In the past decades, both the underclass and the upper class have become larger while the middle class has shrunk. That is, in part, responsible for political polarization today. Lots of winners and lots of losers, with the middle contracting.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few "big men" available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my "handful" characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that's the reality (whereas in the 1950's, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we've done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980's, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren't as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90's I've noticed that some Big Men simply don't get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it's not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren't naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don't want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren't getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don't care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It's just that it's less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80's and 90's.
    , @Feryl
    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few "big men" available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my "handful" characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that's the reality (whereas in the 1950's, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we've done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980's, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren't as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90's I've noticed that some Big Men simply don't get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it's not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren't naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don't want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren't getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don't care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It's just that it's less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80's and 90's.
    , @Feryl
    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few "big men" available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my "handful" characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that's the reality (whereas in the 1950's, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we've done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980's, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren't as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90's I've noticed that some Big Men simply don't get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it's not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren't naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don't want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren't getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don't care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It's just that it's less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80's and 90's.
  110. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    I think the most important thing is to stick with natural food. If it goes bad, you can eat it. If you can pronounce the ingredients, you can eat it.

    Fat is clearly very health. Olives oil, fish, milk, yogurt, coconut oil are all extremely healthy. It also helps the skin.

    The best example is the Mediterranean diet. Everybody I know on the Med diet eats like kings, extremely high in fat and calories, plus wine, yet have beautiful, moist skin and never get fat beyond the gut. When you see Europeans, you notice they are never fat apart from the belly. Americans get fat all over. White people can have beautiful skin, but unfortunately the majority don't eat enough fats to get this way. Only by eating a high fat diet of cheese, fish, oils and (wine) can you keep this nice skin.

    Basically - fuck the experts. My ancestors lived long and healthy lifespans despite their backbreaking field work. Grandpaw is 95 and going strong. They ate eggs, milk, meat, whatever fish they could catch, and root vegetables. The (((experts))) will send us on a path that is not natural and is not healthy, but is good for profits.

    Usually it’s the fitness “gurus” who have the worst looking skin. Excessive fat cutting from the diet robs your body of important nutrients, because fatty products contain important stuff, plus that fat allows your body to more easily absorb good stuff.

    As soon as anyone tells you to go for the “lean” diet, and eliminate beef (or meat altogether), tell them to fuck off. It’s better to be slightly fat, and have nice skin and hair, than it is to have no body fat with jaundiced and wrinkly skin. Honestly, I think most gym gurus are autistic, because they think that big muscles and no body fat are the only things that people notice. In reality, many people who’ve never worked out actually have better looking skin, because they’re not starving themselves to look more “cut”.

    And the verdict on “extreme” diets is not good. Our bodies are better off consuming basic staples of traditional Western diets, rather than emphasizing fruits/veggies and carbs (getting too much of the wrong kinds of calories WRT sugar/carbs, or needlessly starving ourselves of the nutrients offered by normal animal products).

  111. @Rosie

    Do you understand what “stimulates the central nervous system” means?
     
    An arrogant know-it-all to boot.

    An arrogant know-it-all to boot.

    Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.

  112. @Twinkie

    Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by).
     
    I am sympathetic to your thesis, but your characterization of SES distribution change is not correct. In the past decades, both the underclass and the upper class have become larger while the middle class has shrunk. That is, in part, responsible for political polarization today. Lots of winners and lots of losers, with the middle contracting.

    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few “big men” available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my “handful” characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that’s the reality (whereas in the 1950’s, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we’ve done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980’s, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren’t as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90’s I’ve noticed that some Big Men simply don’t get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it’s not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren’t naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don’t want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren’t getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don’t care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It’s just that it’s less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80’s and 90’s.

  113. @Twinkie

    Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by).
     
    I am sympathetic to your thesis, but your characterization of SES distribution change is not correct. In the past decades, both the underclass and the upper class have become larger while the middle class has shrunk. That is, in part, responsible for political polarization today. Lots of winners and lots of losers, with the middle contracting.

    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few “big men” available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my “handful” characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that’s the reality (whereas in the 1950’s, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we’ve done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980’s, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren’t as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90’s I’ve noticed that some Big Men simply don’t get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it’s not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren’t naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don’t want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren’t getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don’t care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It’s just that it’s less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80’s and 90’s.

  114. @Twinkie

    Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by).
     
    I am sympathetic to your thesis, but your characterization of SES distribution change is not correct. In the past decades, both the underclass and the upper class have become larger while the middle class has shrunk. That is, in part, responsible for political polarization today. Lots of winners and lots of losers, with the middle contracting.

    Yes, the general figure I hear is that around 20% of the pop. could be characterized as upper class (going by income, net worth, and education), the remainder having such insecurity that they never really feel that comfortable. However, to the vast majority of women of all classes, there are very few “big men” available at any given time in a Gilded Age. So I stand by my “handful” characterization; the perception is that very few men are both desirable and available, because that’s the reality (whereas in the 1950’s, most women considered most men to be valid marriage material).

    Furthermore, putting more women into the upper range (as we’ve done over the last 30 years), makes the scarcity that much more acute feeling; more and more women are looking harder and harder for Mr. Right, who ironically becomes more scarce the more that he is wanted. Since the 1980’s, many wealthy man-whores have blown through many wives. In a more wholesome era, there is not only more respect for the long-term institution of marriage, there also aren’t as many gold-diggers shamelessly trying to bust up marriages.

    Last note: since the late 90’s I’ve noticed that some Big Men simply don’t get married at all(like Derek Jeter). And it’s not as if they are all closeted homos (besides, even homos used to get married as a basic sign of social respectability). I assume these big men aren’t naive to think that a marriage will last forever (or are aware that they are so horny that keeping a loving marriage intact will be impossible), and they don’t want to go through costly divorces.

    Later generations aren’t getting divorced like Boomers did (and still do), perhaps because people born over the last 55 years don’t care enough about money to break up the marriage for the sake of easy money (which many women, frequently Boomers, have done over the last 50 years). That being said, later generations care, over all, every bit as much about social status as Boomers ever did. It’s just that it’s less based on sheer money, compared to what yuppie Boomers were doing in the 80’s and 90’s.

  115. @Twinkie

    Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.
     
    https://youtu.be/rksKvZoUCPQ?t=04m34s

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?
     
    What part of obesity still going up within the same demographic do you not understand? You can’t pick and choose data. Science is not a cafeteria (to continue the food metaphor) - you have to account for all significant variables.

    You can’t pick and choose data.

    Indeed. Refer to the Alcoholic Indian problem for clarification.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You just exemplified what I critiqued.
  116. @Feryl
    Occam's razor is that female accomplishment is associated with civ. decline and corruption, because women need to tend to child rearing and nurturing. When large numbers of women are, in effect, wannabe men, look out! Female college attendance reached parity with men 1980 (gosh, that year sure seems to be important, huh?), and of course over the last 20 years women have now lept far beyond men in education attainment (coinciding with our slide into a new Gilded Age).

    When society functions well (enough), women are modest and happy to marry the first guy they fall in love with (thus, women often married right after high school in the 1940's and 50's). As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success. Also, highly corrupt eras feature a handful of Big Men (who all the women want), and a lot of big losers (who women are disgusted by). We really need to go back to the norms of the 1940's-1970's, when most men were somewhere in the middle, rather than having a bunch of "losers" getting kicked off the ladder.

    As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success.

    Ackshully, …

    Women’s ambitions are at least in part driven by men’s lack of interest I’m early marriage and providerhood.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Always men’s fault in Rosie’s world.

    "Women who judged themselves to be less desirable to men — those women who are not like Angelina Jolie — were most likely to take the career path when men became scarce," Durante said.

    The research highlights a sexual paradox associated with women's economic and educational advancement, according to Durante.

    "As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can't find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries," Durante said. "This is because a woman's mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates.”
     

    So, according to this, ugly women can’t find men, so pursue career, which then raises their standards, which in turn leads to further hindrance of finding men.

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.

    In all seriousness, I’d like to see this replicated, because, in reality, education may result in lower fertility and raise the age of marriage in women, but seems to increase the rate of marriage.

  117. The story about the 6’8 guy getting comments about his height from half of everyone he meets makes me feel better. I am short, 5’6 (and a half) and it is extremely rare for anyone to mention my height . Maybe one a year. It seems no one notices or cares. Part of it could be that I live in a Hispanic majority city…lot’s of short people here.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, there is still some sort of unspoken normative scale wrt height, so that asking about someone being short feels like punching down, while ribbing someone for his height is still punching up!
  118. Anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    “it’s tough to tell if this is a zeitgeist issue or a generational issue…”

    Probably a combination of increasing information access and personality. Cable TV got big in the 1990s, which coincided with the country going off the partisan rails. It got worse under W. Bush when the internet took off. It has gotten even worse in recent years with the advent of social media. Also, Gingrich was extremely jealous of Clinton back in the 1990s, which probably explains some of the antipathy; he set the example for a lot of partisans.

  119. @Rosie

    You can’t pick and choose data.
     
    Indeed. Refer to the Alcoholic Indian problem for clarification.

    You just exemplified what I critiqued.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    The Gospel According to Twinkie:

    The Word thought about becoming Flesh in order to redeem sinful humanity, but then decided to just suggest shaming human beings for being human so they'll all start being perfect, creating Utopia.

  120. anon[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian

    High protein, low glycemic index foods with a lot of different vitamins and minerals are more expensive
     
    Bollocks.

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter. Dinner, you can get a the club pack of meat when it goes on sale. Freeze the portions you don't use. Eat meat every single day for dinner. Buy canned beans, canned fish for $1 per can. Frozen (un-breaded) fish is also cheap. Buy rice and pasta. Basic fresh fruits (apples, bananas) and veggies (sweet potatoes, brocolli, lettuce) are usually cheap. Price match.

    This comes out MUCH LOWER calories/dollar (not to mention nutrition) than eating shit like McDonalds.

    I hate it so much when idiots whine that they "can't afford" to eat healthy. The cheapest possible meals are sacks of potatoes, beans, and rice. You're just a fat lazy fuck that can't be bothered to cook.

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter.

    this shyte isn’t healthy but you won’t find out until later

    on peanut butter, if scientists want to induce heart disease in rabbits they feed them peanut oil. probably has something to do with the lectins

    on “whole grain bread” – it often has sawdust added to increase the fiber, lol

    if you want to be healthy eliminate all grains, legumes, nightshades and sadly dairy too

    • Replies: @Michael S
    As with so many things, it's all in the dose. Rabbits - herbivores that should be getting hardly any dietary fat - getting heart disease from excessive amounts of highly-refined peanut oil doesn't tell us much about the long-term effect of humans having 1-2 Tbsp of peanut butter per day.

    Now don't get me wrong, the excessive promotion of PUFAs and demonization of saturated fat over the past few decades has been criminally negligent, but the literature does demonstrate health benefits from replacing some (not all!) saturated fat with PUFAs (or MUFAs).

    Peanuts have very little Omega-3; walnuts are much better if you like to have some kind of nuts. But peanuts aren't much worse than almonds or cashews in that regard, and most people who don't eat a lot of fish should be taking some kind of Omega-3 supplement anyway.
  121. @Twinkie
    You just exemplified what I critiqued.

    The Gospel According to Twinkie:

    The Word thought about becoming Flesh in order to redeem sinful humanity, but then decided to just suggest shaming human beings for being human so they’ll all start being perfect, creating Utopia.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Only the best people.
    , @Michael S
    Absolutely nuts. Utterly deluded and insane. Nobody is being shamed for being human. They're being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.
  122. @Rosie
    The Gospel According to Twinkie:

    The Word thought about becoming Flesh in order to redeem sinful humanity, but then decided to just suggest shaming human beings for being human so they'll all start being perfect, creating Utopia.

    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Only the best people.

  123. @Rosie

    As society crumbles further, women become turned off by the lack of successful men (on average), and thus feel compelled to do what so many men no longer seem to be able to do: strive for and achieve success.
     
    Ackshully, ...

    Women's ambitions are at least in part driven by men's lack of interest I'm early marriage and providerhood.

    https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2372-man-shortage-men-drives-women-careers.html

    Always men’s fault in Rosie’s world.

    “Women who judged themselves to be less desirable to men — those women who are not like Angelina Jolie — were most likely to take the career path when men became scarce,” Durante said.

    The research highlights a sexual paradox associated with women’s economic and educational advancement, according to Durante.

    “As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can’t find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries,” Durante said. “This is because a woman’s mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates.”

    So, according to this, ugly women can’t find men, so pursue career, which then raises their standards, which in turn leads to further hindrance of finding men.

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.

    In all seriousness, I’d like to see this replicated, because, in reality, education may result in lower fertility and raise the age of marriage in women, but seems to increase the rate of marriage.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.
     
    Always women's fault in Twinkie's world.
  124. @Rosie

    Ha ha, it’s a little late for you to start pretending that this isn’t personal. It’s obvious what motivates your reasoning (to use the term loosely) here.
     
    In a sense it's personal. I was overweight when I was working outside the home.

    I am very grateful those days are over. Now, how about we stick to the merits of the case rather than personal attacks.


    It’s not genetic,
     
    Maybe if you just keep ignoring the facts, they'll go away.

    I will judge them, and so will most sane people.
     
    And I will judge you for judging them.


    I will especially judge the obese women, because throwing away your one marketable asset and still expecting male investment is truly immoral.
     
    Oh. I see.

    You reference “facts” and yet you have none.

     

    What part of the twin study cited above di you not understand?

    And I will judge you for judging them.

    Wow, that stings. The pseudonymous griefer at Unz who espouses every single Democratic party platform except for the Hate Whitey stuff is judging me for not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid. However will I go on?

    Tell us, O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids should be legal, or do you only advocate for policies that enable women to be even less responsible than they already are with men having the honor of paying the tab?

    Yes yes, twin studies. We get it. Obviously genes lead to different body types. I’m not gonna look like Arnold even if I go on a Tren-HGH cocktail at 10 times the recommended dose and spend 9 hours at the gym every day for the rest of my life. Likewise, you’re not gonna look like Gigi Hadid even if you do a hundred crunches and lunges every day. But genes don’t make you 500 pounds. They don’t even make you 170 pounds.

    Genes are the difference between between being a perfect 10 if you’re disciplined vs. being a Plain Jane if you’re disciplined. They’re the difference between occasionally eating junk food and still being pretty lean, vs. having to feel hungry sometimes if you want to maintain a trim figure. That’s it. There’s no gene that’s making 100 million Americans into tubbies. It’s completely ridiculous and you know that it is.

    The distinction is so totally obvious that I don’t see why I or anyone else should take you seriously. You just want easy answers to complex problems – which, to be fair, most women do, so I don’t hold it against you, but you’re out of your depth here. You can’t even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Rosie

    not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid.
     
    Is this stupidity or sophistry?

    I very clearly stated that I think obesity ought to be treated, not accepted.

    O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids
     
    Yes, if a doctor determines that the benefits outweigh the risks for a particular patient.


    But genes don’t make you 500 pounds.
     
    How do you know that? One of the things you learn from having numerous children is that some of them know when to stop eating, and others must be told. Hunger and satiety are sensations produced by hormones, and there are individual differences in sensitivity to these hormones. I have been fat in the past, but only so fat. I have relatively strong hunger sensitivity, but I also have decent fullness sensitivity, and so I never went above a certain size, even if I ate whatever I wanted.


    You can’t even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.
     
    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people's cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.


    You just want easy answers to complex problems
     
    Project much?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).
  125. @Twinkie
    Always men’s fault in Rosie’s world.

    "Women who judged themselves to be less desirable to men — those women who are not like Angelina Jolie — were most likely to take the career path when men became scarce," Durante said.

    The research highlights a sexual paradox associated with women's economic and educational advancement, according to Durante.

    "As women pursue more education and more lucrative careers when they can't find a husband, the ironic effect is that it will only get harder to find a husband as women become more educated and earn higher salaries," Durante said. "This is because a woman's mating standards keep increasing as she becomes more educated and wealthy, which further decreases the number of suitable mates.”
     

    So, according to this, ugly women can’t find men, so pursue career, which then raises their standards, which in turn leads to further hindrance of finding men.

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.

    In all seriousness, I’d like to see this replicated, because, in reality, education may result in lower fertility and raise the age of marriage in women, but seems to increase the rate of marriage.

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.

    Always women’s fault in Twinkie’s world.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Always women’s fault in Twinkie’s world.
     
    Even when my kids were toddlers, the weren’t this juvenile.

    No, dummy, just YOUR fault for your problems.

    Just like my fault for my problems.

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women... apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.
  126. @Rosie
    The Gospel According to Twinkie:

    The Word thought about becoming Flesh in order to redeem sinful humanity, but then decided to just suggest shaming human beings for being human so they'll all start being perfect, creating Utopia.

    Absolutely nuts. Utterly deluded and insane. Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.
     
    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.
  127. @Michael S

    And I will judge you for judging them.
     
    Wow, that stings. The pseudonymous griefer at Unz who espouses every single Democratic party platform except for the Hate Whitey stuff is judging me for not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid. However will I go on?

    Tell us, O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids should be legal, or do you only advocate for policies that enable women to be even less responsible than they already are with men having the honor of paying the tab?

    Yes yes, twin studies. We get it. Obviously genes lead to different body types. I'm not gonna look like Arnold even if I go on a Tren-HGH cocktail at 10 times the recommended dose and spend 9 hours at the gym every day for the rest of my life. Likewise, you're not gonna look like Gigi Hadid even if you do a hundred crunches and lunges every day. But genes don't make you 500 pounds. They don't even make you 170 pounds.

    Genes are the difference between between being a perfect 10 if you're disciplined vs. being a Plain Jane if you're disciplined. They're the difference between occasionally eating junk food and still being pretty lean, vs. having to feel hungry sometimes if you want to maintain a trim figure. That's it. There's no gene that's making 100 million Americans into tubbies. It's completely ridiculous and you know that it is.

    The distinction is so totally obvious that I don't see why I or anyone else should take you seriously. You just want easy answers to complex problems - which, to be fair, most women do, so I don't hold it against you, but you're out of your depth here. You can't even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.

    not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid.

    Is this stupidity or sophistry?

    I very clearly stated that I think obesity ought to be treated, not accepted.

    O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids

    Yes, if a doctor determines that the benefits outweigh the risks for a particular patient.

    But genes don’t make you 500 pounds.

    How do you know that? One of the things you learn from having numerous children is that some of them know when to stop eating, and others must be told. Hunger and satiety are sensations produced by hormones, and there are individual differences in sensitivity to these hormones. I have been fat in the past, but only so fat. I have relatively strong hunger sensitivity, but I also have decent fullness sensitivity, and so I never went above a certain size, even if I ate whatever I wanted.

    You can’t even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.

    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people’s cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.

    You just want easy answers to complex problems

    Project much?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people’s cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.
     
    Preventative meth for everyone!

    What. A. Clown.
    , @Michael S
    We know that genes don't make you 500 pounds because people didn't weigh 500 pounds as recently as a few decades ago. This isn't complicated. Humans do evolve, or de-evolve as the case may be, but not so drastically in 1-2 generations. Again, obvious.

    Setting aside your credibility issues and provisionally accepting your claim of having "numerous children", you've demonstrated precisely the point you're trying to refute. Those fat kids didn't get fat because of genetics, they got fat because they had useless parents who either fed them junk food or fed them way too much food. And then they went on to develop an unhealthy relationship with food. Fact is, most morbidly obese people actually have a food addiction. Addicts are usually in denial and have to be shamed into seeking help ("help", in this case, being nutritional advice and fitness coaching).

    And like any other addiction, drugs generally do not effectively treat it, and in the rare cases when they do, like methadone for heroin addiction, they also create a chemical dependency on the "treatment" drug that is extremely difficult to break. So congratulations, you've helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It's called treatment, guys! Get with the program!

    You argue like every other progressive. Find some thin, marginal opening in which to insert your wedge - "it's hormone-related!" - and magnify it to the point of absurdity in order to advocate for completely insane interventions. That may fly with your liberal friends but it's transparent to anyone in the dissident sphere.
  128. Any comment on the correlation of height and intelligence?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The r-value is only .11 but the p-value is 0.00x, so yes, the GSS shows a modest but consistent relationship.
  129. @Rosie

    not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid.
     
    Is this stupidity or sophistry?

    I very clearly stated that I think obesity ought to be treated, not accepted.

    O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids
     
    Yes, if a doctor determines that the benefits outweigh the risks for a particular patient.


    But genes don’t make you 500 pounds.
     
    How do you know that? One of the things you learn from having numerous children is that some of them know when to stop eating, and others must be told. Hunger and satiety are sensations produced by hormones, and there are individual differences in sensitivity to these hormones. I have been fat in the past, but only so fat. I have relatively strong hunger sensitivity, but I also have decent fullness sensitivity, and so I never went above a certain size, even if I ate whatever I wanted.


    You can’t even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.
     
    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people's cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.


    You just want easy answers to complex problems
     
    Project much?

    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people’s cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.

    Preventative meth for everyone!

    What. A. Clown.

  130. @anon

    I eat incredibly healthy for much cheaper. Breakfast is eggs or cereal and milk. Lunch is leftovers or whole grain bread and peanut butter.
     
    this shyte isn't healthy but you won't find out until later

    on peanut butter, if scientists want to induce heart disease in rabbits they feed them peanut oil. probably has something to do with the lectins

    on "whole grain bread" - it often has sawdust added to increase the fiber, lol

    if you want to be healthy eliminate all grains, legumes, nightshades and sadly dairy too

    As with so many things, it’s all in the dose. Rabbits – herbivores that should be getting hardly any dietary fat – getting heart disease from excessive amounts of highly-refined peanut oil doesn’t tell us much about the long-term effect of humans having 1-2 Tbsp of peanut butter per day.

    Now don’t get me wrong, the excessive promotion of PUFAs and demonization of saturated fat over the past few decades has been criminally negligent, but the literature does demonstrate health benefits from replacing some (not all!) saturated fat with PUFAs (or MUFAs).

    Peanuts have very little Omega-3; walnuts are much better if you like to have some kind of nuts. But peanuts aren’t much worse than almonds or cashews in that regard, and most people who don’t eat a lot of fish should be taking some kind of Omega-3 supplement anyway.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Agreed. However, peanut oil is delicious. My wife and I cook with it occasionally, as we do with sesame oil, coconut oil, etc.

    Most things in moderation is my motto where food is concerned. I don’t have a special diet. I eat what I like, just in moderation. And I stay athletic. I am 6’2” and have maintained my weight c. 185 lbs. +/- 5 lbs. for the past 30 years (except when I was competing in Judo and got leaner to make weight for my class). A lot of people think I am 10 years younger than I actually am (I’m blessed with a full set of still mostly dark hair, which helps).

    But I pale in comparison to my kids. My eldest (teenage) son has had a six pack since age seven or so. His whole body feels like a rock when I hug him. He’s been training since he was a baby. He has an incredible appetite and eats everything. He gets the casual love of food from me, but his mother, having a STEM doctorate, has been cooking for him very scientifically since he was a baby. When I was home recovering from my wounds, she used to make her own baby food at night and freeze it into ice cube blocks, for me to thaw them and feed the kids while she was at work. Our house was like an artisanal baby food factory during that time, with fish, Kale, brown rice, etc. Very SWPL. :)
  131. @Rosie

    Maybe ugly women should try having a good figure and being really pleasant instead of being fat and cantankerous.
     
    Always women's fault in Twinkie's world.

    Always women’s fault in Twinkie’s world.

    Even when my kids were toddlers, the weren’t this juvenile.

    No, dummy, just YOUR fault for your problems.

    Just like my fault for my problems.

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women… apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women… apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.
     
    With friends like you, ...
  132. @Twinkie

    Always women’s fault in Twinkie’s world.
     
    Even when my kids were toddlers, the weren’t this juvenile.

    No, dummy, just YOUR fault for your problems.

    Just like my fault for my problems.

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women... apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women… apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.

    With friends like you, …

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    With friends like you, …
     
    That’s exactly how I thought you’d reply.

    I’m not your friend, but I want your life to turn out well, at minimum because I don’t want your mistakes to drag down the rest of our society, and because you are my fellow American and that counts for something in my book.

    But you are a child who doesn’t like being told what’s good for her. And like a child you want to be told that you can have everything while paying no price for it. Stop throwing tantrums online and go tend to your husband and kids.
  133. @Michael S
    Absolutely nuts. Utterly deluded and insane. Nobody is being shamed for being human. They're being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.

    Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    • Replies: @Michael S

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.
     
    Nice philosophy. Where'd you pick that up? Alastair Crowley?
    , @Twinkie

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.
     
    Like Judas?

    God wants us to be more than animals that give into their instincts. Yes, we will falter because we are flawed, but we must strive to be more than we are. God doesn’t expect perfection out of us, but He does expect contrition when we fail and something else too.

    You derided the Rite of Reconciliation here once, but we all need it:

    O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.
     
    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I'm occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!
  134. @Michael S
    As with so many things, it's all in the dose. Rabbits - herbivores that should be getting hardly any dietary fat - getting heart disease from excessive amounts of highly-refined peanut oil doesn't tell us much about the long-term effect of humans having 1-2 Tbsp of peanut butter per day.

    Now don't get me wrong, the excessive promotion of PUFAs and demonization of saturated fat over the past few decades has been criminally negligent, but the literature does demonstrate health benefits from replacing some (not all!) saturated fat with PUFAs (or MUFAs).

    Peanuts have very little Omega-3; walnuts are much better if you like to have some kind of nuts. But peanuts aren't much worse than almonds or cashews in that regard, and most people who don't eat a lot of fish should be taking some kind of Omega-3 supplement anyway.

    Agreed. However, peanut oil is delicious. My wife and I cook with it occasionally, as we do with sesame oil, coconut oil, etc.

    Most things in moderation is my motto where food is concerned. I don’t have a special diet. I eat what I like, just in moderation. And I stay athletic. I am 6’2” and have maintained my weight c. 185 lbs. +/- 5 lbs. for the past 30 years (except when I was competing in Judo and got leaner to make weight for my class). A lot of people think I am 10 years younger than I actually am (I’m blessed with a full set of still mostly dark hair, which helps).

    But I pale in comparison to my kids. My eldest (teenage) son has had a six pack since age seven or so. His whole body feels like a rock when I hug him. He’s been training since he was a baby. He has an incredible appetite and eats everything. He gets the casual love of food from me, but his mother, having a STEM doctorate, has been cooking for him very scientifically since he was a baby. When I was home recovering from my wounds, she used to make her own baby food at night and freeze it into ice cube blocks, for me to thaw them and feed the kids while she was at work. Our house was like an artisanal baby food factory during that time, with fish, Kale, brown rice, etc. Very SWPL. 🙂

  135. I wonder how long before GSS gets kaboshed by the powers to be, way too much non-wokeness coming through it every time.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I've long-wondered the same. That I've long done so is encouraging, though!
  136. @Rosie

    You are so moronic that you don’t realize I’m one of the biggest advocates for women on Unz where many men disparage women… apparently because they run into women like you more than women who I am privileged to know.
     
    With friends like you, ...

    With friends like you, …

    That’s exactly how I thought you’d reply.

    I’m not your friend, but I want your life to turn out well, at minimum because I don’t want your mistakes to drag down the rest of our society, and because you are my fellow American and that counts for something in my book.

    But you are a child who doesn’t like being told what’s good for her. And like a child you want to be told that you can have everything while paying no price for it. Stop throwing tantrums online and go tend to your husband and kids.

  137. @Rosie

    not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid.
     
    Is this stupidity or sophistry?

    I very clearly stated that I think obesity ought to be treated, not accepted.

    O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids
     
    Yes, if a doctor determines that the benefits outweigh the risks for a particular patient.


    But genes don’t make you 500 pounds.
     
    How do you know that? One of the things you learn from having numerous children is that some of them know when to stop eating, and others must be told. Hunger and satiety are sensations produced by hormones, and there are individual differences in sensitivity to these hormones. I have been fat in the past, but only so fat. I have relatively strong hunger sensitivity, but I also have decent fullness sensitivity, and so I never went above a certain size, even if I ate whatever I wanted.


    You can’t even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.
     
    And you apparently are too stupid to understand that preventing morbid obesity would prevent these people's cardiovascular health from becoming seriously compromised to begin with.


    You just want easy answers to complex problems
     
    Project much?

    We know that genes don’t make you 500 pounds because people didn’t weigh 500 pounds as recently as a few decades ago. This isn’t complicated. Humans do evolve, or de-evolve as the case may be, but not so drastically in 1-2 generations. Again, obvious.

    Setting aside your credibility issues and provisionally accepting your claim of having “numerous children”, you’ve demonstrated precisely the point you’re trying to refute. Those fat kids didn’t get fat because of genetics, they got fat because they had useless parents who either fed them junk food or fed them way too much food. And then they went on to develop an unhealthy relationship with food. Fact is, most morbidly obese people actually have a food addiction. Addicts are usually in denial and have to be shamed into seeking help (“help”, in this case, being nutritional advice and fitness coaching).

    And like any other addiction, drugs generally do not effectively treat it, and in the rare cases when they do, like methadone for heroin addiction, they also create a chemical dependency on the “treatment” drug that is extremely difficult to break. So congratulations, you’ve helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It’s called treatment, guys! Get with the program!

    You argue like every other progressive. Find some thin, marginal opening in which to insert your wedge – “it’s hormone-related!” – and magnify it to the point of absurdity in order to advocate for completely insane interventions. That may fly with your liberal friends but it’s transparent to anyone in the dissident sphere.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Agreed!
    , @Rosie

    So congratulations, you’ve helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It’s called treatment, guys! Get with the program!
     
    I'll tell you what. How about the media stops bombarding young girls (and even more importantly, boys) with images of bulimorectic, chain-smoking starlets, each and every one of whom is doping to maintain their weight? This sets girls up for a lifetime of self-hatred, repeated failure, and eventually despair and resignation.
  138. @Rosie

    Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.
     
    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    Nice philosophy. Where’d you pick that up? Alastair Crowley?

  139. @Rosie

    Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.
     
    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    Like Judas?

    God wants us to be more than animals that give into their instincts. Yes, we will falter because we are flawed, but we must strive to be more than we are. God doesn’t expect perfection out of us, but He does expect contrition when we fail and something else too.

    You derided the Rite of Reconciliation here once, but we all need it:

    O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.
     
    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices. That is a matter for medical doctors.

    https://www.physiciansbriefing.com/internal-medicine-21/prescription-drug-news-551/long-term-phentermine-use-safe-effective-for-weight-loss-744363.html
  140. @Michael S
    We know that genes don't make you 500 pounds because people didn't weigh 500 pounds as recently as a few decades ago. This isn't complicated. Humans do evolve, or de-evolve as the case may be, but not so drastically in 1-2 generations. Again, obvious.

    Setting aside your credibility issues and provisionally accepting your claim of having "numerous children", you've demonstrated precisely the point you're trying to refute. Those fat kids didn't get fat because of genetics, they got fat because they had useless parents who either fed them junk food or fed them way too much food. And then they went on to develop an unhealthy relationship with food. Fact is, most morbidly obese people actually have a food addiction. Addicts are usually in denial and have to be shamed into seeking help ("help", in this case, being nutritional advice and fitness coaching).

    And like any other addiction, drugs generally do not effectively treat it, and in the rare cases when they do, like methadone for heroin addiction, they also create a chemical dependency on the "treatment" drug that is extremely difficult to break. So congratulations, you've helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It's called treatment, guys! Get with the program!

    You argue like every other progressive. Find some thin, marginal opening in which to insert your wedge - "it's hormone-related!" - and magnify it to the point of absurdity in order to advocate for completely insane interventions. That may fly with your liberal friends but it's transparent to anyone in the dissident sphere.

    Agreed!

  141. @Feryl
    Tennis is a good one, too (tennis and racquetball, in the 1980's, helped blunt the rising trends of obese or steroid abusing monsters which were beginning to uglify the populace). But Tennis is more of a time-sink than basketball or soccer (you need to know people who understand tennis and like tennis enough to buy the equipment, whereas basketball and soccer are the sports played casually the most often; baseball has really suffered from the equipment and knowledge requirements, by the time I was a kid in the early 90's touch football, basketball, and even soccer seemed to be getting more popular among kids than sandlot (or cul-de-sac) baseball., and by the 2000's I very rarely saw groups of kids playing baseball anymore (it's more common to see dads training their sons). The 1994 strike really alienated Millennials (and their Boomer parents) from baseball, and this was when the NBA and NFL were rapidly gaining popularity.

    But Tennis is more of a time-sink than basketball or soccer

    Sure. But tennis requires fewer people than soccer and basketball. It’s something you can do as an elderly couple with your wife.

    It’s not for me though. I’m going to train in Judo/Jujitsu – with my grand kids, God willing – until the day before I die. Like this guy:

    I believe he was in his late 80’s when that video was taken. He died at age 95 a few days after his last training session.

    And he’s not alone:

  142. @Feryl
    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich ("bang for your buck"), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you're chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don't know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John's and Jersey Mike's are way better.

    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich (“bang for your buck”), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you’re chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don’t know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John’s and Jersey Mike’s are way better.

    The point here is that Subway, like Pret A Manger, offers the crappiest little sandwiches for their respective markets. But the Subway sandwich is twice the size of its UK counterpart. The Subway photo looks true to life. I know from personal experience that the Pret A Manger sandwich has literally 1 slice of meat literally 1/16″ thick (or thin, if you prefer). So the Pret A Manger photo may have involved Photoshop, meaning that the meat to carb ratio is even lower than Subway. The stats are fairly clear – lower calorie consumption in the UK is correlated with lower obesity rates, despite a higher carb to meat ratio.

  143. @Johann Ricke

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.
     
    I'd like to believe this narrative, except for the fact that the really fat people I know are mostly dairy and meat eaters. They just eat a lot of dairy and meat. In fact, all the fat people I know are practically on the paleo diet, where they've cut out every carb they can from their diet. Whereas all the thin people I know are on mostly carb diets.

    I observe something similar. A lot of thin people I know eat bread for breakfast, bread for lunch, cake in the afternoon and spaghetti for dinner. But they move and they just never eat to much. Obese people just tend to eat to much of everything.

  144. @Twinkie

    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.
     
    Like Judas?

    God wants us to be more than animals that give into their instincts. Yes, we will falter because we are flawed, but we must strive to be more than we are. God doesn’t expect perfection out of us, but He does expect contrition when we fail and something else too.

    You derided the Rite of Reconciliation here once, but we all need it:

    O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.
     
    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.

    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.

    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices. That is a matter for medical doctors.

    https://www.physiciansbriefing.com/internal-medicine-21/prescription-drug-news-551/long-term-phentermine-use-safe-effective-for-weight-loss-744363.html

    • Replies: @res
    Make sure to read the last paragraph of that link:

    "For patients who respond to and tolerate it, phentermine may be a safe and affordable way to achieve greater and longer-lasting weight loss, but we need clinical trials to provide more certainty," Lewis said in a statement. "At the moment, there is no change to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling so doctors should use caution with the decision about prescribing it longer term."
     
    I think anyone considering stimulants for weight loss should learn about the history of that idea. This gives a good summary.

    America’s First Amphetamine Epidemic 1929–1971
    A Quantitative and Qualitative Retrospective With Implications for the Present

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/

    Note that doctors were once recommending extensive use of both amphetamine and barbiturates. Doctors are not omniscient. At the end of the day we are responsible for our own health.
    , @Twinkie
    From your own link:

    but we need clinical trials to provide more certainty," Lewis said in a statement. "At the moment, there is no change to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling so doctors should use caution with the decision about prescribing it longer term."
     
    Don’t jump on ONE study that happens to validate your priors. Do you even know who sponsored the study?

    Learn some basic biology - something that unnaturally stimulates the CNS isn’t going to be sustainable long-term.

    Far from “moralism” as the operative force in medical trials, the actual tension that exists is that between patient safety and the drug companies that want to make money by mass usage of their products.

    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices.
     
    That was in response to your self-indulgent philosophy that “succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human” (which is clearly a most un-Christian claim, but is consistent with your self-view as a dumb animal without free will to seek redemption through Grace).

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians (the latter was condemned at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century long before Protestant heresy was even an inkling), but you either knew that already (and are disingenuously combining the two mutually exclusive terms) or are too ignorant to know that.

    Don’t go full moronic. You come off poorly.
  145. @Michael S
    We know that genes don't make you 500 pounds because people didn't weigh 500 pounds as recently as a few decades ago. This isn't complicated. Humans do evolve, or de-evolve as the case may be, but not so drastically in 1-2 generations. Again, obvious.

    Setting aside your credibility issues and provisionally accepting your claim of having "numerous children", you've demonstrated precisely the point you're trying to refute. Those fat kids didn't get fat because of genetics, they got fat because they had useless parents who either fed them junk food or fed them way too much food. And then they went on to develop an unhealthy relationship with food. Fact is, most morbidly obese people actually have a food addiction. Addicts are usually in denial and have to be shamed into seeking help ("help", in this case, being nutritional advice and fitness coaching).

    And like any other addiction, drugs generally do not effectively treat it, and in the rare cases when they do, like methadone for heroin addiction, they also create a chemical dependency on the "treatment" drug that is extremely difficult to break. So congratulations, you've helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It's called treatment, guys! Get with the program!

    You argue like every other progressive. Find some thin, marginal opening in which to insert your wedge - "it's hormone-related!" - and magnify it to the point of absurdity in order to advocate for completely insane interventions. That may fly with your liberal friends but it's transparent to anyone in the dissident sphere.

    So congratulations, you’ve helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It’s called treatment, guys! Get with the program!

    I’ll tell you what. How about the media stops bombarding young girls (and even more importantly, boys) with images of bulimorectic, chain-smoking starlets, each and every one of whom is doping to maintain their weight? This sets girls up for a lifetime of self-hatred, repeated failure, and eventually despair and resignation.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Non sequitur. You are in a hole. First, stop digging.
  146. Hi guys, what’d I miss?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Hi guys, what’d I miss?
     
    Rosie demanding speed for the rest of her life, because she is fat through Adam’s Original Sin (Eve is excused) and mass media manipulations that unnaturally program men to seek sexy women.

    Even quicker summary: Rosie is never at fault for her problems. She deserves so much more.

    , @iffen
    Hi guys, what’d I miss?

    A fierce debate over whether is was a "good" decision for us to have eliminated bastardy bonds and the dunking stool.
  147. AE, you might want to take a look at the data on the success of the anti-smoking campaign and how that relates to the timing of the obesity epidemic ramping up. I found this amusing little nugget on wikipedia:

    Studies have shown that weight gain during the smoking cessation process can often be lost eventually through diet and exercise.[citation needed]

    Lol. I suspect no such studies exist. Nicotine, like phentermine, is an appetite suppressant, and probably masked the effects of increasing sedentariness for some decades, especially among the working class population.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smoking_for_weight_loss

    • Agree: Prodigal son
    • Replies: @res

    Nicotine, like phentermine, is an appetite suppressant, and probably masked the effects of increasing sedentariness for some decades, especially among the working class population.
     
    Agreed. I don't think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.
  148. @Rosie

    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.
     
    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices. That is a matter for medical doctors.

    https://www.physiciansbriefing.com/internal-medicine-21/prescription-drug-news-551/long-term-phentermine-use-safe-effective-for-weight-loss-744363.html

    Make sure to read the last paragraph of that link:

    “For patients who respond to and tolerate it, phentermine may be a safe and affordable way to achieve greater and longer-lasting weight loss, but we need clinical trials to provide more certainty,” Lewis said in a statement. “At the moment, there is no change to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling so doctors should use caution with the decision about prescribing it longer term.”

    I think anyone considering stimulants for weight loss should learn about the history of that idea. This gives a good summary.

    America’s First Amphetamine Epidemic 1929–1971
    A Quantitative and Qualitative Retrospective With Implications for the Present

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/

    Note that doctors were once recommending extensive use of both amphetamine and barbiturates. Doctors are not omniscient. At the end of the day we are responsible for our own health.

  149. @Rosie
    AE, you might want to take a look at the data on the success of the anti-smoking campaign and how that relates to the timing of the obesity epidemic ramping up. I found this amusing little nugget on wikipedia:

    Studies have shown that weight gain during the smoking cessation process can often be lost eventually through diet and exercise.[citation needed]
     
    Lol. I suspect no such studies exist. Nicotine, like phentermine, is an appetite suppressant, and probably masked the effects of increasing sedentariness for some decades, especially among the working class population.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_smoking_for_weight_loss

    Nicotine, like phentermine, is an appetite suppressant, and probably masked the effects of increasing sedentariness for some decades, especially among the working class population.

    Agreed. I don’t think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Agreed. I don’t think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.
     
    I am somewhat skeptical, because weight gain is bigger among lower SES females who smoke much more. Smoking has all but disappeared among affluent women and they had the smallest weight gain.

    This is not to suggest that nicotine is not an appetite suppressant, merely that its role in weight gain trends may not be significant.
  150. @Rosie

    Look, in particular, to the last sentence.
     
    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices. That is a matter for medical doctors.

    https://www.physiciansbriefing.com/internal-medicine-21/prescription-drug-news-551/long-term-phentermine-use-safe-effective-for-weight-loss-744363.html

    From your own link:

    but we need clinical trials to provide more certainty,” Lewis said in a statement. “At the moment, there is no change to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling so doctors should use caution with the decision about prescribing it longer term.”

    Don’t jump on ONE study that happens to validate your priors. Do you even know who sponsored the study?

    Learn some basic biology – something that unnaturally stimulates the CNS isn’t going to be sustainable long-term.

    Far from “moralism” as the operative force in medical trials, the actual tension that exists is that between patient safety and the drug companies that want to make money by mass usage of their products.

    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices.

    That was in response to your self-indulgent philosophy that “succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human” (which is clearly a most un-Christian claim, but is consistent with your self-view as a dumb animal without free will to seek redemption through Grace).

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians (the latter was condemned at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century long before Protestant heresy was even an inkling), but you either knew that already (and are disingenuously combining the two mutually exclusive terms) or are too ignorant to know that.

    Don’t go full moronic. You come off poorly.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians
     
    The heretic doth protest too much.

    Twinkie: "I'm totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ's suffering and death."
  151. @Rosie

    So congratulations, you’ve helped marginally and temporarily reduce obesity by getting hundreds of millions of individuals addicted to an amphetamine-like drug. It’s called treatment, guys! Get with the program!
     
    I'll tell you what. How about the media stops bombarding young girls (and even more importantly, boys) with images of bulimorectic, chain-smoking starlets, each and every one of whom is doping to maintain their weight? This sets girls up for a lifetime of self-hatred, repeated failure, and eventually despair and resignation.

    Non sequitur. You are in a hole. First, stop digging.

  152. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Hi guys, what'd I miss?

    Hi guys, what’d I miss?

    Rosie demanding speed for the rest of her life, because she is fat through Adam’s Original Sin (Eve is excused) and mass media manipulations that unnaturally program men to seek sexy women.

    Even quicker summary: Rosie is never at fault for her problems. She deserves so much more.

  153. @Twinkie
    From your own link:

    but we need clinical trials to provide more certainty," Lewis said in a statement. "At the moment, there is no change to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling so doctors should use caution with the decision about prescribing it longer term."
     
    Don’t jump on ONE study that happens to validate your priors. Do you even know who sponsored the study?

    Learn some basic biology - something that unnaturally stimulates the CNS isn’t going to be sustainable long-term.

    Far from “moralism” as the operative force in medical trials, the actual tension that exists is that between patient safety and the drug companies that want to make money by mass usage of their products.

    Your Catholic Pelagianism has nothing and should have nothing to do with my health care choices.
     
    That was in response to your self-indulgent philosophy that “succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human” (which is clearly a most un-Christian claim, but is consistent with your self-view as a dumb animal without free will to seek redemption through Grace).

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians (the latter was condemned at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century long before Protestant heresy was even an inkling), but you either knew that already (and are disingenuously combining the two mutually exclusive terms) or are too ignorant to know that.

    Don’t go full moronic. You come off poorly.

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians

    The heretic doth protest too much.

    Twinkie: “I’m totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ’s suffering and death.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    “I’m totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ’s suffering and death.”
     
    Not what I wrote. Stop making things up. I consume Christ’s body and blood nearly every day and remember His sacrifice.

    You have gone full moronic and disingenuous. But keep digging.

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.

  154. @res

    Nicotine, like phentermine, is an appetite suppressant, and probably masked the effects of increasing sedentariness for some decades, especially among the working class population.
     
    Agreed. I don't think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.

    Agreed. I don’t think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.

    I am somewhat skeptical, because weight gain is bigger among lower SES females who smoke much more. Smoking has all but disappeared among affluent women and they had the smallest weight gain.

    This is not to suggest that nicotine is not an appetite suppressant, merely that its role in weight gain trends may not be significant.

    • Replies: @res
    That is an interesting counterpoint. It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).

    My guess is we see something like:
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in lower class people (especially women) until the environmental effects overwhelmed even that.
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in higher class people, but they made more of an effort to deal with weight by means other than smoking once smoking became unpopular.
    - People who quit smoking gained weight which was part of the obesity rate transition.

    I think the net effect would be to speed the change in obesity rates by having the decline in smoking coincide with increasingly bad food choices.

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though. What do you think? Any good evidence out there?

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.
  155. @Rosie

    And Catholics aren’t Pelagians
     
    The heretic doth protest too much.

    Twinkie: "I'm totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ's suffering and death."

    “I’m totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ’s suffering and death.”

    Not what I wrote. Stop making things up. I consume Christ’s body and blood nearly every day and remember His sacrifice.

    You have gone full moronic and disingenuous. But keep digging.

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Rosie

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.
     
    The original, real Gospel:

    https://youtu.be/Qh0ncmFiv6A
  156. @Twinkie

    Agreed. I don’t think this is mentioned often enough as one the causative factors behind the change in obesity rates.
     
    I am somewhat skeptical, because weight gain is bigger among lower SES females who smoke much more. Smoking has all but disappeared among affluent women and they had the smallest weight gain.

    This is not to suggest that nicotine is not an appetite suppressant, merely that its role in weight gain trends may not be significant.

    That is an interesting counterpoint. It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).

    My guess is we see something like:
    – Smoking helped mask weight gain in lower class people (especially women) until the environmental effects overwhelmed even that.
    – Smoking helped mask weight gain in higher class people, but they made more of an effort to deal with weight by means other than smoking once smoking became unpopular.
    – People who quit smoking gained weight which was part of the obesity rate transition.

    I think the net effect would be to speed the change in obesity rates by having the decline in smoking coincide with increasingly bad food choices.

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though. What do you think? Any good evidence out there?

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though.
     
    A little bit. :)

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc. My guess is quite small, compared to those two major variables, unless in massive doses (which inevitably means a high degree of addiction).

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.
     
    Because, like obesity, smoking is highly and inversely correlated with class, education, IQ, and conscientiousness, etc.

    I see it routinely, not only between my two residences (one in super zip, the other in Appalachia), but hospitals in the two respective areas (you might remember that I am on the board of a large, multi-state healthcare system).

    The disparity between Belmont and Fishtown has gotten even worse since Murray's book almost a decade ago.
    , @Rosie

    It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).
     
    Weight gain upon quitting smoking is widely recognized to be in the five to ten pound range, but that only takes account of what is gained right after cessation. It doesn't account for pounds gained that would not have been gained with continued nicotine use. As you alluded to, it is easy (and convenient for fat-shamers) to assume later weight gain is age-related. Of course, there you'd have to look at obesity rates among previous generations of elderly that smoked more to see if it has changed.
  157. @res
    That is an interesting counterpoint. It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).

    My guess is we see something like:
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in lower class people (especially women) until the environmental effects overwhelmed even that.
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in higher class people, but they made more of an effort to deal with weight by means other than smoking once smoking became unpopular.
    - People who quit smoking gained weight which was part of the obesity rate transition.

    I think the net effect would be to speed the change in obesity rates by having the decline in smoking coincide with increasingly bad food choices.

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though. What do you think? Any good evidence out there?

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though.

    A little bit. 🙂

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc. My guess is quite small, compared to those two major variables, unless in massive doses (which inevitably means a high degree of addiction).

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.

    Because, like obesity, smoking is highly and inversely correlated with class, education, IQ, and conscientiousness, etc.

    I see it routinely, not only between my two residences (one in super zip, the other in Appalachia), but hospitals in the two respective areas (you might remember that I am on the board of a large, multi-state healthcare system).

    The disparity between Belmont and Fishtown has gotten even worse since Murray’s book almost a decade ago.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc.
     
    Oh God, this is so painful. Let me spell it out for you. Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use, and the evidence increasingly suggests they are. Indeed, the results are already in from nicotine, the adverse effects of which are chiefly the result of the delivery mechanism, not the stimulant effects.

    If women just mindlessly gorged themselves on food out of gluttony or whatever it is you claim, the medicines wouldn't work. The problem is hunger, and stimulants take the edge off.
  158. @Johann Ricke

    The reason for the obesity problem is mostly due to people eating more. Which is partly the result of eating more carbs and less fats and even less saturated fats, which result in a craving for more food. Bad dietary advice has made it harder to eat less between meals. We eat more grains today and less diary because the so-called experts told us grains (carbs) were good for us and dairy was bad due its fat continent.
     
    I'd like to believe this narrative, except for the fact that the really fat people I know are mostly dairy and meat eaters. They just eat a lot of dairy and meat. In fact, all the fat people I know are practically on the paleo diet, where they've cut out every carb they can from their diet. Whereas all the thin people I know are on mostly carb diets.

    Fat people lie about their diets….paleo diets are difficult to maintain – very few carbs , no milk , no cheese, no potatoes, no rice, no wheat, no oats…

    Two obese guys lived in my fraternity house…they were always dieting and attempted to follow the recommended diets of the time , which was low fat and high carb. Fat free cookies was a favorite of them.

    In my twenties I lived shared a house with 4 people. One girl was obese…she was a vegetarian.

    When my best friend became a vegetarian we were surprised that he gained 20 gradually became fat.

  159. @Twinkie

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though.
     
    A little bit. :)

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc. My guess is quite small, compared to those two major variables, unless in massive doses (which inevitably means a high degree of addiction).

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.
     
    Because, like obesity, smoking is highly and inversely correlated with class, education, IQ, and conscientiousness, etc.

    I see it routinely, not only between my two residences (one in super zip, the other in Appalachia), but hospitals in the two respective areas (you might remember that I am on the board of a large, multi-state healthcare system).

    The disparity between Belmont and Fishtown has gotten even worse since Murray's book almost a decade ago.

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc.

    Oh God, this is so painful. Let me spell it out for you. Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use, and the evidence increasingly suggests they are. Indeed, the results are already in from nicotine, the adverse effects of which are chiefly the result of the delivery mechanism, not the stimulant effects.

    If women just mindlessly gorged themselves on food out of gluttony or whatever it is you claim, the medicines wouldn’t work. The problem is hunger, and stimulants take the edge off.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.
     
    No one with an IQ above 100 needs that spelled out. You seem not to understand that the stimulant in question is not the only variable affecting caloric intake and activity level. To wit:

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use
     
    Not so. The extent of the efficacy of the stimulant has not been established. In other words, is it powerful enough in relatively safe doses* to overcome other factors that affect the caloric intake and activity level? The provisional answer is no, and that’s why physicians prescribe diet and exercise in conjunction even when stimulants are prescribed.

    *In high doses, stimulants are going to be very effective at weight control. Severe meth addicts don’t get fat since they don’t eat. Heck, for that matter, you can’t or won’t eat if your heart stops. You’ll be nicely trim in death.

    There is no free lunch in this world, no matter how much you wish so. The only thing free is the grace of God, but even that you have to will yourself to accept.

    the evidence increasingly suggests they are.
     
    Are you just not going to read the overwhelming evidences that are contrary to your wants? As another commenter linked, we tried this before. Instead of using Google to pick and choose whatever information tickles your fancy, go on the internet and spend $50 on a basic human biology textbook. Read up on what happens when you stimulate the CNS long-term.
  160. @Twinkie

    “I’m totally not a Pelagian, I just believe that humans can save themselves and there actually was no need at all for Christ’s suffering and death.”
     
    Not what I wrote. Stop making things up. I consume Christ’s body and blood nearly every day and remember His sacrifice.

    You have gone full moronic and disingenuous. But keep digging.

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.

    The original, real Gospel:

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Sorry, I don’t get my theology through movies. And, no, Luther didn’t write the Gospel. I suspect if you read it, you’d know that God isn’t just undiscerning goodies.

    Indeed, to St. Augustine is attributed (by Samuel Beckett, I think) the saying, “Do not Despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.” Whether the attribution is correct or not, you can read the whole story in the Gospel according to St. Luke:

    [39] And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

    [41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
     
  161. @res
    That is an interesting counterpoint. It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).

    My guess is we see something like:
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in lower class people (especially women) until the environmental effects overwhelmed even that.
    - Smoking helped mask weight gain in higher class people, but they made more of an effort to deal with weight by means other than smoking once smoking became unpopular.
    - People who quit smoking gained weight which was part of the obesity rate transition.

    I think the net effect would be to speed the change in obesity rates by having the decline in smoking coincide with increasingly bad food choices.

    Feels like I am trying a bit too hard to rationalize things there though. What do you think? Any good evidence out there?

    Thinking about people I know now, a number of the smokers are fairly obese.

    It might be helpful to look at people who quit smoking. In my family I saw some weight gain there (though it can be hard to disentangle that from age related gain).

    Weight gain upon quitting smoking is widely recognized to be in the five to ten pound range, but that only takes account of what is gained right after cessation. It doesn’t account for pounds gained that would not have been gained with continued nicotine use. As you alluded to, it is easy (and convenient for fat-shamers) to assume later weight gain is age-related. Of course, there you’d have to look at obesity rates among previous generations of elderly that smoked more to see if it has changed.

  162. @Rosie

    There is no doubt that stimulants depress appetite. The question is, by how much? In particular, how much does it matter in weight control in comparison to other variables such as caloric intake, physical activity level, etc.
     
    Oh God, this is so painful. Let me spell it out for you. Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use, and the evidence increasingly suggests they are. Indeed, the results are already in from nicotine, the adverse effects of which are chiefly the result of the delivery mechanism, not the stimulant effects.

    If women just mindlessly gorged themselves on food out of gluttony or whatever it is you claim, the medicines wouldn't work. The problem is hunger, and stimulants take the edge off.

    Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.

    No one with an IQ above 100 needs that spelled out. You seem not to understand that the stimulant in question is not the only variable affecting caloric intake and activity level. To wit:

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use

    Not so. The extent of the efficacy of the stimulant has not been established. In other words, is it powerful enough in relatively safe doses* to overcome other factors that affect the caloric intake and activity level? The provisional answer is no, and that’s why physicians prescribe diet and exercise in conjunction even when stimulants are prescribed.

    *In high doses, stimulants are going to be very effective at weight control. Severe meth addicts don’t get fat since they don’t eat. Heck, for that matter, you can’t or won’t eat if your heart stops. You’ll be nicely trim in death.

    There is no free lunch in this world, no matter how much you wish so. The only thing free is the grace of God, but even that you have to will yourself to accept.

    the evidence increasingly suggests they are.

    Are you just not going to read the overwhelming evidences that are contrary to your wants? As another commenter linked, we tried this before. Instead of using Google to pick and choose whatever information tickles your fancy, go on the internet and spend $50 on a basic human biology textbook. Read up on what happens when you stimulate the CNS long-term.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The provisional answer is no, and that’s why physicians prescribe diet and exercise in conjunction even when stimulants are prescribed.
     
    Seriously, Twinkie, I just can't deal with you anymore. I am not claiming that stimulants help without diet and exercise, obviously. I have clearly stated the opposite. The point is that the stimulants facilitate diet and exercise.
  163. @Rosie

    “Heretic”? That’s almost funny, coming from someone who doesn’t even subscribe to Christian doctrines of repentance and redemption and thinks her heresy of a few hundred years is the original.
     
    The original, real Gospel:

    https://youtu.be/Qh0ncmFiv6A

    Sorry, I don’t get my theology through movies. And, no, Luther didn’t write the Gospel. I suspect if you read it, you’d know that God isn’t just undiscerning goodies.

    Indeed, to St. Augustine is attributed (by Samuel Beckett, I think) the saying, “Do not Despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.” Whether the attribution is correct or not, you can read the whole story in the Gospel according to St. Luke:

    [39] And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

    [41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sorry, I don’t get my theology through movies. And, no, Luther didn’t write the Gospel. I suspect if you read it, you’d know that God isn’t just undiscerning goodies.
     
    No, he just rescued it from its errant custodian.
  164. You know what I think it’s funny that anybody even talks about ephedrine anymore I thought that was completely out-of-date chemically enhanced supplement stop.

    Entirely false notion that supplement help don’t help with specific areas of health or General Health. Well there are plenty of bogus Health supplements there are also a myriad of Health supplements that are recommended by doctors not only outside of the United States but inside the United States they’re all natural they come from spices and herbs and Auburn research to a greater extent than they ever have been before by the professional medical community. I think it’s very very clear that in the professional World of Sports numerous supplements are being used to Aid athletes and not only improve their performance but their health as well and a lot of that and a lot of that knowledge is being transferred by physicians and medical personnel 2 non professional athletes and non-athletes alike.

    In conjunction with change of diet and exercise I use the following supplements and they’re all natural to my knowledge apple spice vinegar, curcumin and turmeric and fennel.

    On occasion I also use on occasion some gut biogenetic juices, and pure bulk vitamin C.

    I do have several bottles of CLA at my disposal but I don’t know how effective those supplements have been to my General Health or a weight loss at all given the change in diet and the amount of exercise.

    But based on the medical community’s reporting and research on supplements natural supplements it’s clear that they are in fact helpful in improving one’s health and Fitness. They are not a substitute for exercise or Diet but they are helpful additions.

    And I agree with anyone who would say that one should be very careful about what supplements they choose and where they choose to purchase her supplements and the dosage and and how they use any of these in combination.

  165. There’s no evidence that supplements can improve your height but there’s plenty to suggest they can help with managing your weight and overall health and I do hear that there is lots of research that suggests supplements natural supplements can improve one’s cognitive abilities regardless of how tall a person is.

    Note I have not use CLA for over a year and I’ve used it very briefly I have no idea if it has any value.

    • Agree: Rosie
  166. @MikeatMikedotMike
    Hi guys, what'd I miss?

    Hi guys, what’d I miss?

    A fierce debate over whether is was a “good” decision for us to have eliminated bastardy bonds and the dunking stool.

  167. @Twinkie

    Caloric intake and physical activity are not separate factors from the stimulants. They are changed by the stimulants. With a suppressed appetite, you eat less, and you are not weighed down and listless from lack of calories.
     
    No one with an IQ above 100 needs that spelled out. You seem not to understand that the stimulant in question is not the only variable affecting caloric intake and activity level. To wit:

    The effectiveness of stimulants in weight loss is totally uncontroversial. The only thing that is even remotely controversial is whether they are safe for long-term use
     
    Not so. The extent of the efficacy of the stimulant has not been established. In other words, is it powerful enough in relatively safe doses* to overcome other factors that affect the caloric intake and activity level? The provisional answer is no, and that’s why physicians prescribe diet and exercise in conjunction even when stimulants are prescribed.

    *In high doses, stimulants are going to be very effective at weight control. Severe meth addicts don’t get fat since they don’t eat. Heck, for that matter, you can’t or won’t eat if your heart stops. You’ll be nicely trim in death.

    There is no free lunch in this world, no matter how much you wish so. The only thing free is the grace of God, but even that you have to will yourself to accept.

    the evidence increasingly suggests they are.
     
    Are you just not going to read the overwhelming evidences that are contrary to your wants? As another commenter linked, we tried this before. Instead of using Google to pick and choose whatever information tickles your fancy, go on the internet and spend $50 on a basic human biology textbook. Read up on what happens when you stimulate the CNS long-term.

    The provisional answer is no, and that’s why physicians prescribe diet and exercise in conjunction even when stimulants are prescribed.

    Seriously, Twinkie, I just can’t deal with you anymore. I am not claiming that stimulants help without diet and exercise, obviously. I have clearly stated the opposite. The point is that the stimulants facilitate diet and exercise.

  168. @Twinkie
    Sorry, I don’t get my theology through movies. And, no, Luther didn’t write the Gospel. I suspect if you read it, you’d know that God isn’t just undiscerning goodies.

    Indeed, to St. Augustine is attributed (by Samuel Beckett, I think) the saying, “Do not Despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.” Whether the attribution is correct or not, you can read the whole story in the Gospel according to St. Luke:

    [39] And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

    [41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.
     

    Sorry, I don’t get my theology through movies. And, no, Luther didn’t write the Gospel. I suspect if you read it, you’d know that God isn’t just undiscerning goodies.

    No, he just rescued it from its errant custodian.

  169. You guys are making a mistake by speaking with a woman online. All they want is attention. Rosie loves when you insult her, rebut her, or give her any kind of replies.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • LOL: Rosie
    • Replies: @iffen
    All they want is attention.

    I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that women want more attention than men. Well, not you, but maybe you could hire someone to work on it.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Good grief.
    , @Anonn
    You was saying Nipsey has no talent.
    If you wanna half ass bein a white nationalist instead of a White Supremacist

    At least, recongize your bitch ass would have nevr survived on the mean streets o South Central L.A.
    https://youtu.be/Uq6wXSOzW5E
  170. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    We also consume more carbs and less fat.
     
    We consume 1/3 more meat that we did in the 60's, so it's not clear where the more carbs and less fat stat comes from:

    https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/

    I find that a good chunk of writing about this issue revolves around trying to rationalize unhealthy weight gain as someone else's fault. It's high fructose corn syrup. It's carbs. It's big government, in collusion with big ag. My personal impression is that everyone eats a lot more than they used to. And that impression is borne out by the statistics.

    Another factor has to do with us eating more even as our work makes ever fewer physical demands on us. Between pallet jacks and forklifts, even warehouse workers are getting less of a workout than they used to.

    Well, then what is it due to? Did the American people suddenly become lazy and slothful, compared to the 50s? You can attribute some of it to demographic changes, but Whites didn’t suddenly decide to eat a lot more for no particular reason. What did change is the agro policy and the way food is manufactured . Food scientist for major manufacturers work very hard to design foods that hit all the neurochemical triggers to make them irresistible. Also, portion sizes in most restaurants are enormous, suitable for 2-3 people at least, and yet most people will eat the whole portion when it’s put in front of them.
    It’s not any change in genetics, because Europeans who move to the U.S. tend to gain weight, and Americans who move to Europe tend to become thinner. It’s partly the foods and partly the culture that reinforces it. Seeing lots of obese people around makes it “OK” to be overweight, whereas when you are surrounded by fit, trim people, it puts pressure on you to control your weight.

  171. @prime noticer
    i don't think the data is accurate. but maybe the graph is attempting to compress too much class stratification into only 2 bars.

    the upper class is still taller than the underclass and definitely by more than 1 inch on average. although the underclass has gotten taller over time with access to more food and cheap calories. in fact the underclass getting access to as much food and calories as they need for maximum growth is probably the main driver of population increases in height and intelligence. and the underlying mechanism of both, bone growth.

    so heights might be closer now, but the dumb people are clearly still shorter on average, as they have been for hundreds of years. we're probably at the end of a century long process now, with the body of almost every american getting as much input as it needs to grow the bones as big as it can. now the incoming calories are being diverted into adipose tissue, and the people are growing outward instead of further upward. this bone growth process is probably entering the same plateau for skull size and skull volume, the thing that was keeping phenotypic intelligence increasing, while genotypic intelligence is slowly decreasing.

    also the 1 percenter extreme high end upper class people are even taller than the rest of the upper class. maybe one inch taller on average. you can see this pretty easily by visiting las vegas, and walking around the high roller hotels and casinos, where suddenly every man is 6 feet tall or more, as if you've been transported to the netherlands. exempting the east asian gamblers of course.

    Probably partially true, but there are a lot of short Jewish elites, billionaires included. Since Kraft was just in the news I noticed he’s only 5-7. Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.

    I knew a very tall Jew who rowed for the Ivy League. He said all their coxswains were either Puerto Rican or Jewish.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.
     
    When Israel adapted a South African rifle for their own use and turned it into Galil, they had to reduce the stock size substantially, because of the size disparity. I used to think, “Really? How much smaller could they be?”

    Then I was in Israel and witnessed the IDF swearing-in ceremony at the Wailing Wall. Those young Israeli draftees were tiny! They looked like our middle schoolers!

    I was surprised. I expected them to be taller than, say, South Korean draftees, but they weren’t. They were shorter (and yet the stats in Wikipedia say that the average Israeli male - ages 18-21 - height is 5’9.5” and that for South Korea 5’ 8.5”).

  172. You can make this pretty complicated, but it doesn’t need to be. Weight is a perfect example of a genotype-by-environment interaction, much like smoking. In the absence of smoking certain lung cancers would be extremely rare. Make everyone smoke, and some people will be mostly unaffected while a significant proportion of the population will get lung cancer and other diseases. When everyone smokes, these differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

    In our natural environment, humans are naturally thin. All of us (about <16% body fat for men 30% body fat). Even the Eskimos – the fattest of all hunter-gatherers – are relatively lean in their natural environment.

    Half my family is fat and I was a chubby child. If left to my own devices I would easily be <30% body fat. Intermittent fasting plus avoiding carbs makes it relatively easy for me to stay <20% body fat while driving a desk, so I imagine it would work for most. On a genetic scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being naturally skinny and 0 being 600 pounds, I'm probably a 3.

    Most of it is simply diet. Try getting fat on the natural human diet based on fresh meat and vegetables. It's nearly impossible. Take out all the crap and carbs (bread, pasta, potatoes, cookies etc) and try getting, or staying, fat on only vegetables and fresh meat. Add intermittent fasting and pretty much anyone can get reasonably lean, just like we all were 10,000 years ago.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone, iffen
    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    Meant to add: When you introduce the Western diet it obviously affects both groups and individuals differently, similar to smoking or anything else.
    , @Twinkie

    Try getting fat on the natural human diet based on fresh meat and vegetables. It's nearly impossible.
     
    Yup. Now substitute fresh fish for that meat and it’s doubly hard getting fat from it.

    We eat lots of fish in the Twinkie household. My children grew up on them since they were babies, so they are comfort food for them. The only hiccup is having to avoid (very tasty) apex predator fish that have high mercury content.
  173. @Anonymous Jew
    You can make this pretty complicated, but it doesn't need to be. Weight is a perfect example of a genotype-by-environment interaction, much like smoking. In the absence of smoking certain lung cancers would be extremely rare. Make everyone smoke, and some people will be mostly unaffected while a significant proportion of the population will get lung cancer and other diseases. When everyone smokes, these differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

    In our natural environment, humans are naturally thin. All of us (about <16% body fat for men 30% body fat). Even the Eskimos - the fattest of all hunter-gatherers - are relatively lean in their natural environment.

    Half my family is fat and I was a chubby child. If left to my own devices I would easily be <30% body fat. Intermittent fasting plus avoiding carbs makes it relatively easy for me to stay <20% body fat while driving a desk, so I imagine it would work for most. On a genetic scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being naturally skinny and 0 being 600 pounds, I'm probably a 3.

    Most of it is simply diet. Try getting fat on the natural human diet based on fresh meat and vegetables. It's nearly impossible. Take out all the crap and carbs (bread, pasta, potatoes, cookies etc) and try getting, or staying, fat on only vegetables and fresh meat. Add intermittent fasting and pretty much anyone can get reasonably lean, just like we all were 10,000 years ago.

    Meant to add: When you introduce the Western diet it obviously affects both groups and individuals differently, similar to smoking or anything else.

  174. @Anonymous Jew
    Probably partially true, but there are a lot of short Jewish elites, billionaires included. Since Kraft was just in the news I noticed he's only 5-7. Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.

    I knew a very tall Jew who rowed for the Ivy League. He said all their coxswains were either Puerto Rican or Jewish.

    Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.

    When Israel adapted a South African rifle for their own use and turned it into Galil, they had to reduce the stock size substantially, because of the size disparity. I used to think, “Really? How much smaller could they be?”

    Then I was in Israel and witnessed the IDF swearing-in ceremony at the Wailing Wall. Those young Israeli draftees were tiny! They looked like our middle schoolers!

    I was surprised. I expected them to be taller than, say, South Korean draftees, but they weren’t. They were shorter (and yet the stats in Wikipedia say that the average Israeli male – ages 18-21 – height is 5’9.5” and that for South Korea 5’ 8.5”).

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    The stock size could also be to accommodate female soldiers - I don't know. The median Ashkenazi in the US seems about my size (5-9 barefoot). Just a guesstimate. I've never been to Israel, so have no idea about the other half of the country.

    A little off topic, but I've always been amazed at the broad height curve of A. Jews considering how genetically uniform we are. Just looking at the past couple of offices where I've worked, I've seen Jewish men from 5-2 to 6-3. I mean, Robert Reich is 4-11 and NFL offensive lineman Mitchell Schwartz is 6-5. There's also Paul Simon (5-3) and Jeff Goldblum (6-4) and on and on. My guess would be that mixed-race groups may sometimes have greater phenotype variation with less genetic diversity (as opposed to Pygmies, where you have great genetic diversity but little phenotype variation - at least in regards to height).

    Living in SF it's not unusual to see some tall Asians. Considering some Northern Chinese provinces are already averaging 5-9.5, my guess would be that they have similar genetic height potential to Northern Europe (5-11-ish if raised on a rich diet). I even see some tall Jungle Asians. I know a Filipino guy here that's conservatively 6-1 (though I don't know if I've ever met a Jungle Asian over 6-2, which is not that tall for Whites).

  175. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    You guys are making a mistake by speaking with a woman online. All they want is attention. Rosie loves when you insult her, rebut her, or give her any kind of replies.

    All they want is attention.

    I think that you would be hard pressed to prove that women want more attention than men. Well, not you, but maybe you could hire someone to work on it.

  176. @Twinkie

    Jews tend to be a little shorter (maybe an inch or so?) but there are also many tall ones.
     
    When Israel adapted a South African rifle for their own use and turned it into Galil, they had to reduce the stock size substantially, because of the size disparity. I used to think, “Really? How much smaller could they be?”

    Then I was in Israel and witnessed the IDF swearing-in ceremony at the Wailing Wall. Those young Israeli draftees were tiny! They looked like our middle schoolers!

    I was surprised. I expected them to be taller than, say, South Korean draftees, but they weren’t. They were shorter (and yet the stats in Wikipedia say that the average Israeli male - ages 18-21 - height is 5’9.5” and that for South Korea 5’ 8.5”).

    The stock size could also be to accommodate female soldiers – I don’t know. The median Ashkenazi in the US seems about my size (5-9 barefoot). Just a guesstimate. I’ve never been to Israel, so have no idea about the other half of the country.

    A little off topic, but I’ve always been amazed at the broad height curve of A. Jews considering how genetically uniform we are. Just looking at the past couple of offices where I’ve worked, I’ve seen Jewish men from 5-2 to 6-3. I mean, Robert Reich is 4-11 and NFL offensive lineman Mitchell Schwartz is 6-5. There’s also Paul Simon (5-3) and Jeff Goldblum (6-4) and on and on. My guess would be that mixed-race groups may sometimes have greater phenotype variation with less genetic diversity (as opposed to Pygmies, where you have great genetic diversity but little phenotype variation – at least in regards to height).

    Living in SF it’s not unusual to see some tall Asians. Considering some Northern Chinese provinces are already averaging 5-9.5, my guess would be that they have similar genetic height potential to Northern Europe (5-11-ish if raised on a rich diet). I even see some tall Jungle Asians. I know a Filipino guy here that’s conservatively 6-1 (though I don’t know if I’ve ever met a Jungle Asian over 6-2, which is not that tall for Whites).

  177. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    You guys are making a mistake by speaking with a woman online. All they want is attention. Rosie loves when you insult her, rebut her, or give her any kind of replies.

    Good grief.

  178. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm 6'4". I've learned to duck without thinking. I'm right in between normal clothes shopping and the big and tall places, so that is annoying. Sports sedans are out. As far as people interaction, I have run into a few, not too many, shorter men suffering from Napoleon's Complex. My tolerance for it wanes as I get older.

    That’s right on the edge. What’s your ideal height? Maybe an inch or two shorter than you are?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm good where I am, but yeah I'd say a man who is 6'1"-2" gets the best of being tall without some of the more bothersome attributes.
  179. @EliteCommInc.
    Rosie,

    I agree with a e on most of his comments about exercise equipment you can buy what you need but my caveat would be you need very little. In fact you know there was a time when isometrics was the big deal and this day and age walking is a great exercise to do and it cost practically nothing except for a good pair of a crossover or walking shoes or tennis shoes to do .

    You don't have to become an exercise freak you don't have to be extreme sports you can do modern exercises get your heart rate up your body moving your muscles working and changing your diet primarily to something low carb and you will lose weight and get in shape and you can do that without necessarily over stressing either your body or your mind.

    Agree. Half an hour of isometrics is great for balance and muscle definition and it has a very low risk of injury to boot.

  180. @prime noticer
    i don't think the data is accurate. but maybe the graph is attempting to compress too much class stratification into only 2 bars.

    the upper class is still taller than the underclass and definitely by more than 1 inch on average. although the underclass has gotten taller over time with access to more food and cheap calories. in fact the underclass getting access to as much food and calories as they need for maximum growth is probably the main driver of population increases in height and intelligence. and the underlying mechanism of both, bone growth.

    so heights might be closer now, but the dumb people are clearly still shorter on average, as they have been for hundreds of years. we're probably at the end of a century long process now, with the body of almost every american getting as much input as it needs to grow the bones as big as it can. now the incoming calories are being diverted into adipose tissue, and the people are growing outward instead of further upward. this bone growth process is probably entering the same plateau for skull size and skull volume, the thing that was keeping phenotypic intelligence increasing, while genotypic intelligence is slowly decreasing.

    also the 1 percenter extreme high end upper class people are even taller than the rest of the upper class. maybe one inch taller on average. you can see this pretty easily by visiting las vegas, and walking around the high roller hotels and casinos, where suddenly every man is 6 feet tall or more, as if you've been transported to the netherlands. exempting the east asian gamblers of course.

    The lower class and upper class samples are pretty small so I grouped them in with the much larger working and middle class samples.

  181. @Twinkie
    I don’t disagree. I pulled my wife rightward, but not by much. We “evolved” together.

    I do, however, know of wives who would not let their husband drift leftward and become swamp creatures. Wives of Justices Thomas and Alito come to mind, as does Mrs. Scalia (though her husband never needed any steeling).

    A good wife strengthens the resolve of her man - witness, famously, Empress Theodora in the Nika riots:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

    Justinian, in despair, considered fleeing, but his wife Theodora is said to have dissuaded him, saying, "Those who have worn the crown should never survive its loss. Never will I see the day when I am not saluted as empress."[5] Although an escape route across the sea lay open for the emperor, Theodora insisted that she would stay in the city, quoting an ancient saying, "Royalty is a fine burial shroud," or perhaps, "[the royal color] Purple makes a fine winding sheet."[6]

    As Justinian rallied himself
     

    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!
     
    Please, Empress Theodora was a dancer, not a prostitute! 😉
  182. @Feryl
    Subway is a psy-op; customers see the massive dough and are tricked into thinking that they are getting a massive sandwich ("bang for your buck"), in reality they are just carbing out (meat, the most nutritious but expensive ingredient, is often horribly sparse relative to the big-ass loaf of bread you're chowing on). Subway is evidently not doing very well; they inexplicably have locations practically on every block, when I don't know anyone who considers them to be their fast food of choice; the one nearest me is typically not very busy, even in comparison to the nearby Burger King. Jimmy John's and Jersey Mike's are way better.

    Unwiches are my go-to when travelling.

  183. @Jay Fink
    The story about the 6'8 guy getting comments about his height from half of everyone he meets makes me feel better. I am short, 5'6 (and a half) and it is extremely rare for anyone to mention my height . Maybe one a year. It seems no one notices or cares. Part of it could be that I live in a Hispanic majority city...lot's of short people here.

    Yeah, there is still some sort of unspoken normative scale wrt height, so that asking about someone being short feels like punching down, while ribbing someone for his height is still punching up!

  184. @Michael S

    And I will judge you for judging them.
     
    Wow, that stings. The pseudonymous griefer at Unz who espouses every single Democratic party platform except for the Hate Whitey stuff is judging me for not drinking the fat-acceptance Kool-aid. However will I go on?

    Tell us, O wise ex-fatty, do you think anabolic steroids should be legal, or do you only advocate for policies that enable women to be even less responsible than they already are with men having the honor of paying the tab?

    Yes yes, twin studies. We get it. Obviously genes lead to different body types. I'm not gonna look like Arnold even if I go on a Tren-HGH cocktail at 10 times the recommended dose and spend 9 hours at the gym every day for the rest of my life. Likewise, you're not gonna look like Gigi Hadid even if you do a hundred crunches and lunges every day. But genes don't make you 500 pounds. They don't even make you 170 pounds.

    Genes are the difference between between being a perfect 10 if you're disciplined vs. being a Plain Jane if you're disciplined. They're the difference between occasionally eating junk food and still being pretty lean, vs. having to feel hungry sometimes if you want to maintain a trim figure. That's it. There's no gene that's making 100 million Americans into tubbies. It's completely ridiculous and you know that it is.

    The distinction is so totally obvious that I don't see why I or anyone else should take you seriously. You just want easy answers to complex problems - which, to be fair, most women do, so I don't hold it against you, but you're out of your depth here. You can't even extrapolate the obvious consequences of feeding amphetamine-like stimulants to people with severely-compromised cardiovascular health. Just let it go.

    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).

    • Replies: @Rosie

    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).
     
    Genetic weight differences cannot be assumed to come down merely to genetic differences in willpower unless you assume that everyone's metabolism and hormone sensitivity are identical. We have no evidence for this assertion.

    If someone paid me a million dollars to stay trim, I could no doubt manage it. Indeed, that is precisely what Hollywood starlets are paid to do: conform to an exceedingly demanding beauty standard. They don't have to worry about anything else. Someone else cooks and cleans for them and takes care of their kids for them, if they have any. They are free to spend hours a day in the gym, etc.

    The classic cookie vs. radish experiment is instructive here. Whether the radish eaters performed worse on the puzzle task because they were suffering "ego depletion," were low on blood sugar, or any other reason ultimately doesn't matter. The fact remains that the cookie eaters did better on the puzzle than the radish eaters, and here in the real world, people have responsibilities above and beyond just sitting around and looking pretty.

    https://phoboscience.com/self-control-a-limited-resource-muscle-analogy/

    (Edit: the puzzle was unsolvable. Cookie eaters worked harder on it than radish eaters.)

  185. @Daniel Chieh
    Any comment on the correlation of height and intelligence?

    The r-value is only .11 but the p-value is 0.00x, so yes, the GSS shows a modest but consistent relationship.

  186. @Rosie

    Nobody is being shamed for being human. They’re being shamed for being fat and lazy humans who lack self-control and the ability to plan ahead more than 5 minutes.
     
    And yet succumbing to temptation is precisely what it means to be human.

    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I’m occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I’m occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!
     
    One of my dogs - long dead now - would refuse treats from strangers. He’d only take food from my wife and me. We used to joke that he had better impulse-control than most people.

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice. Whenever my wife was pregnant, he’d follow her around and never allow any man but me to get close to her.

    Uncanny.
  187. @indocon
    I wonder how long before GSS gets kaboshed by the powers to be, way too much non-wokeness coming through it every time.

    I’ve long-wondered the same. That I’ve long done so is encouraging, though!

  188. @Audacious Epigone
    That's right on the edge. What's your ideal height? Maybe an inch or two shorter than you are?

    I’m good where I am, but yeah I’d say a man who is 6’1″-2″ gets the best of being tall without some of the more bothersome attributes.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    I’m 6’2” and my wife told me it’s tall without being gangly or freakishly tall. I still don’t do well in small airplanes though.

    My wife is 5’9” and that’s what I always thought about her height - just right.
  189. @Audacious Epigone
    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!

    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!

    Please, Empress Theodora was a dancer, not a prostitute! 😉

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I see where you stand on the Justinian question--not a quixotic effort to put back a broken empire, but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!
  190. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I'm good where I am, but yeah I'd say a man who is 6'1"-2" gets the best of being tall without some of the more bothersome attributes.

    I’m 6’2” and my wife told me it’s tall without being gangly or freakishly tall. I still don’t do well in small airplanes though.

    My wife is 5’9” and that’s what I always thought about her height – just right.

  191. @Anonymous Jew
    You can make this pretty complicated, but it doesn't need to be. Weight is a perfect example of a genotype-by-environment interaction, much like smoking. In the absence of smoking certain lung cancers would be extremely rare. Make everyone smoke, and some people will be mostly unaffected while a significant proportion of the population will get lung cancer and other diseases. When everyone smokes, these differences in outcome are primarily genetic.

    In our natural environment, humans are naturally thin. All of us (about <16% body fat for men 30% body fat). Even the Eskimos - the fattest of all hunter-gatherers - are relatively lean in their natural environment.

    Half my family is fat and I was a chubby child. If left to my own devices I would easily be <30% body fat. Intermittent fasting plus avoiding carbs makes it relatively easy for me to stay <20% body fat while driving a desk, so I imagine it would work for most. On a genetic scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being naturally skinny and 0 being 600 pounds, I'm probably a 3.

    Most of it is simply diet. Try getting fat on the natural human diet based on fresh meat and vegetables. It's nearly impossible. Take out all the crap and carbs (bread, pasta, potatoes, cookies etc) and try getting, or staying, fat on only vegetables and fresh meat. Add intermittent fasting and pretty much anyone can get reasonably lean, just like we all were 10,000 years ago.

    Try getting fat on the natural human diet based on fresh meat and vegetables. It’s nearly impossible.

    Yup. Now substitute fresh fish for that meat and it’s doubly hard getting fat from it.

    We eat lots of fish in the Twinkie household. My children grew up on them since they were babies, so they are comfort food for them. The only hiccup is having to avoid (very tasty) apex predator fish that have high mercury content.

  192. @Audacious Epigone
    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I'm occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!

    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I’m occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!

    One of my dogs – long dead now – would refuse treats from strangers. He’d only take food from my wife and me. We used to joke that he had better impulse-control than most people.

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice. Whenever my wife was pregnant, he’d follow her around and never allow any man but me to get close to her.

    Uncanny.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice.
     
    Pit bulls have a bad reputation, along with a number of other dog breeds bred for fighting. Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter, and did you have extra trouble getting them to adjust to your rules for the dogs in your household?
  193. @Twinkie

    Huh? My dog succumbs to temptation all the time. That I’m occasionally able to avoid doing so is what makes me human!
     
    One of my dogs - long dead now - would refuse treats from strangers. He’d only take food from my wife and me. We used to joke that he had better impulse-control than most people.

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice. Whenever my wife was pregnant, he’d follow her around and never allow any man but me to get close to her.

    Uncanny.

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice.

    Pit bulls have a bad reputation, along with a number of other dog breeds bred for fighting. Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter, and did you have extra trouble getting them to adjust to your rules for the dogs in your household?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter
     
    No, I have not.

    But I have had large dogs with intense dog aggression. I’ve broken up more than a few dog fights. It’s one of the first things I learned about dog handling. And it’s one of the first things I taught my wife and kids (my older kids still have a memory of scampering away from a really bad dog fight that happened when they were little - right in front of the dog food bowls).

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.

    I also saw a teenage dog handling girl get half her face bitten off by a boxer that displayed zero sign of human aggression before right in front of my eyes, and my wife and I administered first aid on her until the paramedics arrived. That was pretty horrific.
  194. @Johann Ricke

    I still miss that dog dearly. He was a shelter dog and accompanied our coast-to-coast moves twice.
     
    Pit bulls have a bad reputation, along with a number of other dog breeds bred for fighting. Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter, and did you have extra trouble getting them to adjust to your rules for the dogs in your household?

    Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter

    No, I have not.

    But I have had large dogs with intense dog aggression. I’ve broken up more than a few dog fights. It’s one of the first things I learned about dog handling. And it’s one of the first things I taught my wife and kids (my older kids still have a memory of scampering away from a really bad dog fight that happened when they were little – right in front of the dog food bowls).

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.

    I also saw a teenage dog handling girl get half her face bitten off by a boxer that displayed zero sign of human aggression before right in front of my eyes, and my wife and I administered first aid on her until the paramedics arrived. That was pretty horrific.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.
     
    Were these your dogs? Did you have the dogs responsible put to sleep? On the assumption that this wasn't a zero tolerance thing, what was your threshold?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Relatedly, is "lab mix" anything more than a euphemism for "at least substantially pit bull"?
  195. @Twinkie

    Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter
     
    No, I have not.

    But I have had large dogs with intense dog aggression. I’ve broken up more than a few dog fights. It’s one of the first things I learned about dog handling. And it’s one of the first things I taught my wife and kids (my older kids still have a memory of scampering away from a really bad dog fight that happened when they were little - right in front of the dog food bowls).

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.

    I also saw a teenage dog handling girl get half her face bitten off by a boxer that displayed zero sign of human aggression before right in front of my eyes, and my wife and I administered first aid on her until the paramedics arrived. That was pretty horrific.

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.

    Were these your dogs? Did you have the dogs responsible put to sleep? On the assumption that this wasn’t a zero tolerance thing, what was your threshold?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Yes, it was a dog I took from a shelter. I got careless, ignored the signs, and paid the price - when you get too cocky, God let's you know and gives you nice, permanent reminder. :)

    That dog was trained to a very high degree and became a great companion to my children. Led a very long and happy life and died a few years ago. In this particular case, I kept the dog, because I knew I screwed up. It'd be a different story, though, if the victim, as such, had been someone else.

    None of my dogs has ever bitten any person outside the family (plenty of dog fights, though) except once. My wife was running with a dog (the one that followed her around and guarded her during pregnancy) when a teenage boy darted out of his house and almost knocked my wife down. That dog leapt into the boy, bit down on him, and held him down. To his credit and safety, the boy didn't go berserk, but just yelled out, "Please, please, tell him to let me go!"

    The boy's mother was understandably extremely upset at first, but we explained the situation, apologized profusely, and of course offered to pay for any medical costs. At a very calm and cordial meeting afterwards, the parents admonished the boy for running into my wife, told him to apologize to her, and simply asked us for the vaccination information (which we brought). Even though we insisted, they didn't even let us pay for the ER bill. The mother told us, "We have a dog too. If someone ran into me like that, I am sure my dog would have jumped on the person too."

    Thank God they were good people.

    As for my threshold, I'd put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It's not impossible, but it's very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.

  196. @Johann Ricke

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.
     
    Were these your dogs? Did you have the dogs responsible put to sleep? On the assumption that this wasn't a zero tolerance thing, what was your threshold?

    Yes, it was a dog I took from a shelter. I got careless, ignored the signs, and paid the price – when you get too cocky, God let’s you know and gives you nice, permanent reminder. 🙂

    That dog was trained to a very high degree and became a great companion to my children. Led a very long and happy life and died a few years ago. In this particular case, I kept the dog, because I knew I screwed up. It’d be a different story, though, if the victim, as such, had been someone else.

    None of my dogs has ever bitten any person outside the family (plenty of dog fights, though) except once. My wife was running with a dog (the one that followed her around and guarded her during pregnancy) when a teenage boy darted out of his house and almost knocked my wife down. That dog leapt into the boy, bit down on him, and held him down. To his credit and safety, the boy didn’t go berserk, but just yelled out, “Please, please, tell him to let me go!”

    The boy’s mother was understandably extremely upset at first, but we explained the situation, apologized profusely, and of course offered to pay for any medical costs. At a very calm and cordial meeting afterwards, the parents admonished the boy for running into my wife, told him to apologize to her, and simply asked us for the vaccination information (which we brought). Even though we insisted, they didn’t even let us pay for the ER bill. The mother told us, “We have a dog too. If someone ran into me like that, I am sure my dog would have jumped on the person too.”

    Thank God they were good people.

    As for my threshold, I’d put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It’s not impossible, but it’s very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.

    • Replies: @res

    As for my threshold, I’d put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It’s not impossible, but it’s very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.
     
    Do you include provocation in your threshold? I was bitten a long time ago by a friend's pit bull (a sweet dog I knew well). There was both provocation (I was acting aggressively near the dog's owner, not directed at the owner, but the dog does not know that) and warning (a leaping snap near me, which I failed to interpret correctly). The dog bit my bare leg (hard, hurt and left a scar, but not a tearing bite) and held, but released on a commanding no from me (and even looked sheepish afterwards). Happily I did not even need a doctor visit (probably part of why it scarred). Just put antiseptic then a dressing on it and went about my day (which was quite active).

    That was well within my threshold (not even a question in my mind). The interesting thing is the dog's owner and I had had a conversation about whether or not it was appropriate to put a biting dog down regardless of circumstances not long before that with the owner taking a stronger stance on that topic than me. That view changed a bit under those particular circumstances ; )

    P.S. Thanks for your story. The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.
  197. @Twinkie

    Sometimes even courtesans can do a lot of good in your court!
     
    Please, Empress Theodora was a dancer, not a prostitute! 😉

    I see where you stand on the Justinian question–not a quixotic effort to put back a broken empire, but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    A print of this sits on the wall of my home library:
    https://dessjuest.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/david_-_belisarius-e1331203334498.jpg?w=550&zoom=2
    , @Twinkie

    but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!
     
    In case the reference to the Jacques-Louis David's "Date obolum bellisario" isn't clear, I think poorly of Justinian. I think he was a vain and jealous man who threw away an empire and was unworthy of those who built it for him.
  198. @Twinkie

    Have you ever gotten one of these breeds from the shelter
     
    No, I have not.

    But I have had large dogs with intense dog aggression. I’ve broken up more than a few dog fights. It’s one of the first things I learned about dog handling. And it’s one of the first things I taught my wife and kids (my older kids still have a memory of scampering away from a really bad dog fight that happened when they were little - right in front of the dog food bowls).

    And, yes, I’ve been bitten. I still have a large canine dental impression on one of my legs. That hurt and bled a good while, and I had to be on antibiotics for a full course. Unfortunately, my wife has been bitten more times than I have.

    I also saw a teenage dog handling girl get half her face bitten off by a boxer that displayed zero sign of human aggression before right in front of my eyes, and my wife and I administered first aid on her until the paramedics arrived. That was pretty horrific.

    Relatedly, is “lab mix” anything more than a euphemism for “at least substantially pit bull”?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Relatedly, is “lab mix” anything more than a euphemism for “at least substantially pit bull”?
     
    Labs are popular and there are lots of lab mixes. I’m sure it’s often used as a euphemism, but there is also plausible deniability.
  199. @Audacious Epigone
    I see where you stand on the Justinian question--not a quixotic effort to put back a broken empire, but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!

    A print of this sits on the wall of my home library:

  200. @Audacious Epigone
    Relatedly, is "lab mix" anything more than a euphemism for "at least substantially pit bull"?

    Relatedly, is “lab mix” anything more than a euphemism for “at least substantially pit bull”?

    Labs are popular and there are lots of lab mixes. I’m sure it’s often used as a euphemism, but there is also plausible deniability.

  201. @Twinkie
    Yes, it was a dog I took from a shelter. I got careless, ignored the signs, and paid the price - when you get too cocky, God let's you know and gives you nice, permanent reminder. :)

    That dog was trained to a very high degree and became a great companion to my children. Led a very long and happy life and died a few years ago. In this particular case, I kept the dog, because I knew I screwed up. It'd be a different story, though, if the victim, as such, had been someone else.

    None of my dogs has ever bitten any person outside the family (plenty of dog fights, though) except once. My wife was running with a dog (the one that followed her around and guarded her during pregnancy) when a teenage boy darted out of his house and almost knocked my wife down. That dog leapt into the boy, bit down on him, and held him down. To his credit and safety, the boy didn't go berserk, but just yelled out, "Please, please, tell him to let me go!"

    The boy's mother was understandably extremely upset at first, but we explained the situation, apologized profusely, and of course offered to pay for any medical costs. At a very calm and cordial meeting afterwards, the parents admonished the boy for running into my wife, told him to apologize to her, and simply asked us for the vaccination information (which we brought). Even though we insisted, they didn't even let us pay for the ER bill. The mother told us, "We have a dog too. If someone ran into me like that, I am sure my dog would have jumped on the person too."

    Thank God they were good people.

    As for my threshold, I'd put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It's not impossible, but it's very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.

    As for my threshold, I’d put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It’s not impossible, but it’s very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.

    Do you include provocation in your threshold? I was bitten a long time ago by a friend’s pit bull (a sweet dog I knew well). There was both provocation (I was acting aggressively near the dog’s owner, not directed at the owner, but the dog does not know that) and warning (a leaping snap near me, which I failed to interpret correctly). The dog bit my bare leg (hard, hurt and left a scar, but not a tearing bite) and held, but released on a commanding no from me (and even looked sheepish afterwards). Happily I did not even need a doctor visit (probably part of why it scarred). Just put antiseptic then a dressing on it and went about my day (which was quite active).

    That was well within my threshold (not even a question in my mind). The interesting thing is the dog’s owner and I had had a conversation about whether or not it was appropriate to put a biting dog down regardless of circumstances not long before that with the owner taking a stronger stance on that topic than me. That view changed a bit under those particular circumstances ; )

    P.S. Thanks for your story. The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Do you include provocation in your threshold?
     
    Certainly.

    I tend to agree with my insurance company, USAA, which does not have breed bans for its home owner's insurance, but looks at the history of the individual dogs in question.

    The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.
     
    Yes, indeed. And I do live in such a world, more or less, though the dramatically increased movement of Indian immigrants into the area is starting to take a civic and quality of life toll. It's gotten to a point that the older Indian immigrants I know - those who came decades ago as doctors, long before the current tech-oriented wave - are starting to become quite critical of the behaviors and tendencies of the new wave.

    I suppose it is somewhat akin to Steve Sailer's construct of the older pre-Soviet Armenian immigrants ("-ians") who have assimilated well vs. the new post-Soviet arrivals ("-yans") who are much more gold-chain-y and gangster-ish.
  202. Healthy food isn’t that expensive. Fresh produce isn’t really that expensive. You can buy high quality frozen vegetables in bulk almost anywhere.

    Losing weight is as simple as front-loading your daily meals with low-calories vegetables and lean protein sources like fish and chicken. And count your calories. Don’t make assumptions about the total calories you eat. If you weigh yourself everyday and keep a record or your weight you will never allow your weight to get out of hand.

    For most people getting fat is just simple math. If you have a calorie surplus of, on average, 100 calories a day, then you will put on 10 pounds in a year. 200 extra calories a day = 20 pounds a year, 300 extra calories a day = 30 pounds a year. It’s very, very easy to eat 100, 200, and even 300 calories more than your body needs each day.

    The flip side of that is that all you have to do to lose 20 pounds in a year is have a calorie deficit of 200 calories a day. That’s about one less soda a day, or a few cookies. A 30 minute walk everyday will do the trick.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What you say is true. Most people can cut the calories for a few days by 100, but then there is that day with the ice cream or spaghetti with lots of garlic bread and the extra 400 calories wipe out the four days with a deficit of 100 each.
  203. @Wilkey
    Healthy food isn't that expensive. Fresh produce isn't really that expensive. You can buy high quality frozen vegetables in bulk almost anywhere.

    Losing weight is as simple as front-loading your daily meals with low-calories vegetables and lean protein sources like fish and chicken. And count your calories. Don't make assumptions about the total calories you eat. If you weigh yourself everyday and keep a record or your weight you will never allow your weight to get out of hand.

    For most people getting fat is just simple math. If you have a calorie surplus of, on average, 100 calories a day, then you will put on 10 pounds in a year. 200 extra calories a day = 20 pounds a year, 300 extra calories a day = 30 pounds a year. It's very, very easy to eat 100, 200, and even 300 calories more than your body needs each day.

    The flip side of that is that all you have to do to lose 20 pounds in a year is have a calorie deficit of 200 calories a day. That's about one less soda a day, or a few cookies. A 30 minute walk everyday will do the trick.

    What you say is true. Most people can cut the calories for a few days by 100, but then there is that day with the ice cream or spaghetti with lots of garlic bread and the extra 400 calories wipe out the four days with a deficit of 100 each.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Well of course. But I'm talking about a running average here.

    One thing I've learned from my own experience, though, is that those splurges come a lot less often when you get your appetite under control. It no longer feels like a sense of denial. You go to a restaurant or a big family dinner (like Easter) and you feel full on a lot less.

    From my own personal exprience, though, losing weight "quickly" (by that I mean about 2 pounds a week) was more satisfying than doing so over the long haul would have been. It's not because I wanted to diet and get it over with, but because of how satisfying it was to notice the change in the way I felt, both physically and mentally. If it had taken me a year to lose 20 pounds the change would not have been so obvious. Of course after that you still have to settle in for the long haul by sticking with the behavioral changes you've made.
  204. I think I called my drinks biogenetic — uhh yah. No.

    Probiotic water. Excuse the error

  205. @Johann Ricke
    Pret A Manger (UK) sandwich:
    https://media.timeout.com/images/102537516/380/285/image.jpg

    Subway (US) sandwich:
    https://www.subway.com/ns/images/menu/USA/ENG/[email protected]jpg

    The bread is the issue in both of these meals.

  206. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym. The machines aren’t doing you much good anyway!
     
    I will probably do this eventually, but for now, I'm afraid to have my kids around such equipment. Part of the draw of the gym is the playroom, where you know your kids are safe and having fun while you enjoy your workout.

    See “Twinkie” in reply to the original comment. You don’t need heavy weights to stay fit. Most of what you might reasonably consider using is perfectly safe around children; a yoga mat, for instance, though even it is hardly a necessity even for yoga.

    Other advice on this thread is good: find something fun, and do that. Some good examples were given so I’ll not repeat them.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    See “Twinkie” in reply to the original comment. You don’t need heavy weights to stay fit.
     
    I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly do. The more muscle mass a woman has, the easier it is to avoid fat gain. I'm not talking about looking like Mister Universe, either. I'm just talking about being strong and athletic like women of more active generations probably were.
  207. @Twinkie

    The upfront costs are high, but dumbbells, barbells, kettle bells, medicine balls, yoga mats, and a lot of other exercise equipment lasts forever. Buy what you need, put it in the basement, and be done with the gym.
     
    Body weight exercises are more than adequate for the best majority of people.

    I used to do Ashtanga Yoga and Ginastica Natural as complements to my Judo and Jujutsu training. All you need is a floor.

    Pavel Tsatsouline told me once that, setting aside all the BS, you only needed a barbell and some plates for the most functional strength training even for high level athletes - deadlift and one-arm standing press. High weight and low reps. You get functional strength over multiple planes of movement without bulking up - what he called wiry strength.

    the best majority

    Is there a worst majority?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  208. @Audacious Epigone
    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).

    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).

    Genetic weight differences cannot be assumed to come down merely to genetic differences in willpower unless you assume that everyone’s metabolism and hormone sensitivity are identical. We have no evidence for this assertion.

    If someone paid me a million dollars to stay trim, I could no doubt manage it. Indeed, that is precisely what Hollywood starlets are paid to do: conform to an exceedingly demanding beauty standard. They don’t have to worry about anything else. Someone else cooks and cleans for them and takes care of their kids for them, if they have any. They are free to spend hours a day in the gym, etc.

    The classic cookie vs. radish experiment is instructive here. Whether the radish eaters performed worse on the puzzle task because they were suffering “ego depletion,” were low on blood sugar, or any other reason ultimately doesn’t matter. The fact remains that the cookie eaters did better on the puzzle than the radish eaters, and here in the real world, people have responsibilities above and beyond just sitting around and looking pretty.

    https://phoboscience.com/self-control-a-limited-resource-muscle-analogy/

    (Edit: the puzzle was unsolvable. Cookie eaters worked harder on it than radish eaters.)

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Dieting saps the will. Everyone who has tried it knows this. Bottom line:

    No anorexia without anorectics!
  209. @Rosie

    If I credibly promised to pay you $1 million if you shaved 20 pounds off in three months, would you be able to do it? If the answer is yes (and it is), it is ultimately a question of will (which I understand is at least to some extent genetic just like everything else is).
     
    Genetic weight differences cannot be assumed to come down merely to genetic differences in willpower unless you assume that everyone's metabolism and hormone sensitivity are identical. We have no evidence for this assertion.

    If someone paid me a million dollars to stay trim, I could no doubt manage it. Indeed, that is precisely what Hollywood starlets are paid to do: conform to an exceedingly demanding beauty standard. They don't have to worry about anything else. Someone else cooks and cleans for them and takes care of their kids for them, if they have any. They are free to spend hours a day in the gym, etc.

    The classic cookie vs. radish experiment is instructive here. Whether the radish eaters performed worse on the puzzle task because they were suffering "ego depletion," were low on blood sugar, or any other reason ultimately doesn't matter. The fact remains that the cookie eaters did better on the puzzle than the radish eaters, and here in the real world, people have responsibilities above and beyond just sitting around and looking pretty.

    https://phoboscience.com/self-control-a-limited-resource-muscle-analogy/

    (Edit: the puzzle was unsolvable. Cookie eaters worked harder on it than radish eaters.)

    Dieting saps the will. Everyone who has tried it knows this. Bottom line:

    No anorexia without anorectics!

  210. @iffen
    What you say is true. Most people can cut the calories for a few days by 100, but then there is that day with the ice cream or spaghetti with lots of garlic bread and the extra 400 calories wipe out the four days with a deficit of 100 each.

    Well of course. But I’m talking about a running average here.

    One thing I’ve learned from my own experience, though, is that those splurges come a lot less often when you get your appetite under control. It no longer feels like a sense of denial. You go to a restaurant or a big family dinner (like Easter) and you feel full on a lot less.

    From my own personal exprience, though, losing weight “quickly” (by that I mean about 2 pounds a week) was more satisfying than doing so over the long haul would have been. It’s not because I wanted to diet and get it over with, but because of how satisfying it was to notice the change in the way I felt, both physically and mentally. If it had taken me a year to lose 20 pounds the change would not have been so obvious. Of course after that you still have to settle in for the long haul by sticking with the behavioral changes you’ve made.

    • Agree: iffen
  211. @Anon
    See "Twinkie" in reply to the original comment. You don't need heavy weights to stay fit. Most of what you might reasonably consider using is perfectly safe around children; a yoga mat, for instance, though even it is hardly a necessity even for yoga.

    Other advice on this thread is good: find something fun, and do that. Some good examples were given so I'll not repeat them.

    See “Twinkie” in reply to the original comment. You don’t need heavy weights to stay fit.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly do. The more muscle mass a woman has, the easier it is to avoid fat gain. I’m not talking about looking like Mister Universe, either. I’m just talking about being strong and athletic like women of more active generations probably were.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    One wonders if men are less understanding of obesity than women because of sex differences in sensitivity to hunger hormones.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433916/
    , @Anon
    Women of more active generations weren't usually weightlifters.

    I'm not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.

    Nevertheless I have a hard time believing that you require, for basic fitness, heavier weights or other sorts of equipment than, say, your own body weight, or (depending on your exercise regimen) other kinds of equipment that would be significantly more dangerous around children than normal household items.

    You may have already done so, but it might not be a bad idea to look into alternatives to whatever it is you're currently doing.
  212. @Rosie

    See “Twinkie” in reply to the original comment. You don’t need heavy weights to stay fit.
     
    I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly do. The more muscle mass a woman has, the easier it is to avoid fat gain. I'm not talking about looking like Mister Universe, either. I'm just talking about being strong and athletic like women of more active generations probably were.

    One wonders if men are less understanding of obesity than women because of sex differences in sensitivity to hunger hormones.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433916/

  213. “Dieting saps the will. Everyone who has tried it knows this. Bottom line:

    No anorexia without anorectics!”

    Laugh.

    I suppose you are just being provacative. Sugar provides a boost.

    But over the long term, depending on the kinds of sugars and other processed carbs over the long term, it is probably detrimental. i still have cravings for sugar. But there are ways to manage even that. This week, I am going to shift my exercise routine down further three time a week 20 minutes cutting my times in half. It’s been hard to shift down. But I have to think long term — what will keeping my weight under control mean in five years, ten, twenty. It is doubtful that I intend to keep even the pacing I have now which is far less than it was a month ago, six months ago and far less than a year ago.

    I grant that genetics makes each person’s exercise and diet different to maintain a healthy posture. And even even to some extent what constitutes a healthy diet. But I think the evidence is in — carbohydrates as they have been distributed over the last fifty to sixty years has contributed some negative effect on body and mind.

    Genetics is not only a determinent, it is a responder, in my view and chemically can be altered to some extent. I guess I am saying that one can train certain aspects of DNA. Overcoming twenty or thirty years of habit is another story. I buy the sugar/gluten/sucrose addiction theory.

    As a nation, I think we need to change our minds about foods.

  214. I suppose you are just being provacative.

    Not at all. I’m being very serious.

    In the evolutionary environment, our ancestors had to survive some very lean times during which they didn’t have much to eat, but then didn’t have much to do, either. Nowadays, we work year-round with no let up, and we can’t really function when we’re hungry. Pharmaceuticals may be the only solution, at least until the Fourth Reich comes along and introduces majo9changes in the way we live, work, and play.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Pharmaceuticals may be the only solution, at least until the Fourth Reich comes along
     
    Funny you should mention the Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines#Military_use

    As early as 1919, Akira Ogata synthesized methamphetamine via reduction of ephedrine using red phosphorus and iodine. Later, the chemists Hauschild and Dobke from the German pharmaceutical company Temmler developed an easier method for converting ephedrine to methamphetamine. As a result, it was possible for Temmler to market it on a large scale as a nonprescription drug under the trade name Pervitin (methamphetamine hydrochloride). It was not until 1986 that Pervitin became a controlled substance, requiring a special prescription to obtain.[41] Pervitin was commonly used by the German and Finnish militaries.[40][42] Adolf Hitler is said to have begun using amphetamine occasionally after 1937, and to have become addicted to it in late 1942;[43] Albert Speer claimed that this use of amphetamine caused Hitler to have increasingly erratic behavior and inflexible decision making (for example, rarely allowing military retreats).[43]

    It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with many millions of tablets being distributed throughout the war for its performance-enhancing stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[44] Its use by German Tank (Panzer) crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade ("Tank-Chocolates").[45] It was also colloquially known among German Luftwaffe pilots as Stuka-Tabletten ("Stuka-Tablets") and Hermann-Göring-Pillen ("Herman-Göring-Pills").[42] More than 35 million three-milligram doses of Pervitin were manufactured for the German army and air force between April and July 1940.[46] From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler was given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell.[citation needed] In Japan, methamphetamine was sold under the registered trademark of Philopon by Dainippon Pharmaceuticals (present-day Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma [DSP]) for civilian and military use.[47] It has been estimated that one billion Phiporon pills were produced between 1939 and 1945.[47] As with the rest of the world at the time, the side effects of methamphetamine were not well studied, and regulation was not seen as necessary. In the 1940s and 1950s, the drug was widely administered to Japanese industrial workers to increase their productivity.[48] In Finland, Pervitin was colloquially known as höökipulveri ("pep powder").[citation needed] Its use was essentially restricted to special forces, especially to long-range commandos.
     
    The mass use of Hiropon/meth created a large addict population and the attendant social-criminal problems in Japan, and so its manufacture and distribution were subsequently banned.
  215. @Audacious Epigone
    I see where you stand on the Justinian question--not a quixotic effort to put back a broken empire, but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!

    but a visionary who was tripped up by a devastating act of God in the form of a plague!

    In case the reference to the Jacques-Louis David’s “Date obolum bellisario” isn’t clear, I think poorly of Justinian. I think he was a vain and jealous man who threw away an empire and was unworthy of those who built it for him.

  216. @res

    As for my threshold, I’d put down a dog that showed little to no sign or gave a warning and just attacked. It’s not impossible, but it’s very hard to re-train a dog that has unpredictable aggression. There are people who can handle a dog like that, but I am not one of them.
     
    Do you include provocation in your threshold? I was bitten a long time ago by a friend's pit bull (a sweet dog I knew well). There was both provocation (I was acting aggressively near the dog's owner, not directed at the owner, but the dog does not know that) and warning (a leaping snap near me, which I failed to interpret correctly). The dog bit my bare leg (hard, hurt and left a scar, but not a tearing bite) and held, but released on a commanding no from me (and even looked sheepish afterwards). Happily I did not even need a doctor visit (probably part of why it scarred). Just put antiseptic then a dressing on it and went about my day (which was quite active).

    That was well within my threshold (not even a question in my mind). The interesting thing is the dog's owner and I had had a conversation about whether or not it was appropriate to put a biting dog down regardless of circumstances not long before that with the owner taking a stronger stance on that topic than me. That view changed a bit under those particular circumstances ; )

    P.S. Thanks for your story. The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.

    Do you include provocation in your threshold?

    Certainly.

    I tend to agree with my insurance company, USAA, which does not have breed bans for its home owner’s insurance, but looks at the history of the individual dogs in question.

    The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.

    Yes, indeed. And I do live in such a world, more or less, though the dramatically increased movement of Indian immigrants into the area is starting to take a civic and quality of life toll. It’s gotten to a point that the older Indian immigrants I know – those who came decades ago as doctors, long before the current tech-oriented wave – are starting to become quite critical of the behaviors and tendencies of the new wave.

    I suppose it is somewhat akin to Steve Sailer’s construct of the older pre-Soviet Armenian immigrants (“-ians”) who have assimilated well vs. the new post-Soviet arrivals (“-yans”) who are much more gold-chain-y and gangster-ish.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave? (Other than around dogs, of course.)

    I have an interest in the answer to this question, being of partial Ceylonese descent myself.

    People there are often rather partial to dogs, incidentally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5T5D4VknrU
  217. @Rosie

    I suppose you are just being provacative.
     
    Not at all. I'm being very serious.

    In the evolutionary environment, our ancestors had to survive some very lean times during which they didn't have much to eat, but then didn't have much to do, either. Nowadays, we work year-round with no let up, and we can't really function when we're hungry. Pharmaceuticals may be the only solution, at least until the Fourth Reich comes along and introduces majo9changes in the way we live, work, and play.

    Pharmaceuticals may be the only solution, at least until the Fourth Reich comes along

    Funny you should mention the Reich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substituted_amphetamines#Military_use

    As early as 1919, Akira Ogata synthesized methamphetamine via reduction of ephedrine using red phosphorus and iodine. Later, the chemists Hauschild and Dobke from the German pharmaceutical company Temmler developed an easier method for converting ephedrine to methamphetamine. As a result, it was possible for Temmler to market it on a large scale as a nonprescription drug under the trade name Pervitin (methamphetamine hydrochloride). It was not until 1986 that Pervitin became a controlled substance, requiring a special prescription to obtain.[41] Pervitin was commonly used by the German and Finnish militaries.[40][42] Adolf Hitler is said to have begun using amphetamine occasionally after 1937, and to have become addicted to it in late 1942;[43] Albert Speer claimed that this use of amphetamine caused Hitler to have increasingly erratic behavior and inflexible decision making (for example, rarely allowing military retreats).[43]

    It was widely distributed across German military ranks and divisions, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel, with many millions of tablets being distributed throughout the war for its performance-enhancing stimulant effects and to induce extended wakefulness.[44] Its use by German Tank (Panzer) crews also led to it being known as Panzerschokolade (“Tank-Chocolates”).[45] It was also colloquially known among German Luftwaffe pilots as Stuka-Tabletten (“Stuka-Tablets”) and Hermann-Göring-Pillen (“Herman-Göring-Pills”).[42] More than 35 million three-milligram doses of Pervitin were manufactured for the German army and air force between April and July 1940.[46] From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler was given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell.[citation needed] In Japan, methamphetamine was sold under the registered trademark of Philopon by Dainippon Pharmaceuticals (present-day Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma [DSP]) for civilian and military use.[47] It has been estimated that one billion Phiporon pills were produced between 1939 and 1945.[47] As with the rest of the world at the time, the side effects of methamphetamine were not well studied, and regulation was not seen as necessary. In the 1940s and 1950s, the drug was widely administered to Japanese industrial workers to increase their productivity.[48] In Finland, Pervitin was colloquially known as höökipulveri (“pep powder”).[citation needed] Its use was essentially restricted to special forces, especially to long-range commandos.

    The mass use of Hiropon/meth created a large addict population and the attendant social-criminal problems in Japan, and so its manufacture and distribution were subsequently banned.

  218. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Do you include provocation in your threshold?
     
    Certainly.

    I tend to agree with my insurance company, USAA, which does not have breed bans for its home owner's insurance, but looks at the history of the individual dogs in question.

    The way everyone acted in that difficult situation is the world I want to live in.
     
    Yes, indeed. And I do live in such a world, more or less, though the dramatically increased movement of Indian immigrants into the area is starting to take a civic and quality of life toll. It's gotten to a point that the older Indian immigrants I know - those who came decades ago as doctors, long before the current tech-oriented wave - are starting to become quite critical of the behaviors and tendencies of the new wave.

    I suppose it is somewhat akin to Steve Sailer's construct of the older pre-Soviet Armenian immigrants ("-ians") who have assimilated well vs. the new post-Soviet arrivals ("-yans") who are much more gold-chain-y and gangster-ish.

    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave? (Other than around dogs, of course.)

    I have an interest in the answer to this question, being of partial Ceylonese descent myself.

    People there are often rather partial to dogs, incidentally:

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave?
     
    There is much to say, but what bothers me the most is that many display little concerns toward communal interests and obligations and often treat tradesmen/manual laborers with contempt.

    For example, a group of them came to the HOA meeting in a development where I own some rental property and declared that they would not pay the HOA fees, because they don’t use any services. After some argument (“You do use the services such as trash collection” etc.), they then demanded a significant reduction in the HOA fees, because they didn’t use the swimming pool, the club house, and the tennis court, etc. After they were explained the concept of a HOA and commonly-owned property and its maintenance (and the penalties for failing to pay the fees) they tried to haggle at length and had to be told to stop so the rest of the HOA agenda could be discussed.

    I am also friends with the guy who owns the HVAC company that works on my properties and the manager of the landscaping company with which I contract (both hunting buddies), and they uniformly loathe their Indian customers, because they try to haggle down every little thing and often demand free services or try to get out of paying contracted fees for services rendered. And these customers are contemptuous of their employees and even the owners and the account managers and talk down to the latter even as they display zero knowledge of HVAC systems or lawn maintenance (e.g. refusing to irrigate and then blaming the landscaping company for killing the lawn after a drought or never changing the furnace filter and then demanding free repair, etc.).

    My wife has become extremely anti-Indian of late, because they and their children show up in large numbers to local businesses and monopolize staff and service time with little regard for other customers (they and their children frequently cut lines) and because they often behave in an uncouth manner such as letting the door slam on her face or nearly running over my children with shopping carts with nary an “Excuse me.”

    I could go on and on with example after example. Just the other day I had some friends over for Easter and, when the subject of Indians came up, everyone just groaned painfully. Anyone who’s been in the area for more than ten years can see the dramatic cultural transformation as some neighborhoods that were previously around 90% white + 10% East and SE Asian (the big Asian groups were Koreans and Vietnamese) have gone 70+% Indian due to the massive growth of IT.
  219. The mass use of Hiropon/meth created a large addict population and the attendant social-criminal problems in Japan, and so its manufacture and distribution were subsequently banned.

    Fortunately, Rx obesity drugs do not seem to have this effect.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23736363

    The trouble with you “OMG it’s meth” argument is that it fails to take account of the radical difference in strength between the two. Drinking a glass of wine with dinner is quite different from downing a fifth of vodka.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    No, Phentermine isn’t addictive as meth, but it stimulates the central nervous system similarly and can likewise create heart problems including high blood pressure and palpitations.

    Trust me when I say this - researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.

    So far, no free lunch though.
  220. @Rosie

    The mass use of Hiropon/meth created a large addict population and the attendant social-criminal problems in Japan, and so its manufacture and distribution were subsequently banned.
     
    Fortunately, Rx obesity drugs do not seem to have this effect.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23736363

    The trouble with you "OMG it's meth" argument is that it fails to take account of the radical difference in strength between the two. Drinking a glass of wine with dinner is quite different from downing a fifth of vodka.

    No, Phentermine isn’t addictive as meth, but it stimulates the central nervous system similarly and can likewise create heart problems including high blood pressure and palpitations.

    Trust me when I say this – researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.

    So far, no free lunch though.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Trust me when I say this – researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.
     
    As usual, you've got it 100% wrong. There already are efficacious weight loss drugs, as you would know if you would read more and type less. The problem is that doctors won't prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/diet-drugs-work-why-wont-doctors-prescribe-them

  221. @Anon
    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave? (Other than around dogs, of course.)

    I have an interest in the answer to this question, being of partial Ceylonese descent myself.

    People there are often rather partial to dogs, incidentally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5T5D4VknrU

    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave?

    There is much to say, but what bothers me the most is that many display little concerns toward communal interests and obligations and often treat tradesmen/manual laborers with contempt.

    For example, a group of them came to the HOA meeting in a development where I own some rental property and declared that they would not pay the HOA fees, because they don’t use any services. After some argument (“You do use the services such as trash collection” etc.), they then demanded a significant reduction in the HOA fees, because they didn’t use the swimming pool, the club house, and the tennis court, etc. After they were explained the concept of a HOA and commonly-owned property and its maintenance (and the penalties for failing to pay the fees) they tried to haggle at length and had to be told to stop so the rest of the HOA agenda could be discussed.

    I am also friends with the guy who owns the HVAC company that works on my properties and the manager of the landscaping company with which I contract (both hunting buddies), and they uniformly loathe their Indian customers, because they try to haggle down every little thing and often demand free services or try to get out of paying contracted fees for services rendered. And these customers are contemptuous of their employees and even the owners and the account managers and talk down to the latter even as they display zero knowledge of HVAC systems or lawn maintenance (e.g. refusing to irrigate and then blaming the landscaping company for killing the lawn after a drought or never changing the furnace filter and then demanding free repair, etc.).

    My wife has become extremely anti-Indian of late, because they and their children show up in large numbers to local businesses and monopolize staff and service time with little regard for other customers (they and their children frequently cut lines) and because they often behave in an uncouth manner such as letting the door slam on her face or nearly running over my children with shopping carts with nary an “Excuse me.”

    I could go on and on with example after example. Just the other day I had some friends over for Easter and, when the subject of Indians came up, everyone just groaned painfully. Anyone who’s been in the area for more than ten years can see the dramatic cultural transformation as some neighborhoods that were previously around 90% white + 10% East and SE Asian (the big Asian groups were Koreans and Vietnamese) have gone 70+% Indian due to the massive growth of IT.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Interesting, thanks, and very unfortunate.


    I've generally heard that Sri Lankans consider Indians, again generally speaking, rude as well, but one would expect a great deal of variation based on class and other factors. It does sound like the older immigrants were better assimilated.
    , @res
    Thanks for elaborating. I think part of the difference is how Anglicized the different groups of Indians are.

    I find the way the newer Indians operate on perceived respective status to be incredibly annoying. There is a serious at your feet or at your throat aspect which is distasteful and it seems to be morphing into just seeing all Americans as inferior which manifests in the behavior you describe. They treat people they perceive to be inferior in status like dirt.

    How much of that is caste dynamics being replicated here? Do Brahmins have more noblesse oblige?

    P.S. The ian-yan connection you make in your earlier comment is a good comparison.
  222. @Twinkie
    No, Phentermine isn’t addictive as meth, but it stimulates the central nervous system similarly and can likewise create heart problems including high blood pressure and palpitations.

    Trust me when I say this - researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.

    So far, no free lunch though.

    Trust me when I say this – researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.

    As usual, you’ve got it 100% wrong. There already are efficacious weight loss drugs, as you would know if you would read more and type less. The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/diet-drugs-work-why-wont-doctors-prescribe-them

    • Replies: @iffen
    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    If we step back and remove the personal, it's pretty good to have someone around who knows everything. :)

    Also, the medical industry presents us with many more problems than just the doctors.

    , @Twinkie

    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.
     
    That’s it.

    The stupid really can’t be fixed.
  223. @Rosie

    Trust me when I say this – researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.
     
    As usual, you've got it 100% wrong. There already are efficacious weight loss drugs, as you would know if you would read more and type less. The problem is that doctors won't prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/diet-drugs-work-why-wont-doctors-prescribe-them

    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    If we step back and remove the personal, it’s pretty good to have someone around who knows everything. 🙂

    Also, the medical industry presents us with many more problems than just the doctors.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Also, the medical industry presents us with many more problems than just the doctors.
     
    Indeed, like insurance companies who won't pay for anti-obesity drugs, since it is Medicare and not them who will pay for the long-term consequences of obesity.

    This whole debate reminds me of Leftist "anti-racism." My plan would work if everyone would just, you know, find a way to overcome millions of years of mammalian evolution and do as I say. Everyone needs someone to shake their fist at, I suppose.
  224. @iffen
    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    If we step back and remove the personal, it's pretty good to have someone around who knows everything. :)

    Also, the medical industry presents us with many more problems than just the doctors.

    Also, the medical industry presents us with many more problems than just the doctors.

    Indeed, like insurance companies who won’t pay for anti-obesity drugs, since it is Medicare and not them who will pay for the long-term consequences of obesity.

    This whole debate reminds me of Leftist “anti-racism.” My plan would work if everyone would just, you know, find a way to overcome millions of years of mammalian evolution and do as I say. Everyone needs someone to shake their fist at, I suppose.

  225. @Twinkie

    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave?
     
    There is much to say, but what bothers me the most is that many display little concerns toward communal interests and obligations and often treat tradesmen/manual laborers with contempt.

    For example, a group of them came to the HOA meeting in a development where I own some rental property and declared that they would not pay the HOA fees, because they don’t use any services. After some argument (“You do use the services such as trash collection” etc.), they then demanded a significant reduction in the HOA fees, because they didn’t use the swimming pool, the club house, and the tennis court, etc. After they were explained the concept of a HOA and commonly-owned property and its maintenance (and the penalties for failing to pay the fees) they tried to haggle at length and had to be told to stop so the rest of the HOA agenda could be discussed.

    I am also friends with the guy who owns the HVAC company that works on my properties and the manager of the landscaping company with which I contract (both hunting buddies), and they uniformly loathe their Indian customers, because they try to haggle down every little thing and often demand free services or try to get out of paying contracted fees for services rendered. And these customers are contemptuous of their employees and even the owners and the account managers and talk down to the latter even as they display zero knowledge of HVAC systems or lawn maintenance (e.g. refusing to irrigate and then blaming the landscaping company for killing the lawn after a drought or never changing the furnace filter and then demanding free repair, etc.).

    My wife has become extremely anti-Indian of late, because they and their children show up in large numbers to local businesses and monopolize staff and service time with little regard for other customers (they and their children frequently cut lines) and because they often behave in an uncouth manner such as letting the door slam on her face or nearly running over my children with shopping carts with nary an “Excuse me.”

    I could go on and on with example after example. Just the other day I had some friends over for Easter and, when the subject of Indians came up, everyone just groaned painfully. Anyone who’s been in the area for more than ten years can see the dramatic cultural transformation as some neighborhoods that were previously around 90% white + 10% East and SE Asian (the big Asian groups were Koreans and Vietnamese) have gone 70+% Indian due to the massive growth of IT.

    Interesting, thanks, and very unfortunate.

    I’ve generally heard that Sri Lankans consider Indians, again generally speaking, rude as well, but one would expect a great deal of variation based on class and other factors. It does sound like the older immigrants were better assimilated.

  226. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    See “Twinkie” in reply to the original comment. You don’t need heavy weights to stay fit.
     
    I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly do. The more muscle mass a woman has, the easier it is to avoid fat gain. I'm not talking about looking like Mister Universe, either. I'm just talking about being strong and athletic like women of more active generations probably were.

    Women of more active generations weren’t usually weightlifters.

    I’m not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.

    Nevertheless I have a hard time believing that you require, for basic fitness, heavier weights or other sorts of equipment than, say, your own body weight, or (depending on your exercise regimen) other kinds of equipment that would be significantly more dangerous around children than normal household items.

    You may have already done so, but it might not be a bad idea to look into alternatives to whatever it is you’re currently doing.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I’m not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.
     
    But out, then. Whether I work out at home or at the gym is none of your concern.

    Women of more active generations weren’t usually weightlifters.
     
    How do you know? Have you ever worked on a farm?

    Weight-lifting is great for women, because if you fall off the wagon and gain a few pounds, at least some of it is muscle mass, and when you lose five pounds come hiking season, you look better than ever.

  227. @Anon
    Women of more active generations weren't usually weightlifters.

    I'm not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.

    Nevertheless I have a hard time believing that you require, for basic fitness, heavier weights or other sorts of equipment than, say, your own body weight, or (depending on your exercise regimen) other kinds of equipment that would be significantly more dangerous around children than normal household items.

    You may have already done so, but it might not be a bad idea to look into alternatives to whatever it is you're currently doing.

    I’m not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.

    But out, then. Whether I work out at home or at the gym is none of your concern.

    Women of more active generations weren’t usually weightlifters.

    How do you know? Have you ever worked on a farm?

    Weight-lifting is great for women, because if you fall off the wagon and gain a few pounds, at least some of it is muscle mass, and when you lose five pounds come hiking season, you look better than ever.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    Anon, sorry for the cranky post, but really, what's it to you if I go to the gym?

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice is certainly parenting.
  228. @Rosie

    I’m not your personal trainer or nutritionist, so I have no detailed knowledge of whatever important factors exist in your case.
     
    But out, then. Whether I work out at home or at the gym is none of your concern.

    Women of more active generations weren’t usually weightlifters.
     
    How do you know? Have you ever worked on a farm?

    Weight-lifting is great for women, because if you fall off the wagon and gain a few pounds, at least some of it is muscle mass, and when you lose five pounds come hiking season, you look better than ever.

    Anon, sorry for the cranky post, but really, what’s it to you if I go to the gym?

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice is certainly parenting.

    • Replies: @Anon

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice
     
    This thread is about advice; you complained about a specific problem (gym equipment you worried about being a hazard to children) and blew up at anybody who commented on it. This is the internet, so that's about par for the course.


    No apology is necessary as nothing else was really expected anyway.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Women are more sensitive about both of these subjects than men are.
  229. @Twinkie

    Out of curiosity, how do the new Indians behave?
     
    There is much to say, but what bothers me the most is that many display little concerns toward communal interests and obligations and often treat tradesmen/manual laborers with contempt.

    For example, a group of them came to the HOA meeting in a development where I own some rental property and declared that they would not pay the HOA fees, because they don’t use any services. After some argument (“You do use the services such as trash collection” etc.), they then demanded a significant reduction in the HOA fees, because they didn’t use the swimming pool, the club house, and the tennis court, etc. After they were explained the concept of a HOA and commonly-owned property and its maintenance (and the penalties for failing to pay the fees) they tried to haggle at length and had to be told to stop so the rest of the HOA agenda could be discussed.

    I am also friends with the guy who owns the HVAC company that works on my properties and the manager of the landscaping company with which I contract (both hunting buddies), and they uniformly loathe their Indian customers, because they try to haggle down every little thing and often demand free services or try to get out of paying contracted fees for services rendered. And these customers are contemptuous of their employees and even the owners and the account managers and talk down to the latter even as they display zero knowledge of HVAC systems or lawn maintenance (e.g. refusing to irrigate and then blaming the landscaping company for killing the lawn after a drought or never changing the furnace filter and then demanding free repair, etc.).

    My wife has become extremely anti-Indian of late, because they and their children show up in large numbers to local businesses and monopolize staff and service time with little regard for other customers (they and their children frequently cut lines) and because they often behave in an uncouth manner such as letting the door slam on her face or nearly running over my children with shopping carts with nary an “Excuse me.”

    I could go on and on with example after example. Just the other day I had some friends over for Easter and, when the subject of Indians came up, everyone just groaned painfully. Anyone who’s been in the area for more than ten years can see the dramatic cultural transformation as some neighborhoods that were previously around 90% white + 10% East and SE Asian (the big Asian groups were Koreans and Vietnamese) have gone 70+% Indian due to the massive growth of IT.

    Thanks for elaborating. I think part of the difference is how Anglicized the different groups of Indians are.

    I find the way the newer Indians operate on perceived respective status to be incredibly annoying. There is a serious at your feet or at your throat aspect which is distasteful and it seems to be morphing into just seeing all Americans as inferior which manifests in the behavior you describe. They treat people they perceive to be inferior in status like dirt.

    How much of that is caste dynamics being replicated here? Do Brahmins have more noblesse oblige?

    P.S. The ian-yan connection you make in your earlier comment is a good comparison.

  230. @Rosie

    Trust me when I say this – researchers and drug companies are desperately trying to come up with an efficacious weight-reduction drug without serious side effects, because there are many people who crave easy solutions as you do. There is a lot of money to be made, to be mild about it.
     
    As usual, you've got it 100% wrong. There already are efficacious weight loss drugs, as you would know if you would read more and type less. The problem is that doctors won't prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/diet-drugs-work-why-wont-doctors-prescribe-them

    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.

    That’s it.

    The stupid really can’t be fixed.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The stupid really can’t be fixed.

    Never a block of marble and a point chisel around when I really need them.
  231. Anon[192] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    Anon, sorry for the cranky post, but really, what's it to you if I go to the gym?

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice is certainly parenting.

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice

    This thread is about advice; you complained about a specific problem (gym equipment you worried about being a hazard to children) and blew up at anybody who commented on it. This is the internet, so that’s about par for the course.

    No apology is necessary as nothing else was really expected anyway.

  232. @Rosie
    Anon, sorry for the cranky post, but really, what's it to you if I go to the gym?

    The only topic worse than fitness for unsolicited and unnecessary advice is certainly parenting.

    Women are more sensitive about both of these subjects than men are.

  233. @Twinkie

    The problem is that doctors won’t prescribe them because many are arrogant, pitiless know-it-alls like you.
     
    That’s it.

    The stupid really can’t be fixed.

    The stupid really can’t be fixed.

    Never a block of marble and a point chisel around when I really need them.

  234. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    You guys are making a mistake by speaking with a woman online. All they want is attention. Rosie loves when you insult her, rebut her, or give her any kind of replies.

    You was saying Nipsey has no talent.
    If you wanna half ass bein a white nationalist instead of a White Supremacist

    At least, recongize your bitch ass would have nevr survived on the mean streets o South Central L.A.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS