Are You Fat? Blame Tax Cuts!
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Just when you thought the left-wing media can't possibly get any worse, they do something to prove, "Yes We Can!"
I accidentally ran across this piece of liberal insanity this morning and it's too good not to share.
It's from an article at TheStreet.com ranking states by how obese their citizens are.
Mississippi came in as the fattest state in the union, and according to the article, it's because of ...........wait for it...............TAX CUTS!
"Rank: 1
We come, as we knew we must, to Number One: the fattest state in America.
Mississippi struggles with weight and all of the related public health consequences. A state which has the second highest rate of adult obesity, and the highest among teenagers and high school students, chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension have reached critical levels among residents. With health and social services facing massive cuts in order to finance statewide tax cuts, these are problems not likely to go away any time soon." (emphasis mine)
So what happens when everyone has a few extra bucks in a trump jobs presidency?Everyone gets fat?I always thought obesity was more related to inactivity,lack of quality exercise.Fake News.lol
The author listed Kansas in the middle of the pack, but mentioned tax cuts and claimed they were hurting schools. Like that's got anything to do with obesity.
There's only one reason why someone's fat....... they are burning less calories than they are taking in. And there's only two way to change that, eat less and/or exercise more. Period.
Usually Wisconsin is at the top of the fat state lists, what with beer, cheese, brats and northern white european ancestory! But we also at the top of the list for high tax states.
"There's only one reason why someone's fat....... they are burning less calories than they are taking in. And there's only two way to change that, eat less and/or exercise more. Period."
-Uhhh, no. The thermogenic model of weight has a 95% failure rate. Mostly because people wrongly attempt to solve a biochemical maladaptation with physics. The first priority in weight loss/maintenance should be to get one's hormones (particularly insulin) in check. Composition of caloric intake rather than quantity is the primary concern. Of course, exercise benefits everyone. God created us to move, not essentially recline around the clock as so many of us do nowadays.
Uh....yes.....
" Composition of caloric intake rather than quantity is the primary concern"
Details Owl, details. Note in your statement the words "INTAKE" and "CALORIC".
Yes, you can get into the minutia of the chemistry. I get that. But simply put you are STILL "intaking" more calories than what your body is effectively burning.
Mississippi has been among the leaders in fatness over the years no matter what the tax rates were.
WW, It is not minutia -rather fundamental-to say quality trumps quantity. Where you're wrong is thinking chemistry is secondary to volume. To put it simply, a person eating more calories of the right foods will be healthier and lighter over a lifetime than a person eating less calories of the wrong foods. Frankly, the evidence overwhelmingly proves that people cannot eat less of the wrong kinds of foods for a lifetime. The modern diet is actually a case study in compelling people to be fat.
Food is information for the body. The kinds of food informs hormonal regulation and those hormones will determine to a great degree the status of one's health. Directly to the point of this thread, the nature of one's caloric intake (via hormonal effect) will determine how, when and where stated intake will be used. That includes the accumulation of body fat and the inability to regulate body weight. That is why the thermogenic model of weight loss is so chronically flawed - it ignores the primary factors of weight management.
A theory and practice with a 95% failure rate should be subject to a little applied logic. The "calories in - calories out" mantra is not only wrong, it is harmful.
OWL,
I agree! I can eat just about all I want of certain types of foods (mostly lean meats, other proteins and some veggies) and I never gain weight and in most cases I lose weight. My body just burns it up. However when I introduce starch's, grains, and sugars I put the weight right back on. The eat for your blood type diets seem to work very very well for me as well as the Adkins Maintenance Diet.
Scar.
Still, the gist of what I'm saying is correct. Of course you cannot live on Doritos and Mt. Dew!! Certain things that you eat turn into carbs. Carbs then turn into sugar. If you don't have enough movement of muscle mass then those carbs turn into fat. If deer in the winter time don't have access to the right feed they can starve to death on a full stomach. I get it. And someones NOT fat because they have "big bones". They're fat because they have too much excess fat.
Owl,
I agree that one can eat healthier foods and get more bang for your buck but WW is spot on. If your intake is greater than calories burned, you gain weight.
Scar seems to get what I am saying. I'll have to continue to disagree with the rest of ya'll. However, we can probably all agree low taxes don't make people fat.
Me too Owl,
So i broke my arm in two places and had to have surgery, afterwards, I ate like crap and wasn't exercising. I started working out at a moderate pace... Nothing extreme about 3 months before I went on my last elk hunt- last November. I ate as much as I wanted of the foods I noted above, I was never hungry at all and I lost 36lbs in 3 months. 235.8 down to 199.6 in 3 months and I ate like a pig! I just ate the right things. If you have never tried the eat for your blood type diets, give them a shot. I know several people that do it and they all lost weight from it. My boss lost 67lbs in 5 months! It's hard to stay on it, but man does it work! Good Luck,
Scar.
Congrats Scar. Good work. Sorry about the arm, though...
I've fought the battle my whole life and it worsened as I aged. I've lost over 70 lbs. on 3 separate occasions. The first two times were on calorie restricted diets and were real white knuckle affairs. And both times I started packing on the lbs. within weeks after hitting my goal weight. The third time, I cut high glycemic foods, ate lean protein and veggies. The weight fell off. Turns out I was very insulin resistant and very metabolically deranged. Most chronically overweight people are. After much research for long term health (and, later, my Dad's Alzheimers), I settled into a high fat, moderate protein, low carb regimen. I've kept the weight off for years now and am never hungry. And, ironically, I eat a ton more vegetables than I ever did in my "high carb" days. Like you stated, though, they are the "right" veggies for me.
A few weeks ago, I went on a bear hunt in western VA. On the day I killed my bear, I hiked all day following hounds on 1 mug of bullet proof coffee, was never hungry and never bonked. I packed food with me, I just never felt compelled to eat. Turns out, when a body isn't awash in insulin, it will access body fat for energy.:)
Sorry, Owl, you can't ignore the laws of thermodynamics. If you consume (or more properly absorb) more calories than you burn you gain weight. If you burn more than you absorb you lose weight. Diet can impact how your body interacts with the calories you consume, but that is a separate question from the basic laws of chemistry and physics that govern body weight.
Owl,
I'm a total dummy when it comes to science. You are obviously well educated in the subject.
That said, how can it be if a person takes in more calories than he/she burns off, said person will not gain weight?
Re-read my posts. I am not arguing against the laws of thermodynamics. I am arguing against the thermogenic bias - the primacy of mere caloric deficit. It does not work without FIRST and foremost addressing underlying biochemistry that will dictate how, where and how efficiently stated intake will be used. Make sense?
Maybe if we think in terms of duration or longevity of results, things will get into focus.
In the near term, the SOLELY thermogenic bias will result in weight loss. I've proven that to myself. But it has a 95% failure/ relapse rate. I've proven that as well...So, please don't assert it works for weight management.
HA, biochemistry cannot be isolated from caloric usage. Biochemistry regulates energy modality.
LOL! That's what I meant when I talked about minutia!
"it has a 95% failure/ relapse rate" Which has nothing to do with the basic premise.
OWL.
It does not make sense, but only because I don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand a word you said.
My bad, not yours.
That helps, PigDoc. Thanks.
HA, I'm operating under the assumption the objective is permanent fat loss. Under that auspice, the failure rate I noted has everything to do with the premise.
And I stated no objectives whatsoever. All I stated was that if someone's fat (as in right now. Not in the past, or the future.), then it's because they've taken in more calories than they've expended. You expend calories by moving your body. I didn't specify what kind of calories, or the chemistry of it, which I know plays a big role. Just simple math.
I think that if anyone did the research there would be a high correlation between obesity and depression.
I agree, HA. Obesity and hyperinsulinemia. If folks knew how pervasively destructive chronic overproduction of insulin is, the FDA's food pyramid would be completely inverted and they'd start regarding a Snickers bar the way folks view cigarettes.
Pig, is the information even available for human food?
I haven't come across that information in my lay research. Closest is the concept of "net carbs" versus "gross carbs." It's conclusion follows the same rationale that Pig Doc cites in his posts. A "net carb" is calculated by deducting grams of fiber from the gross amount of carbohydrates in any given nutritional serving.
I find it sound practice to think in terms of net carbs because it steers me toward high fiber and cruciferous vegetables.
I know you guys know what you're talking about, but c'mon........do you REALLY think that the average person has a CLUE as to what you're talking about? "Cruciferous"??????? "Nets"??? People think in terms of "FOOD" and "I'm hungry", and "I like this but not that". They want to eat, not do a mathematical formula.
And that's why society is getting progressively fatter and sicker. Our discernment and work ethic is lagging hopelessly behind our capabilities to deceive and waste ourselves.
All I know is that the more hype and ads we see about low-cal this, low-fat that and 'lose weight foods and diets,- the more obese people I see.
Nva, That's because the modern "diet industry" wrecks metabolism and actually promotes the eventual accumulation of adipose tissue. Have to fix the hormones or a body is chemically compelled to store fat and remain hungry. That's no way to fix obesity and the legions of associated lifestyle pathologies.
......or you could just get off your fat ass and exercise and eat right. Use some discipline. You have to do this day after day, year after year. No diets, no nothing. Just eat the right food an exercise. Exercise until you think you are going to puke or die. Do this at least an hour a day. Never miss any days.....get up at 4 am if you have to.....pretty soon it becomes a way of life. If I can do it anyone can.
Ditto SA. I have a customer who's an 80+ year old widow. She's fit and she mows her large, sloped yard with a walk behind mower. Her motto is.......
"You rest, you rot".
I agree with her WW.
SA, if folks ate correctly, being healthy would not require much discipline. The fact that health is a "struggle of will" is a great indicator the subject is using detrimental protocols.
I don't drink alcohol or smoke. The wife and I walk 5 nights a week 45-60 minutes each time. Eat salad 4 times a week. Try to eat my veggies. Can't seem to give up my Dr Pepper soda and the occasional piece of cake or cookie.
We are where we are on most bad list due to the Ms delta for the most part. Hunting at its finest and humanity at its worst. Not saying it's all because of the delta, but it is a major factor.
just make hard exercise part of your life and the rest will work itself out.
That would be like telling someone to hold a bowling at arms length for the rest of their lives. It can be done for awhile but, ultimately, they'll fail. But not for lack of discipline or a weak will.
"they'll fail. But not for lack of discipline or a weak will. "
I could not disagree more. They will fail precisely from weakness. You have a choice every day, every minute....be weak or strong. Workout or don't. Get up and hit it or lay in bed and be weak. It's up to you and totally your own failure if you don't. Own it.
SA food is more than energy. It is information. Would you expect to put bad data into your computer and get desired results? I doubt it.
If an insuliemic person works out the way you suggest, they would burn some fat but would also catabolize a ton of muscle. Insulin is a fat storage hormone and in its prescence, the body will manufacture glucose by eating its own muscle. Gluconeogenisis, I believe , wherein proteins are converted into glucose. Those protiens can be from ingested sources but also from one's own muscle. This is a survival mechanism because muscle is metabolically expensive and the body will (ingeniously) convert the metabolic "liability" of lean tissue into energy. Brilliant if you are starving but horrible if you don't know how to manage insulin with a diet of ready abundance.
Additionally, insulin stimulates hunger. Telling people to just exercise "hard" without fixing their biochemistry is like giving a heroine addict 3 small doses of heroine a day and expecting them to not crave opiates. Folly. As the results indicate.
Additionally, the longer a body is exposed to bad "information," the more metabolically damaged they become and the steeper the hill they have to climb to restore health. Becomes darn near impossible over the long term. As the results indicate.