You think? :think: I think she’s got a problem with: the rear, the head, and the heart (Jer 17:9). We don’t need a national nanny. :sibbie:
Last edited:
Wide Load Wants to Control Your Food
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Why? Does she want to eat the world now with those fries? Did I miss :sibbie: her latest policy proposal? :shocked:
Stop it now. :mmph: Her arms are supposed to keep us mesmerized. :noway: I think it’s unfair to go on an on about her posterior.
She’s a lovely lady. You’ve seen the garden right? And you may be right-- an atheist quoting the Bible
--Gluttony is bad. :think: We’d better have her tell us if we can eat. each:
Last edited:
Quincy
New member
Eh? Where do you get that logic? No one has posters of Kirstie Alley on their wall. What does beauty have to do with becoming a celebrity? My point is that someone that is beautiful is beautiful because of a strong work ethic and self discipline. Very few rare occasions someone might be naturally beautiful and have perfect genes but an overwhelming majority of even celebrities have to work hard. Just take John Travolta as an example. You're just giving people an excuse to settle for ok, instead of inspiring them to want the best.
:sigh: Well, I don't expect the government as a whole to be able to wade through the beaurocratic layers to do anything, but Mrs. Obama can use her celebrity to try to enlighten some people that look up to her and take the things she says seriously. Any program or foundation she starts will have a positive effect on young people.
Bubba Switzler
New member
Generally speaking, celebrities are naturally beautiful people; most who endure also work hard. The later does not negate the importance of the former.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm simply noting that when it comes to celebrities, a very large portion of being "the best" entails being beautiful which is largely genetic.
Most people would be much better off staying healthy (e.g. in the ballpark of Michelle Obama) and focusing their efforts on being the best at something else, such as rocket science or modern art. We have more than enough empty-headed celebrities.
I doubt even that. What is needed is focused effort on a minority who are unhealthy. That's a job for parents and doctors and phys ed coaches, not politicians. The idea that some obese kid is going to turn his life around because Michelle Obama told him to is absurd. In fact, I'll bet a program such as you describe will have a net negative health effect since the people most likely to take her advice will be anorexic girls.
It was a joke. He was poking fun at something Aimiel said.
zoo22
Well-known member
They're both real problems.
IMO, promoting proper & healthy eating habits helps address anorexia/bulimia as well as obesity, though there are obviously other serious factors involved as well.
And I've always thought toy "prizes" in greasy kid "meals" is a pretty sick way to sell burgers.
zoo22
Well-known member
That's awful. Yeesh.
I'd think someone who's eating cotton balls could stand some real guidance on the benefits of proper eating.
Too bad Leftists want their opinions put into policies and regulations. :Commie: Christians are about freedom to choice (Jn 8:36).
"Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the Left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.
Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term "National Socialism"). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities--where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist... (Sleeve of his book, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg)."
Last edited:
zoo22
Well-known member
Oh for the love of Pete. Sigh.
No. Hitler ate meat. He called himself a vegetarian (vegetarianism and organic farming was very "in" during that time in Germany & Europe... Not something Nazi-devised). He actually banned vegetarian "organizations." Hitler also drank, but said he did not. A beer & wine drinking non-drinker. Hitler called himself many things. Like, say "Christian." He was full of contradictions and lies, which is why these types of finger-pointing comparisons like "he was a strict vegetarian" are ultimately so pointless.
And? Maybe that's a reason for the Nazi's Holocaust or something? Please. Himmler owned guns, too... Does that mean that it's pertinant to bring his gun-ownership up in a reasonable discussion about owning guns? Of course not.
each: "BALTIMORE -- The Baltimore City Health Department issued its first environmental citation for repeat violations of the city's trans fat ban. :Commie: The Health Department issued Healthy Choice, a food facility in the 400 block of Lexington Street, a $100 fine on Thursday.
"It was the second time they were found with a high trans fat level in their ingredients," said Health Department agent Juan Gutierrez..." Full text: Baltimore Hands Out First Trans Fat Citation
Recall:
"The British government has reportedly started in 2003 a campaign to reduce sodium by setting targets to reduce the levels of sodium in 80 food categories while the health department of New York City followed suit through menu labeling, ban on trans fat and restriction on smoking. A report of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) suggests a cut on sodium through the use of sodium crystals, herbs and spices..." Jacobson, Michael F. "2010: The Year of Salt." Nutrition Action Health Letter 37.1 (2010): 2. MAS Ultra - School Edition. EBSCO. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. Rev. 13:11–17.
Last edited:
nicholsmom
New member
Where did you get that statistic? This is from census data:
| ...the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002... # Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960. # Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960. # Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960. |
This data is also self-reported and women are notorious for understating their weight (I can site a study on this truth, if you'd like). So you can figure that average actual weight is comfortably over 175 lbs, with the average height of women in 2002 was reported as 5' 4" (usually fairly accurate self-reporting on this statistic). Also keep in mind that obesity varies by area across the nation - more obesity in the mid-west is what I've read.
Weight alone is insufficient data, in my opinion. Fat percentage and the location of that fat are better indicators of overall health than BMI (which I think is mostly useless). You are right that it is belly fat that is more dangerous than booty fat, but too much fat is not a good thing no matter where it lies. The big question is "how much is too much?" and bigger yet, "who gets to decide?" and the biggest question for this thread is "what should the government do about it?"
My answers: big question - :idunno:; bigger question - doctors and researchers based on adequate data (which we don't have at this time); biggest question - nothing, absolutely nothing (it's none of their business).
Aimiel
Well-known member
Didn't Clooney just get a tummy tuck?!?
Last edited:
zoo22
Well-known member
What's your point? That you expect quick fixes?
Much damage has already been done in this freak show called America. Will we recognize her again after Obama's "transformation"? He says :Commie: it's "all at risk"--Good. :shocked:
Last edited:
zoo22
Well-known member
Out of curiosity, what do you think about overweight unhealthy people passing that on to their unborn children, putting them at health risk?
Here's an interesting new study:
Overweight fathers linked to unhealthy offspring
I agree.
Now let's look at something together here; do you think it might be that my perception seeks out overweight people? Seldom, do I go to Wall-Mart, yet when I do, and legitimately needing a riding buggy, it seems so many, using them are extremely overweight.
Also, it seems I notice more overweight persons and few thin persons. Now, could this be a matter of geography, or would it be more likely what one seeks out, while looking at other persons?
What do you think on this point?
[Law curbs McDonald's Happy Meal toys] "San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children...:Commie: The San Francisco law would allow toys to be given away with kids' meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar..." Full text
Willeach: Big Rig take your Big Mac soon? :sibbie:
Will
each: Big Rig take your Big Mac soon? :sibbie:
Last edited: