 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 05:32:58 -0500, Shay wrote:
> On 09/30/2013 05:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:36:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>>
>>> "Jim Henderson" wrote in message news:5249dcd8@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> One might also argue that obesity has long been around - in fact,
>>>> food related health issues were somewhat worse back "in the old
>>>> days".
>>>
>>> Any evidence to for that opinion (excluding famine) would surprise me.
>>> I went to a seven-year-old's birthday party a few weeks ago. Every
>>> child there would have been considered overweight when we were kids.
>>
>> That seems pretty anecdotal to me. I'd want to see some real data.
>
> I just did an image search for "obesity timeline." I don't have time to
> examine any individual studies, but there seems to be a consensus.
I'd have to see how those studies were conducted. But with the increase
of things like high fructose corn syrup in everything now as a sweetner
it wouldn't surprise me.
>> Though arguably the best food advice was to be had 30 years ago, too -
>> "moderation".
>
> I hear that often, but the obesity trend demonstrates that our idea of
> moderate isn't.
True.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/10/2013 4:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>>> I do as well. And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too (quiet,
>>> Stephen M. ;) )
>>
>> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)
>
> Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)
>
Or gave me a challenge. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/10/2013 12:49 PM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Stephen" wrote in message
> news:web.524aa68bcafa64a77d8c6e9c0@news.povray.org...
>
> "Shay" <non### [at] none none> wrote:
>>>
>>> BS. mindless phone games, unedited youtube media, obesity, re-blogging
>>>
>> >Things _were_ better in the (recent) past.
>
>> That is called growing up and putting aside childish things.
>
> No, *collectively* we were less-childish in the recent past. My growing
> up has little to do with it. My 16-year-old self would have been "too
> old for this shit."
Yes, I think that you are right. We grew up earlier then, more
responsibilities.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/10/2013 5:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> "Fat Albert" is a counterexample. OK, it was a cartoon, but still.
>
This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash diet.
> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
> Hollywood makes intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons. That they
didn't
> show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means that they made that
> choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.
The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive
people) as being normal.
It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
That gap is closing rapidly.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:19:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 4:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 06:38:12 -0400, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I do as well. And I am maybe a little puzzled by my "but" too
>>>> (quiet,
>>>> Stephen M. ;) )
>>>
>>> Butt, you know I'm thinking it. ;-)
>>
>> Of course I did, that's why I warned you off. ;)
>>
> Or gave me a challenge. :-)
Would I do that? :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 5:00 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> "Fat Albert" is a counterexample. OK, it was a cartoon, but still.
>>
>>
> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
> diet.
Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough to
mind their own business. Many people feel the need to comment - directly
- to people they don't know about their weight.
>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
>
> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
LOL
>> Hollywood makes intentional choices (most of the time) for reasons.
>> That they didn't show any overweight people (or rarely did) just means
>> that they made that choice, not that overweight people didn't exist.
>
> The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive
> people) as being normal.
Except that in many cases, they /are/ normal. It's not really for others
to judge - just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent*
disability parking in handicapped spaces. We don't get to ask them for
their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations for
someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that lets
them park there.
As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between
doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there, and
a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical business.
> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
> That gap is closing rapidly.
Perhaps so.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/10/2013 5:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over indulgence.
>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>> diet.
>
> Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
> the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>
Indeed it is. I had an uncle who had something wrong with him. He was
small, even for Glasgow, and rotund. Which is the nicest way I can say
it. It made his life a misery. He did live to a ripe old age, though.
And my mother and brother were/are on constant diets.
I hope that you don't think I was being personal.
> The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough to
> mind their own business. Many people feel the need to comment - directly
> - to people they don't know about their weight.
>
>>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
>>
>> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
>
> LOL
>
I win. :-P
>> The choice being that it was not acceptable to show fat (or unattractive
>> people) as being normal.
>
> Except that in many cases, they /are/ normal. It's not really for others
> to judge -
Yes and yes.
> just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent*
> disability parking in handicapped spaces. We don't get to ask them for
> their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations for
> someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that lets
> them park there.
>
A couple of years ago, we had a spate of forged disability stickers,
going around. And there was a lot of hard stares going on. It would only
be a very boorish person that would ask. Having said that, there has
been an increase in road rage. And a man was killed, recently over a
parking space at a supermarket. But then when things like that make the
headlines. It must be rare.
> As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between
> doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there, and
> a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical business.
>
I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that
there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the internet. ;-)
>> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
>> That gap is closing rapidly.
>
> Perhaps so.
>
I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just
like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/10/2013 5:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >Or gave me a challenge.:-)
> Would I do that?:)
I could give you one at TC-RTC when I get my act together after this month.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:25:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 5:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> >Or gave me a challenge.:-)
>> Would I do that?:)
>
> I could give you one at TC-RTC when I get my act together after this
> month.
:)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 21:23:25 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 05/10/2013 5:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:37:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> This may be a cultural thing. In the UK about that time, fat or over
>>> weight was seen to be a sign of greed, gluttany or self/over
>>> indulgence.
>>> When I reached 210 lb at 5' 10" I was shocked into going on a crash
>>> diet.
>>
>> Well, yeah - but we also have causes that aren't due to overeating, but
>> the stigma is still applied to those who have other issues.
>>
>>
> Indeed it is. I had an uncle who had something wrong with him. He was
> small, even for Glasgow, and rotund. Which is the nicest way I can say
> it. It made his life a misery. He did live to a ripe old age, though.
> And my mother and brother were/are on constant diets.
> I hope that you don't think I was being personal.
Oh, no, I didn't think you were being personal at all
>> The result is that there are lots of people here who don't know enough
>> to mind their own business. Many people feel the need to comment -
>> directly - to people they don't know about their weight.
>>
>>>> That still doesn't strike me as "data" though.
>>>
>>> It is not, be a climate change denier, if you will. :-P
>>
>> LOL
>>
>>
> I win. :-P
D*mn you, I'll get you next time. ;)
>> just like people who get angry at those who have no *apparent*
>> disability parking in handicapped spaces. We don't get to ask them for
>> their whole health history to determine if they meet our expectations
>> for someone who should or shouldn't have one of the mirror hangers that
>> lets them park there.
>>
>>
> A couple of years ago, we had a spate of forged disability stickers,
> going around. And there was a lot of hard stares going on. It would only
> be a very boorish person that would ask. Having said that, there has
> been an increase in road rage. And a man was killed, recently over a
> parking space at a supermarket. But then when things like that make the
> headlines. It must be rare.
It probably is - headlines are intended to be sensational, not to inform.
When I broke my leg in the mid 90's, I was given a handicapped tag (a
temporary one). It amazed me how many people parked in the spaces who
didn't appear to have a need - but there are, of course, plenty of hidden
causes, to - extreme asthma comes to mind, and that's sadly all too
common here in Utah - because we often have such poor air quality, and
the altitude doesn't help.
>> As much as we here in America want health care decisions to be between
>> doctor and patient, our current system has insurance companies there,
>> and a large proportion want to stick their noses in others' medical
>> business.
>>
>>
> I am reading the news stories about obamacare and I'm thinking that
> there must be a lot of evil selfish people over there.
> But I know what happens when a socialist says anything on the internet.
> ;-)
It really seems there *are* a lot of selfish people here. The really odd
thing (to me, anyways) is that the most selfish claim to be following a
guy allegedly from about 2,000 years ago who taught such things as caring
for the sick and the poor. That was, in fact, one of the core lessons
taught.
>>> It is often said that we are about 30 to 50 years behind the states.
>>> That gap is closing rapidly.
>>
>> Perhaps so.
>>
>>
> I think so. Kids and much older are aping American youth culture. Just
> like in the 50's but not James Dean or Marlon Brando.
Arguably, we don't have "football hooligans" over here, nor have we (yet)
had riots like the one in London a year or two ago. Well, at least not
*recently*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
