Fat People Cause Global Warming, Higher Food Prices

Stating the obvious: "Two scientists write that obese people are disproportionately responsible for high food prices and greenhouse gas emissions because they consume 18% more food energy due to their greater body mass -- and require increased quantities of fuel to transport themselves and the food they eat. 'Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food,' write the authors, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts of the evocatively named London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine."

And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[RM6f9]

Weighing more makes us harder for the aliens to suck out of our cars, the reserves mean we'll last longer in the coming famine years, and if any skinny little vegans give us any lip, all we gotta do is sit on 'em to quash the noise...
Seriously, extreme obesity is a darwin rule in action, usually - nobody wants to breed with us, and heart disease/stroke usually kill us "early" - rather like gay marriage, if you don't like 'em, don't join 'em, otherwise, back off: It's hard enough living in a world that wasn't built for us without having some smug, self-righteous ass-hat making comments because, while normal, we don't fit average... only made the worse when it's people who want their particular outside-of-average needs respected who fail the tolerance test...

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But when it comes to global warming then it isn't a case of "if you don't like 'em dont join 'em", it's a case of you're killing us all you fat bastards. At least partly. Stop acting like what you do doesn't affect anyone else. The entire point of the study is to disprove such bullshit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[MillionthMonkey]

Make no mistake,this BS will be just the start,and of course the answer wil be---drum roll---

A pound of flesh.

Re:

[timmarhy]

I can eat my cheese burger in the same room as you and it won't have the slightest impact on you. the same can't be said for your smoking. Not everyone gets addicted to cheese burgers, but everyone who smokes ends up addicted. I can eat a cheese burger now and then and it does me no harm, where there's no such thing as a harmless smoke

3 very good reasons it's being cracked down on.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[sleigher]

I think his point about smoking was that a building owner cannot decide whether or not to cater to smokers. Why can't the business owner decide if they want to allow smoking and then if smoking bothers you don't go there. Instead it has to be banned and taxed. A business owner should be allowed to have a business that caters to smokers. For the record I do not smoke. I used to though.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[NIckGorton]

Why can't the business owner decide if they want to allow smoking and then if smoking bothers you don't go there. Instead it has to be banned and taxed. A business owner should be allowed to have a business that caters to smokers.

Because a business should be accessible to everyone, including people with asthma like me. If a smoker doesn't smoke at a restaurant, store or bar we can both still use that place. If he does, he eliminates me from being able to. Its like saying that a store owner should not be mandated to have wheelchair ramps because then businesses that cater to people in wheelchairs will 'spring up'. It doesn't work that way. In the time before smoking bans in restaurants and bars, it was unusual to see a restaurant or bar that was completely smoke free. Owners want the most customers possible, so they don't ban smoking knowing that non-smokers will often choose to suffer the bad smell to get what they otherwise want.

Its also a worker safety issue. We don't allow employers to have other toxic substances wafting through workplaces, why should we allow that with tobacco smoke? Just because its customer generated?

Re:

[cayenne8]

"Because a business should be accessible to everyone, including people with asthma like me. If a smoker doesn't smoke at a restaurant, store or bar we can both still use that place. If he does, he eliminates me from being able to...Its also a worker safety issue. We don't allow employers to have other toxic substances wafting through workplaces, why should we allow that with tobacco smoke? Just because its customer generated?"

Well, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you patronize a place that al

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[Opportunist]

Smoking is a enjoyable and relaxing habit. I have been a smoker for a few years now. I'm doing ok with it, and non-smokers don't really bother me.

In my home country, smoking is allowed in most public places, and it's great. Feel free to avoid smoke in the comfort of your home, or your car, or even by changing the sides on the walkways. But you have to be pretty arrogant and selfish to think you have any right to tell someone where he may light a fire and smoke.

Smoking should not be a requirement and non-smoking should not be subject to additional taxes. ...

And so on. I'm not trying to turn it into a mockery. What I wanted to illustrate is that the same argument works in reverse just as well. How does one group have the right to tell the other group how and where to be? It is possible to avoid smoke if you don't want to be subjected to it, just as much as it is possible to avoid subjecting people to smoke if they don't want it near them. And no, neither is "easier", neither for the non-smokers to avoid smoke nor for the smokers to avoid subjecting non-smokers to it. Just as easy as saying "just smoke at home and in your car but not in public" can be turned around as "just don't smoke in your home and car and allow the smokers to do it in public". Any argument works for both groups.

It's a matter of tolerance, for crying out loud. I'm a smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, because people want to eat there, and I do understand that people want to enjoy their meal without the flavor of tobacco. It's a place where your nose and tongue goes to work, and stale smoke can definitly ruin that experience. I don't smoke on public transportation, because it's near impossible to avoid blowing smoke into someone else's face, and that is just outright rude.

It's a matter of consideration.

I do enjoy a cigarette or a cigar with my beer and cognac. At night, in a bar, with a few friends, preferably in a quiet area where you can have a fruitful (or boozefilled, depending on circumstances, friends and topic) conversation. Most bars here offer a smoker and non-smoker area, so you don't have to sit in my quiet corner where I enjoy watching the patrons through the swirls of smoke.

Consideration and tolerance are nothing that can be enforced, though. It has to be something coming from yourself. If you are forced to tolerate something, it becomes something you endure rather than tolerate it. And you start to hate it. And the whole matter is now filled with so much hate that either group, smokers and antismokers, literally enjoys seeing anything happening that pisses the other group off, whether they gain anything out of it or not.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[WCLPeter]

A restaurant or bar, tho...is a private establishment. It is owned and run by a private citizen....and they should have the say whether they allow smoking, or chewing tobacco or what ever there as long as it is a legal activity. You have the choice to patronize or work there...no one forces you to go there and there is no reason you ever HAVE to go in there other than free choice.

I'm sure the person who makes deliveries, or provides other needed services to the business, would disagree with you. These people don't get much say in the matter; the smoke filled restaurant is on their route and they have to go into it. Or are you going to tell them they don't have the right to a safe work environment and that they should all quit their jobs?

As a society we have recognized that providing a safe working environment is in the bests interests of everyone. To accomplish this, there are numerous work and public safety standards mandated by the government that all appropriately licensed "private establishments" must follow. This includes the careful handling, or elimination, of harmful substances in the workplace.

Second hand smoke, a proven carcinogen, is yet another harmful substance that is now finally being regulated.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[TheoMurpse]

And cat owners with that logic. You most likely can't be near cats or people who have cats or places where cats have been. Possibly dogs too, and then blind people cannot bring their seeing eye dog into the same store as you. Is that fair to the blind person?

No, it's not fair to the blind person. However, we have to balance the rights of the allergic with the rights of the blind. Both have illnesses which cannot be cured.

In the case of smokers' rights versus asthmatics' rights, both have a disease, but one is curable (hint: it's not the asthma). One is also a personal choice (hint: it's not asthma). One is even bad for passersby (hint: it's not asthma).

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[Opportunist]

I once had a coworker that, I swear, was allergic to water. Or ... at least he smelled like he was.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[ultranova]

The same applies to waiters. You want to work here, you either are a smoker or you tolerate smoke. Why cannot I require that? Has it become unusual to require some sort of qualification from a worker? Qualifications don't necessarily only include education and skills. What's next, requiring a chimney sweep to hire and keep an employee with vertigo because he has to accept it? You don't smoke, you're not qualified to work as my waiter. Why can't I say that?

Because historically, allowing employers to say such things have led to what amounts to slavery. "If you don't do 16-hour days using machines with no safety devices whatsoever, and be on-call for the reminding 8 hours, and if I happen to find you attractive bend over whenever I want it, you're not qualified to work for me." It was the standard during early phases of Industrial Revolution, and a natural result of a vast oversupply of labor. It was only stopped once the unions got all employees to bargain collectively, since together their power equals that of all employers; individually, any employee is vastly inferior to any employer.

The sad truth is that in an industrialized world, the natural cost of labor approaches zero: the more you automate, the less people are actually needed for production. Since allowing the market forces free reign here would thus lead to an unlivable society for a majority of its members, laws are required to artificially limit the bargaining power of the employer.

As for your strawman about a chimney sweeper suffering from vertigo, if his vertigo doesn't prevent him from sweeping the chimney, what do you care ? And if it does, well, not doing his job is a valid reason to fire him, is it not ?

I've said this before and I'm saying it again: no matter what businessmen might think, society does not exist to help them make profit. It exists to help and protect its members. And that means putting clear limits for the businesses to operate within, so they can't prey on people.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[Mr. Slippery]

Tell me again please why I, as a business owner, should not be allowed to choose who I want to do business with and who I do not.

Because occupying land for business use is a privilege, not a right.

You want the cops to come and remove someone from your establishment who you don't want there, you want the government to enforce your control over that little patch of real estate? Part of the deal is that the government gets to set some restrictions on your business.

You want to work here, you either are a smoker or you tolerate smoke. Why cannot I require that?

For the same reason you can't tell a factory worker, "you want to work here, you tolerate the risk of getting your arm ripped off by our unsafe machinery."

What's next, requiring a chimney sweep to hire and keep an employee with vertigo because he has to accept it? You don't smoke, you're not qualified to work as my waiter. Why can't I say that?

Chimney sweeps climb to significant heights. It is the nature of their jobs, if they can't tolerate heights they can't do the job, and there's no reasonable accommodation that could change that.

A waiter delivers food. There is nothing in the nature of a waiter's job that requires him or her to smoke. It's no more permissible to say "only smokers can be waiters here" than "only atheists can be waiters here" or "only members of the Green Party can be waiters here" or "only people who let me have sex with them can be waiters here".

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[Belial6]

"You don't get to make that choice for other people. You want to poison yourself? Go ahead, but STFU if you think you're entitled to pollute other people's lungs."

Says the guy using a computer that is running off of coal generated electricity...

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[eln]

I agree. Plus, when we run out of oil, we can burn them for heat, and they'll burn far longer than skinny people. Plus, when we have to resort to cannibalism, they'll taste better than their skinny and athletic counterparts, who will be tough and gamy. And, they will be far easier to hunt, as they will move slowly and tire quickly.

In conclusion, we should not be trying to eliminate obesity. Rather, we should establish "fat farms" where we can increase their numbers for our future needs.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[davester666]

"In conclusion, we should not be trying to eliminate obesity. Rather, we should establish "fat farms" where we can increase their numbers for our future needs."

Welcome to America. What would you like to eat?

Re:

[cp.tar]

How about some soylent green?

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[gnuman99]

Although Americans are generally the largest population of morbidly-obese, the rate of obesity and overweight is about the same almost everywhere in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bmi30chart.png [wikipedia.org]

But % of overweight people, US doesn't lead anymore,

http://www.epidemiologic.org/2007/02/most-overweight-countries-in-world.html [epidemiologic.org]

Kuwait wins :) with Argentina close to US. 1.6 BILLION is fat! 30% of Chinese are FAT!

Just because someone doesn't look like a fat hippo, as some people in US do, doesn't mean they are lean or healthy. BMI of 27 is NOT that difficult to hide, but it is quite unhealthy regardless.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[dave1791]

BMI is a silly measurement for health. A few years ago, I ran a marathon at a BMI of 24. That is just shy of being classified as obese. At the time, you would have been hard pressed to find excess fat on me. I'm one of those "heavily muscled" people that fall under the disclaimer that BMI does not work for eveyone.

On the flip side, BMI IS an excellent predicter of marathon times. (and I've never been anything other than a ploddingly slow runner)

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[IkeTo]

BMI is not a good predictor of individual health. There are too many reasons why an individual can have high BMI but healthy, or low BMI but not healthy. But since the probability of those, though many, reasons are not high, the average of it over a population is a good predictor of collective health. You might be yourselves an athletics that makes good reason for your own high BMI. If 70% of your whole population has that, it is not very likely that all of them have the same good excuse. Much more likely they are high BMI because they eat too much energy and expend too little.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[timmarhy]

unlikely, due to their shape skinny people stack better therefore we can farm them at a higher density and store them better. our vegan buddies will also tire faster and become easy pickings since they avoid high energy foods.

Re:

[bishiraver]

Avoid high energy foods?

Nuts and carbohydrates are much better for quick energy than meat. Meat/protein is good for long term muscle building, but in a pinch it will just slow you down.

Of course, now they make vegan protein powders, so that doesn't even hold true. Try not being ignorant, eh? Just because it's not meat, doesn't mean it's not high energy.

Disclaimer: I had a nice 12oz shell steak, rare, last night. It was delicious.

Re:

[timmarhy]

they also lack the iron requirement which is why they all lock skinny,slickly and pale. but you just said it good sir "Meat/protein is good for long term muscle building" which basicly confirmed my point.

vegan diets are NOT healthy, in addition to lacking iron they lack calcium which will weaken their bones and will mean us fatties can crush them even easier.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And, they will be far easier to hunt, as they will move slowly and tire quickly.

Careful. Because of their larger appetites, they'll also get hungry enough to resort to cannibalism first. Watch your back.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[slarrg]

I agree! It's those damn breeders and their children that really consume resources. ;)

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[Sancho]

Seriously, extreme obesity is a darwin rule in action, usually

That's an interesting take on it, since we've basically evolved to eat when we can (when food is available) so that we can survive during leaner times.

nobody wants to breed with us

People tend to get obese later in life, but this might apply to a small number of people in prime breeding age.

heart disease/stroke usually kill us "early"

Oh, so you don't really understand Darwinism. Unless you get heart disease or have a stroke before you hit sexual maturity, this is irrelevant. For almost everyone--even the obese--health complications don't get extreme enough to kill you with a high statistical probability until you're well past your sexual prime, and getting there is all that Darwinism cares about.

[everything else]

Well, the point isn't that people are making smug comments. The point is that if you're eating more because you require more energy to carry an extra 50 or so pounds, then you're consuming more of a limited resource than everyone else. It's not like he's saying, "Man you fat people are ugly!"

And full disclosure--I'm about 50 pounds overweight. I've been working on this for a number of reasons--health, comfort, and the ability to bike to work instead of having to drive my car (those fill ups at the gas tank are starting to hurt.)

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> Oh, so you don't really understand Darwinism. Unless you get heart disease or have a stroke before you hit sexual maturity, this is irrelevant. No, I think you don't understand. What matters is not how many offspring there are, but whether they survive to sexual maturity. You might not have noticed this feature of homo sapiens but (1) parents rear kids (2) grandparents are involved in the rearing of their grandchildren, and this is true all the way across human culture. In other words, diseases of old

Re:

[puck01]

Erectile dysfunction from obesity and the other co-morbidities that go along with it such as diabetes and hypertention generally doesn't show itself until the late 30's or 40s at the earliest. Most people aren't reproducing by that age historically or in the present so I'd argue that obesity has very little direct effect on the ability to procreate early on in men. Not to mention Viagra and the likes usually fixes ED.

In women obesity can be associated with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) which can caus

Re:

[Sancho]

Which has everything to do with the survival of the species, but nothing to do with Darwinism. Darwinism cares about genetic differences within the species enabling individuals within that speces to reach maturity and reproduce, thus passing those traits on. Having grandparents (or anyone else, for that matter, such as doctors) help you along the way is not an example of Darwinism. Having genetic traits which help get you to adulthood is.

Darwinism is a fairly narrow portion of the greater concept of spec

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[MidnightBrewer]

The world *was* built for you, it's your culture of no exercise and bad diet that's to blame. Leave the United States and discover that almost everywhere else you go you will *never* see anybody as fat as they are in the United States, and what few fat people you find are more of the pleasantly plump variety, rather than the extremely obese.

Solution? Home-cooking and exercise. Having lived in Germany for two years and Japan for six, I now find that when I go home I can see the drastic difference between the two, both in portions and quality. Not to mention that the diets and lifestyles of both countries will naturally cause you to lose weight, because they're simply healthier. I lost 20 pounds coming to Japan alone (and no, I actually *do* like the food here). ;) Something about having to commute almost two miles to work by bicycle every day, I suspect.

When you cook at home, you know what's going into the food, and you're only going to cook for yourself. Make the effort to go out and ride a bicycle for thirty minutes every other day (no coasting!) and you'll see a definite change over, say, a month.

Stop blaming everybody for discriminating against you and take control of your own life. Heaven forbid people should encourage you to improve your health, attractiveness, and lengthen your lifespan using exactly that body which god gave you, and without prescribing to some stupid standard of beauty. Do it for yourself and your family at the very least. No pills, just self-control and common sense. Even if your best still comes in at plump, good for you.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[egburr]

Something about having to commute almost two miles to work by bicycle every day, I suspect.

I wish my commute was only two miles; I'd be happy to ride a bike, then. Well, if here was a safe path to do so, because I'd be scared to ride it on the roads around here. And sidewalks are practically non-existent except near retail stores.

However, my commute is 15 miles each way; even with optimum conditions I figure that would take me 2 hours (lots of hills) which would have me leaving home absurdly early in the morning and returning home about the time the kids go to bed.

I would love to live closer to work, but I can't afford the houses there. We looked hard for something closer before settling for the house we're in now. I love the area we're in, but there's just no good (safe) place to ride bikes except up and down the 1/2 mile dead-end road we live on. It's better than a stationary bike, but it would be even better if we could actually go somewhere without having to pile into the car. The road we connect onto, I have crossed on foot twice, with a crosswalk and signals, and will never do so again short of an emergency (a red light does mean "stop" doesn't it? I always thought so).

So, to sum up my confused rambling, sometimes you just don't have a reasonable alternative to using the car, even to go just a mile down the road.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[KermodeBear]

Home-cooking and exercise.

Exercise? Are you kidding me?

Do you know what happens when I exercise? I burn calories - and that produces heat - which warms the earth! Exercising causes global warming!

Do you know what else happens? I breathe in more oxygen... And I breathe out CO2, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming!

If we can get everyone to do their part and not exercise, just think of the impact we can make!

Re:

[lena_10326]

Weighing more makes us harder for the aliens to suck out of our cars

I'm sure aliens have can openers.

Re:Hey...

[Vectronic]

He's skinny... better mobility...

Corn

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Corn? Yes, Corn!

Michael Pollan will convince you, [michaelpollan.com] that this is no accident. You are eating nothing but corn - with a four-carbon configuration that is destroying your healt and nutrition, as it wrecks ecosystems in its cultivation.

Thanks, Cargill! Thanks, Mosanto! If Chevron-Texaco is Emperor Palpatine, these two are Darth Vader and Tarkin.

Re:Corn

[colourmyeyes]

I read "In Defense of Food" recently; it was very interesting. Since reading that, I see High Fructose Corn Syrup EVERYWHERE.

Also, we're not eating just corn - there is an awful lot of soy in there too. But yeah, we eat way too much corn.

Re:

[Scarletdown]

I see High Fructose Corn Syrup EVERYWHERE.

Yeah. Disgusting stuff. I was mildly surprise last time I bought a bag of sugar. I looked at the ingredients, and it didn't list high fructose corn syrup anywhere.

Re:Corn

[pragma_x]

Clutch your bag of cane sugar tightly, my friend. For last week I saw the next wave approaching on a powdered juice mix container:

Crystallized HFCS

So there you have it: absolutely nothing the mighty cane can do can be done for cheaper, and at a higher cost for your health, than HFCS. Yuck.

Re:Corn

[cayenne8]

"I read "In Defense of Food" recently; it was very interesting. Since reading that, I see High Fructose Corn Syrup EVERYWHERE. "

I too was shocked when I started reading ingredient lists on foods. HFCS is in damned near everything....even fucking BREAD?!?! I've been reading ingredients....and it is tough, but I try to buy most everything I can that does not have it. I'm starting to find some whole wheat breads that are not done with processed flour AND have either molasses, brown sugar or regular sugar, but, you gotta look hard.

It is amazing everywhere it is. I try to cut back on sugar too, but, every once in awhile I like it...I found some coca cola that had come in from Mexico..with cane sugar...what great treat,b ut, for now...I rarely drink soda any more...

I wish to hell we'd ditch the corn subsidies....and blow away the sugar tariffs....so we could at least get rid of the HFCS demon out of our foods....

Re:Corn

[FiloEleven]

It would be fantastic if a few companies (Coca-Cola, for example) who regularly use HFCS in their products could be convinced to start a "premium" line that uses real sugar. They would have to charge a little more due to the bullshit sugar tariffs, but they could also advertise better taste and better health.

Get enough companies to do this, and they could run ads saying, "Hey, you know that Coke Premium that tastes a little better than regular Coke? The only reason it's more expensive is because we have to pay sugar tariffs. We have to pay those because the US gov't decided that the income of corn-growing farmers is more important than your health. If you want cheaper Coke Premium and a whole range of healthier foods using natural sugar instead of HFCS, go to www.fuckHFCS.com to see how you can help make your gov't work for you again."

There could be something obvious I'm missing, but it looks like a win-win situation. The people are happy because their food tastes better, the companies involved are happy because they'll see increased revenues due to better-tasting food plus a ton of goodwill that they are perceived as looking out for the consumer.

Re:Corn

[MightyYar]

Well, today I had:

Wheat and oat "bakes" for breakfast with sausage and eggs, ingredients include ground up animal parts, chicken eggs, whole wheat flour, buttermilk, butter, baking powder, and cheese.

Lunch was egg salad sandwiches, fusilli pasta with tomatoes and carrots, and a piece of cake.

Dinner was at a Malaysian restaurant and consisted of Randeng beef, red snapper, some roti with a coconut sauce, and coconut rice.

It is perfectly possible to go through an entire day without any corn or corn byproducts. If you rely on processed food for your calories, whether or not they use corn is the least of your problems.

Re:Corn

[VolciMaster]

You ate corn's products, then: the sausage came from a pig most likely fed corn, and the chickens were fed corn to get your eggs, and the cows were fed corn to get the butter, buttermilk, and cheese.

I'm not saying it's good or bad - just a fact.

Re:Corn

[Bloater]

That's illegal now in the UK - after scabies and mad cow disease (causing CJD in humans). British meat is now the safest and healthiest (and probably the most expensive) in the world.

Re:Corn is OVERRATED

[spineboy]

It really depends on just how many calories go in vs how many are expended. New England Journal of Medicine had a study about 15 years ago, looking at exercise and eating habits of thin, and obese people. Obese people tended to underestimate the amount of food they ate by 50% !!, and overestimated the amount of exercise by 2x. Thin people had about the opposite experience.
  Low fat food may be more of a culprit, since many of the stomach and intestinal hormones (CCK, somatostatin, GIP) are triggered/released by fat, which then produce the "full" sensation. Look at the French - tons of fatty food, and they are skinny with much less heart disease. Yeah - they eat less (feeling full?) and walk more. Portion sizes in America are ridiculous.

There's nothing magic about food - if you eat too much, it gets converted to fat. And please, no vegan rants - England looked at a random sampling of 1000 people who reached the age of 100, and only 4 were vegetarians, all the rest ate meat routinely. It's not eating meat that can cause heart disease, but the lack of fruits and veggies. Yes I agree Americans could stand to eat less meat, but mostly just need to eat less.

Re:Corn is OVERRATED

[TheoMurpse]

The only way that I can get myself out of the "obese" range is by eating all protean and fat, while getting little to no exercise. If I go with a carnivorous diet, I will lose the fat, but if I exercise, my muscle mass puts be right back into the "obese" range.

I assume you're using BMI as a classification for obesity.

#1 - BMI is complete and utter bullshit, as you've discovered. Go with the highly technical "do I look fat in the mirror" test. Or get your body fat measured.

#2 - If you think you might be obese, you probably are. Barring anorexia, if you're not, then you will at least get in better shape.

#3 - It sounds like you're suggesting that if you put on more muscle, you're more obese than if you don't put any on. If I'm reading your comments correctly, then it's pretty obvious you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I assure you that you're making yourself worse off by not exercising, no matter what your BMI says.

if your BMI is 29 without muscle, but 31 with muscle, it doesn't matter because your body fat mass is the same. Hell, your body fat percentage is higher without muscle.

Jesus Christ, go to a freaking doctor already. Every time I read your comment, I am awestruck by one more ridiculous assertion. Your post just seems to be along the lines of: I look bigger when I put on muscle. Therefore I don't work out because bigger = less healthy. Stop hating fat people, guys. We're all different, and maybe in some ethnicities, being obese is the most healthy way to be. Here, I'll quote you for you:

weight has become a religion. It is absurd to think that someone whose ancestors have been eating beef for the last 5000 years would have the same nutritional requirements as someone whose ancestors has been picking fresh fruit from trees for the last 5000 years.

Until we can get past the "fat people people have different nutrition/exercise needs, we won't get anywhere with the problem.

And until ridiculously unhealthy people are all healthy, I will continue to show concern for my fellow man, and strive to improve humanity by pushing them to improve their health and the well-being of this world.

Disclaimer: some of what I said here could be self-loathing, since I used to be fat and am still working on getting in terrific shape.

Bullshit

[Archtech]

Yeah, you ate a lot of corn there. The point is that most of the animals we eat, eat corn.

It's Stone Age animist thinking to believe that, when you eat an animal that ate corn, you thereby eat corn yourself.

Take it a stage further! You ate the cow; the cow ate corn; the corn was fertilised with manure. Ergo, you ate manure.

Except, of course, that you obviously didn't. The "transitive" argument works when calculating the energy cost of food, but not when thinking of its ingedients.

Re:Corn

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You know? After all this time, I hadn't noticed this! Thanks.

Re:Corn

[MrNaz]

I hate people who kill conversations by invoking Godwin all the time. They're such communication Nazis!

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[mmcuh]

That would depend on your definition of "diet". If you eat less energy than you expend you will obviously lose weight, and that's what "diet and exercise" is all about.

Re:And on the plus side. of plus-size..

[RiotingPacifist]

you mean like carbohydrate offsetting?

quick somebody phone gore.

Mixed Causes

[bhiestand]

Although it was quite funny, it's a straw man and the study itself has some serious flaws. Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity. My cousin was a beautiful young woman until she developed lupus... she went from somewhere around 120 pounds to, well, I'm not going to speculate. I'm not sure what exactly caused the obesity, it could have been anything from hormonal changes to medications she had to take, but I know her house isn't exactly filled with twinkies. I feel terrible walking around with her in public. Not because I'm embarrassed to be with an obese woman, but because I get so upset at the looks people give us. People look at her like she just killed and ate their favorite pet, then they look at me with a slightly different look of disgust.

In addition, I feel that while this may be accurate, we'd be pushing the environmentalism too far to cite it as a reason for people to lose weight. Even if it would save some energy, fuel, and materials, all of the savings are overshadowed by the significant social and medical advantages. If we could waste just a little more food and fuel to ensure a longer life expectancy, we would.

Of course, this study isn't really very good. While the global demand for food would likely drop, you'd have a significant jump in energy and oil prices. All of the formerly obese Americans, spending hundreds less on food every month, would be ready to hit the beaches, ski slopes, etc. with their extra money and less embarrassing bodies.

Finally, BMI is a shoddy system that I'm sick of seeing. BMI was developed at a time when leeching was an accepted medical practice, and hasn't changed significantly since then. BMI can not differentiate between lean mass and lard. This means that a society of body builders would have the same average BMI as a society of, well, lazy Americans.

Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand. They're caused by reduced supply, which has been, in part, caused by food aid programs [inthesetimes.com]. When people become dependent on food aid programs, a small series of events can raise food prices enough that food aid programs can't afford to send food [cnn.com]. You can imagine how well this works out for impoverished areas that have lost their indigenous food production capability.

Re:Mixed Causes

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity

...and some people just like pies.

Re:Mixed Causes

[puck01]

Some people really do have serious glandular problems or diseases causing obesity

...and some people just like pies.

...and most people just like pies

Re:Mixed Causes

[Sentry21]

I was at Dairy Queen the other day with my (underweight if anything) girlfriend, and we happened to see another family enjoying some sundaes. I'm no good at speculation, but two of them seemed to be in their mid-twenties or so, and probably weighed about two hundred and fifty pounds or so, by our estimation. The mother and father of the family were probably more than that, maybe three hundred and three fifty.

They also had a little girl who looked a little on the chubby side, and were feeding her a giant sundae, as they all were eating.

Maybe this family has some kind of genetic disorder, and they may as well eat ice cream because they're going to be that large anyway. Maybe this was the first time in a year that they've gone to Dairy Queen (it was for me, and it was the first REALLY nice day of the year).

Still, I can't help but notice so many surprisingly large people out there on the streets, in the malls, at the food courts, and so on, and inevitably they're eating pizza, drinking coke, choking down a giant tub of popcorn with butter, and so on, and I can't help but think... these people either need self control, or need to realize that they have a problem.

Re:Mixed Causes

[puck01]

Obesity runs in families usually because obese kids grow up with obese parents and adopt the same activity habits and eating habits of their parents. More often than not, its environmental factors, not genetic.

Re:

[russotto]

Finally, BMI is a shoddy system that I'm sick of seeing. BMI was developed at a time when leeching was an accepted medical practice, and hasn't changed significantly since then.

Leeching is STILL an accepted medical practice. They just use cleaner leeches now. BMI is still BS though.

Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand.

Right, they are caused by an unholy alliance of environmentalists

Re:Mixed Causes

[GregPK]

I agree with you. I've got a large build with a low body fat. Viking build I guess, anyways I fit into 36 inch pants comfortably. I'm 6 foot 2 and my weight is still down 25 lbs from high school body building days leaving me at 245 lbs. I'm considered obese in the eyes of the insurance companies even though I have a six pack for muscle. I have to go through this long ass appeal process and physical in order to prove how lean I am every year.

Re:

[Oligonicella]

Same here. When I was running a stunt show, I had a physical. I sat there with my shirt off and the doctor in all seriousness told me I should lose 40 pounds. I looked down and asked "Where?" He was at a loss, of course. BMI is stupid.

For rusotto above. The leeching he's referring to is where they use leeches to drain blood because there's too much, not to reduce specific swellings.

Re:Mixed Causes

[Oktober Sunset]

BMI needs to be replaced by RWI or residual wobble index. In this, the doctor attaches accelerometers to your body and then rocks you from side to side and then measures how long your flabby belly continues to jiggle after he stops.

Re:Mixed Causes

[jonbryce]

Another measure they use it to see if your waist is less than half of your height. If it is, then you are fine. If it is more than half your height, you are too fat.

Re:

[Oktober Sunset]

I can see this method being inaccurate for very short people.

The most accurate test is PMR or Pie Merchant Response. In it, the subject aproaches a pie stall and an EEG is taken and compared to the EEG of the pie merchant looking at increasingly large heaps of money. Alternatly if the EEG matches the pie merchants reding when seeing images of unemployment offices, house repossessions and homeless people under a bridge, then the person is underweight.

Re:

[circletimessquare]

Although it was quite funny, it's a straw man and...

unfortunately, according to the codified laws of debate, chapter 5, subsection 32, the charge of "straw man" is an applicable rhetorical device in any disagreement, except in the instance of arguing about a fat man. you will have to rephrase

Re:

[Harmonious Botch]

Getting back to serious topics, it's very important to note that global food shortages (and corresponding rises in prices) are not caused by increased demand...

Not quite true. It is both increased demand and shorter supply. In particular, the growing middle class in both India and China are eating more meat. ( And it takes 2 to 4 pounds of grain to produce a pound of chicken; about 10 pounds of grain to produce a pound of pork, and 15-20 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef ) So they are increasing the demand for both grain and meat.
The decrease in supply is due to several factors: Australia is in its 6th year of drought, Argentina has had floods, and A

Re:

[no1home]

Basically correct, but you left another relevant fact out: food prices are also going up due to increased energy costs. As for the decreased supply due to drought, flood, and other environment issues, that's not entirely correct. Rice, wheat, corn, and other staple crops were produced at record levels over the last year. Enough rice (or was it wheat, I don't remember) was produced in the most recent season to proved each living human about 700lbs. (I really wish I could find the article for proper citat

Re:

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, it's a case of poor political structure in the places where people are starving; we can send grain to africa, and the local thugs will just use it as leverage to get the starving people to do what they want. Or kill them, either way. Want to fix starvation? get africa stabilized somehow.

Re:Mixed Causes

[rainer_d]

You clearly have no idea of anything in this area.
The reason most of Africa is in constant need of aid is that a lot of the stuff that gets "sent" there in turn destroys what little of a functioning economy is still left there (take for example shipments of chicken-meat, subsidized by EU, destroying the business of local chicken farmers).
In addition, the various financial donations allow most of Africa's dictators to spend most of their cash on weapons and enriching themselves and their cousins - instead of building a school-system, a health- and social security system.
That's what NGOs, foreign governments, Red Cross and who else not does for them.
I'm really sick of people like you who think it's a question of dumping enough food there - it's clearly not.

The best way to "heal" Africa would really be to leave it alone.
And don't ship any weapons there anymore, first of all.

One word: Ethanol

[MacDork]

It's truly frightening that you could write five paragraphs and still overlook the reason for the recent food shortages.

Re:

[dfedfe]

Drunk people can't possible eat *that* much.

Re:

[NeuroManson]

I dunno how to tell you this, but they still use leeches today (for their anti coagulant properties). Not only that, but doctors use maggots too! Bugs are useful for lots of stuff. Bet you didn't know that silk used in surgery originally comes out of the butt of a caterpillar too.

It's a joke. You're supposed to laugh.

Re:

[Original Replica]

the study itself has some serious flaws.

When I'm training for a triathlon, I eat twice as much as anyone else I know. Added to that, the food I eat is more labor intensive than junk food, fresh organic stuff uses more resources per calorie than McDonald's and Hostess. A society of athletes would consume more food/resources than the couch potato society. Although there would be far fewer cars and many more bicycles.

BMI should be a cubic function...

[Joce640k]

I don't know who invented BMI but math wasn't his best subject. Humans are three dimensional so there should be a power of three in the BMI equation somewhere. There isn't, what we have is a quadric curve where the middle bit happens to fit middle size people.

If you go outside the "medium" range it all falls apart, tall people come out as obese and short people come out as underweight.

We need to scrap it an try again.

Re:

[crossmr]

This means that a society of body builders would have the same average BMI as a society of, well, lazy Americans.

While true, its a bit of a misleading argument.
It takes the focus off the lazy americans. Just because it can't distinguish between a competitive body builder and a fat guy, doesn't make the fat guy any more healthy, or any less fat. It doesn't take a genius to look at someone with a BMI of 35 and say "You're fat." If they can't tell the difference they need their eyes examined.

Re:

[puck01]

corticosteroids (such as those used for asthma) cause weight gain by increasing the appetite and thus increasing the amount of calories a person consumes. They do no decrease metabolism and they do not break the laws of thermodynamics.

Thus your friends with steroid dependent asthma may be gaining weight, but they are not eating 1/4 the calories you are.

Or, maybe, they should worry about themselves

[OMNIpotusCOM]

I wonder how many greenhouse gasses were released in the creation of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the webhosting of the LA Times (let alone creation and physical distribution of the papers), or why they accepted 2 million dollars [wikipedia.org] from the Rockefeller foundation [wikipedia.org]. We all know that John D Rockefeller [wikipedia.org] was very green while he was revolutionizing the petroleum industry and founding Standard Oil. Maybe while the school looks...

To contribute to the improvement of health worldwide through the pursuit of excellence in research, postgraduate teaching and advanced training in national and international public health and tropical medicine, and through informing policy and practice in these areas.

...they should remember where they came from and why they have the buildings they do. Instead of spouting nonsense that will make less people want to visit, they should actually work on something that matters.

Not normal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Promotion of a normal distribution of BMI would reduce the global demand for, and thus the price of, food

Experience and the Central Limit Theorem tell me that they are distributed normally.

Ooooh!

[pete-classic]

Does this mean I'm finally in a class that the government is going to throw money at?

Oh, and I plan to live 20% fewer years than average, so it's really a 2% gain for the planet.

-Peter

Why are peopel tip toeing around this story?

[pembo13]

Seems logical that obese people are disproportionately using up some resources. In the same way that professional racers are disproportionately using up carbon based fuels. I have seen really fat person it, and as a fatty myself, some scare me. But back to the story, seems like a logical corolation to me, very few obese people are fat and not eating much food.

On the Flip Side

[bill_mcgonigle]

But back to the story, seems like a logical corolation to me, very few obese people are fat and not eating much food.

Yeah, but think about all the resources they're not:

• Not buying new clothing every year to stay in fashion?
  
• Not hotrodding on a Jet Ski at the lake?
  
• Taking up and paying for two seats on the plane but only getting one skimpy rubbery meal?
  
• Keeping the heat at 60 in the winter?
  
• Not burning fuel to go to the movies because HBO is so much more comfortable?
  
• Not flying in grapes from Chile to feed a winter-time vegetarian ethos when fried wheat do just fine?

Hey, I'm not advocating it, but let's have a full accounting here. Oh, right, that's really hard and there's less opportunity to be priggish. Sort of like me not reading TFA.

Not all fat people eat more.

[porcupine8]

A skinny person with a really high metabolism can eat far more in a day than a fat person with a slow one. Plus, you only need to eat a lot to *get* fat - maintaining your weight doesn't require eating extra. Not to mention tall people, teenaged boys, people with very physical jobs, and many others who would all eat more than an average person.

I'm not all pro-obesity or anything, but it's just silly to think that ALL obese people eat more than ALL average-weight people.

Re:Not all fat people eat more.

[Animats]

A skinny person with a really high metabolism can eat far more in a day than a fat person with a slow one

Yes. On rare occasions you meet such people. I've known an ex-New York City Ballet dancer like that. She's slim, hard-muscled, radiates heat, and has to eat almost constantly to keep her weight up. I know an endurance rider who's 6' tall, all leg, runs seven miles a day, and eats twice what I do when we have dinner together. She thinks 58F is a good indoor temperature.

Such people are unusual. On the other hand, I've probably seen over fifty oinkers today, waddling around. And it's early yet.

Re:Not all fat people eat more.

[cozziewozzie]

Not quite.

Muscle uses a lot of energy. People with a muscular build NEED a lot more food than fat people, because fat doesn't consume energy, muscles do.

Add to this the fact that muscular people probably got that muscle through regular exercise, which burns lots of energy too.

Obesity is very often a case of bad diet (eating the wrong stuff) and non-balanced lifestyle (no exercise to match the food), and not simply eating too much. Athletes eat FAR more than your average fatty.

Re:

[Animats]

And do you know the current eating habits of any of those oinkers?

I get a good idea when I'm stuck behind one at the supermarket checkout.

Gut Bacteria

[bill_mcgonigle]

A skinny person with a really high metabolism

There's current thinking that different varieties of gut bacteria play a huge role here. Apparently some types can metabolize more types of food than others. The trick is the higher caloric content generated doesn't properly feed back into the hunger satiety mechanism, so the average person with highly efficient bacteria will tend to gain weight.

So, either fill up skinny people with more efficient bacteria and figure out how to deal with the hunger problem, or

OK, I'm going to weigh in here

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a fat man. I weight 370 pounds. (However, I am 6" 6' tall, but I'm still fat.) Now, this article does state that there are other factors. It names the skinny guy with the high metabolism on the 100 mile bike ride, but there is one factor (among many) that it doesn't consider. I live in a small apartment and drive a Honda Civic that gets 25MPG or better, even around town. (It gets 33 - 35MPG on the highway. All these fuel consumption figures are real measured figures that I've taken.) Lets look at my overall carbon output compared to the little 90 pound skinny woman driving her Chevy Suburban aggressively on her way home to her massive suburban McMansion, while talking on her cell phone no less. What's her carbon impact versus mine? How much more oil does it take to propel her massive SUV, especially when she's stomping on the gas with that big V8, then it does to propel my little 4 cylinder Civic? How much more oil does it take to heat and cool her massive house than my little apartment? I'd bet that we come out about the same, or that she might even end up producing more carbon than I do. There are so many factors that this article doesn't consider. All it really seems to do is give people an escape goat for global warming. Yes its all OK now, we can blame it on the fat people!

Re:

[jlarocco]

That's definitely true. But, if you cut your weight in half, you would get even better gas milage than you already do. When you take that effect and multiply it by all the "overweight" people in the world, it adds up.

Is dieting the best way to save fuel? Probably not. But being over weight does impact on fuel usage.

Re:

[Al Dimond]

"Why can't I just have my simple pleasures?", you ask. Because they aren't simple. Most stuff we do, the things we grew up with and took for granted, consume tons of energy. Our lifestyles affect lots of people. The fact that you enjoy steaks and burgers doesn't change the fact that meat takes a lot of energy to produce. So why shouldn't that be reported if it's true? Similarly, my computer uses lots of energy and I'm severely missing the point if I call someone that points that out to me an eco-Nazi.

I normally don't respond to crap like this.

[Blackneto]

"It's a glandular problem!" Yeah, sure

But as a "large" person, bite my flabby ass.

not speaking for every fatass. But since I started working nights 10 years ago i've gained 150lbs.
Funny thing is I'm still as active and eat basically the same amount that I always have.

I've been big since puberty set in.
In HS i was 5'9" and weighed 240lbs. As i was playing football at the time I don't think it was a lack of exercise. I don't know what my calorie intake was at the time but it couldn't have been that much since we weren't very well off but my dad made enough to keep us off welfare. Never any huge amount of junk food or fatty food. Mostly carbs though. beans, rice, pasta and chicken.

In my 20's i reached my present height of 6ft. I was working construction and living in Brooklyn. I ate and drank pretty much whatever I wanted then but never got above 190.

FF to my 40's and 10 years of night work, sleep apnea and other nonsense I weigh 340. I eat maybe 2 times a day. I don't really eat sweets. My diet is mostly the same it was when I was a kid though I drink a lot more.
spent about 3 months writing down my food intake for the doctor I'm working with.
He didn't see anything abnormal. I average about 1900 calories a day.
I should be losing weight but I'm not. Possibilities include sleep deprivation, thyroid problem or diabetes (which i still test negative for even though both parents have adult onset)

Sure there are people that don't control what they eat, don't exercise and are seriously fat in the way you describe.
But I think there a lot of folks that due to different circumstances just can't maintain weight the way you or other people think they should.

FWIW, my family of 6 has a food budget of 540 a month not including 160 budgeted for eating out. this is pretty low for our area. most people i know that make the same amount of money as i do spend twice as much with less people in the house.

I don't have any figures about the amount of fuel we use. We have to have a minivan for all of us to go somewhere in one vehicle. And my personal vehicle is no gas miser. But I may only drive it 3000 miles a year. The minivan we've averaged about 9000mi/year since we bought it.
Until hydrogen powered cars become more widespread though we won't be buying any new vehicles.
I'm not wild about hybrids because i don't think batteries are any better for the environment than burning fuel.
Converting Gas engines to run hydrogen I think is the best bet.

I don't think our transportation impact is that great since we aren't running kids back and forth to activities every night and we have always made an effort to consolidate trips.

and last but not least. I view people that hold stock with BMI calculations with the same derision as those that in the past believed in phrenology.

Ah the new religion

[DarkOx]

Ah the new religion,
Now combining the sudo sceince of global warming with a little good old fashion scapegoating.

Speaking as a 5'8" guy weighing in at around 135 pounds, this sounds alful facist to me. Nobody would call me fat but replace global warmin with economic struggles and fat people with jew and our intelectual elite sound pretty much like Hitler did in the the late 1920s.

Can we get back to real science before we completely destroy the world pretty please?

Makes sense

[eebra82]

So Calista Flockhart was in fact just caring for the environment? Who knew.

Just to play devil's advocate here ...

[NotBornYesterday]

... what about all the trim, muscular, athletic people? Think about it. If some guy runs, bikes, or goes to the gym a hour per day and lifts weights, isn't he eating more food, burning a lot more calories, and exhaling a lot more CO2 than a lazy s.o.b. sitting on his couch in a semi-vegetative state?

When you see a really obese person, don't think of them as 'fat'. Think of them as mobile carbon sequestration units.

BMI is medically dangerous quackery

[taustin]

BMI does not take in to account a person's build, age, or even sex. According to the BMI quacks, a man and woman of the same height should be the same weight. That's not juts quackery, that's quackery that kills people. I have known people with a BMI that would come out as grossly obese, but had - measured - less than 5% body fat, because of a massively muscular build. The reason more Americans are overweight is because the definition of overweight keeps changing, more than anything else.

I can't help but wonder if the "London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine," or at least these two quacks, are funded by pharmaceutical companies that are heavily in to the weight loss drug market.

the answer is ...

[constantnormal]

Soylent Green.

It's the only way to deal with the explosive population growth of overweight people.

Other reasons for obesity

[magudas]

A few other things in the U.S. could also be the cause of so much obesity. Take for instance MSG. Although it's said to be harmless, look outside the U.S. for studies on it's effects. Now go look in your cabinets for foods that contain it. Nearly all chips, any pre-prepared food mixes, nearly 50% of fast food, as well as restaurant chain food contain it. With that much of it, not just the occasional bit in, it's bound to have some adverse effects on our metabolism, as well as cause more food addiction. Look at how little many other countries use MSG(Mono Sodium Glutamate.) Another thing would be to look Corn Sugar usage. The use of real sugars, not processed modified corn sugars, are more easily digested and metabolized in the body, but we have corn subsidies to fill, so we all get Corn Sugar in everything that used to have sugar. Try to find anything but natural Maple syrup that uses Cane Sugar instead of Corn Sugar. I doubt you can. I cut out soda completely, and steer clear of Corn Sugar completely. I avoid MSG and pre-prepared foods that use it, and do my research before eating anywhere because you'd be surprised at MSG usage. Since then, and with a moderate workout plan, I've lost over 15% body fat and increased my muscle mass tremendously.

There's a big freaking hole in their hypothesis...

[zullnero]

It has nothing to do with girth and body fat, and everything to do with actual dietary consumption and metabolism. A high energy person with a higher metabolism will eat a whole lot more food than one with a lower metabolism. Just because a person is overweight doesn't necessarily mean that the person eats more than one meal a day...they simply tend to store fat more efficiently than someone who burns through it inefficiently.

You also have to take into account the effects of the actual diet...if a person is overweight from a diet of mostly bread products, vs. a person overweight from eating a lot of pizza, bacon, etc., the latter person's diet would contribute greater to global warming as a result of the length of the food chain and resulting pollution it takes to produce meat vs. wheat products, etc. And a skinny person with a high metabolism, they'd be the absolute worst of all. They'd eat and eat, and wastefully lose their calories instead of carrying them around and prolonging the next meal.

Fat People Are Breeding

[stuntmanmike]

Fat people are disproportionately unlikely to get laid, and therefore don't contribute to overpopulation.

Nope.

There will always be skinny guys who like to fuck fat chicks, fat guys who are rich enough that skinny girls will fuck them, and fat guys who eventually give up on their dreams of banging supermodels and settle for a fat chick.

Ohio and Michigan...

[Amigori]

Visit one of the Great Lakes states and you will see that they over contribute to the population. Fat people breeding with fat people. This is how you end up with 4'6" 5th graders weighing more than me, granted I'm on the skinny side, 27y, 5'11" 165lbs. I think they just realize that if they want to get laid, their standards...change. And I mean the truely fat people, not the husky ones.

For an annecdotal study, simply visit a non-upper class mall in your neighborhood and sit in the food court for 30min. Grotesquely obese will rapidly become average, shifting your bell curve a good 50+ lbs to the right, and skinny becoming the left-side outliers.

I'm sure that if you removed the (qualified) medical reasons, the generally husky/bigger, but not fat, people, merely the margin of error would change. Americans are overweight with many just plain old FAT!

Comfort Food

[mosb1000]

In most cases, obesity results from emotional distress. People who are poorly adjusted sometimes turn to food as a coping mechanism. Almost all obese people use food to meet their emotional needs in this way.

If we want to end obesity, we need to educate parents about the link between associating food with nurturing behavior and obesity. This way people will learn to cope with their stress in healthier ways, such as feigning illness, attempting suicide or picking fights to get attention.

Re:

[NeuroManson]

Well, technically a lot of people are essentially brainwashed into overeating during childhood. Especially by first and second generation "old world" immigrant parents, you know, from the very same European countries who now like to blast away willy nilly at the US for every conceivable reason.

You know, the old "Eat every bite.", "You don't get to go to play or bed until that plate is clean.", and that old chestnut, "Don't you know there's children starving in (insert country here)?".

Even worst are the OLD

Re:

[Pitr]

Not that I agree 100% with the article (I agree partially, but in a limited, and less sensationalized way), but you kinda missed, and proved, their point. It's not transporting your weight that they refer to in fuel savings, but the transport of the extra food you would have eaten, and you say you spend less on food by not buying certain things, which means that those things don't need to be transported, etc. It makes a more obvious difference if you think of it in terms of how much less a specific store