How many of you are finally going to do something about your weight in 2007?

Bob S. wrote:
> I just crossed the line from "overweight" to "obese".
>
> BMI 30.3 230/230/185. 6'1" Male.
>
> I am not going to allow myself to be depressed by that. I find it a
> somewhat encouraging milestone.
>
> I showed up here to try to read some encouraging thoughts from others. I
> love newsgroups and will resolve to stay away from trendy diets such as
> Atkins and South Beach - I may look into GI - I have a lot of diabetes in my
> family and I carry my weight on my belly.

Hi Bob,

You might want to consider simply eating less and better, and
exercising. Also, please note I trimmed the fat people in denial
newsgroup; if you wish to discuss dieting, alt.support.diet exists for
that reason. If you want to lose weight, ASD is the place to be.

"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Nunya B. wrote:
>> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167655988.340673.242550@42g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > Bully wrote:
>> >> James wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:51:10 -0600, "Real BBW"
>> >> > <real_bbw@nopublicemailaddy.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> James wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> but what was the nature of the
>> >> >>> neck surgery that caused you to overeat during this period?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 99.9% of fat people do not overeat, fat basher!
>> >> >
>> >> > If they do not ingest more caloreis that they burn how do they get
>> >> > fat?
>> >> >
>> >> > James
>> >>
>> >> Hormone imbalance.
>> >
>> > Bullcr*p.
>>
>> I actually agree with you here.
>
> Was it a surprise that we might agree? I don't recall crossing swords
> with you in the past.
>
> A hormone imbalance is generally rare and
>> *still* does not cause weight gain. It only means that one is still
>> eating
>> more than they burn but they don't burn as much as another person of the
>> same age/ht/wt etc. There are many ways around most hormone imbalances.
>> It's still a life choice.
>
> A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
> thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
> work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
>
> Personally I choose to eat less and exercise more
>> to stay healthy though I will probably never be a size 6 because of how
>> much
>> less I'd have to eat and how much more I'd have to exercise. OTOH I'd
>> easily get back to a size 28-30 if I chose to stop eating less and
>> exercising. I don't use my physical condition as an excuse to eat junk
>> or
>> sit around all of the time.
>
> And that's the key word for all the hormonal imbalance bullcr*p -
> "excuse." It's just another justification for being fat.

But it is much, much easier to make excuses than it is to actually get out
and do something! How many of us made excuses until the status quo became
too unconfortable to tolerate any longer? I know I did.
>

Nunya B. wrote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >
>
> > Was it a surprise that we might agree? I don't recall crossing swords
> > with you in the past.
>
> My disinclination to post to this group regularly shouldn't be regarded as
> agreement.

Never said it was.

At times it does come as a surprise when I agree with you, but
> that doesn't mean I want to debate it or even express it.

OK, whatever you mean. I'd never question a lady's right to silence.

> > A hormone imbalance is generally rare and
> >> *still* does not cause weight gain. It only means that one is still
> >> eating
> >> more than they burn but they don't burn as much as another person of the
> >> same age/ht/wt etc. There are many ways around most hormone imbalances.
> >> It's still a life choice.
> >
> > A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
> > thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
> > work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
>
> And what if he couldn't work it out with a reasonable amount of exercise and
> calorie restriction? Would that be ok as long as he's exercising and eating
> right?

I don't understand your question. Are we talking about the hypothetical
average person? Or some worst case scenario?

> > Personally I choose to eat less and exercise more
> >> to stay healthy though I will probably never be a size 6 because of how
> >> much
> >> less I'd have to eat and how much more I'd have to exercise. OTOH I'd
> >> easily get back to a size 28-30 if I chose to stop eating less and
> >> exercising. I don't use my physical condition as an excuse to eat junk
> >> or
> >> sit around all of the time.
> >
> > And that's the key word for all the hormonal imbalance bullcr*p -
> > "excuse." It's just another justification for being fat.
>
> Well it certainly depends on your definition of fat. Some people think a
> BMI of 26 is fat. To what extremes does a person need to go to before
> they're making excuses? That's probably the crux of the issue.

Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'

Obviously
> the SFA posters are the extreme example of what not to do

FFIDs, in other words.

> BTW, I'm certainly not defending morbid obesity or even being fat, I'm just
> throwing some ideas out for thought.

OK. I'll go quietly now, but leave you with the knowledge that I
actually agree with you. I'll let you try to figure out what it is we
agree on and how frequently it happens.

"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167692389.784260.110380@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Nunya B. wrote:
>> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>> > A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
>> > thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
>> > work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
>>
>> And what if he couldn't work it out with a reasonable amount of exercise
>> and
>> calorie restriction? Would that be ok as long as he's exercising and
>> eating
>> right?
>
> I don't understand your question. Are we talking about the hypothetical
> average person? Or some worst case scenario?

Either. You state that your friend is thicker than he wants to be but "it's
not anything he can't work off." What if he couldn't work it off and was
still thicker than he wanted to be? To what extreme should he push before
it's considered making excuses or being a FFID?

>> Well it certainly depends on your definition of fat. Some people think a
>> BMI of 26 is fat. To what extremes does a person need to go to before
>> they're making excuses? That's probably the crux of the issue.
>
> Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'

Probably just the definitions of fat since hormonal imbalances generally
affect only a small percentage of the population. I've gone from having
PCOS to post menopausal in the course of a day - both conditions lend
themselves to a difficulty in losing weight. If I'm working out an hour a
day (once I'm medically cleared) and restricting my eating to a reasonable
6-8 cal/lb. and yet still not down to my ideal weight in a year (more than
reasonable under the circumstances - It will be another 2 months before I'm
cleared for volleyball and weightlifting and anything else that includes
lifting, jumping, or diving onto hardwood floors), am I a FFID because I'm
not willing or able to do 2 hours a day of workouts or cut my calories to an
unsafe level?

> Obviously
>> the SFA posters are the extreme example of what not to do
>
> FFIDs, in other words.

The very definition of such as it may be.

--
the volleyballchick

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> aegis wrote:
> > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > > aegis wrote:
> > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > aegis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > > > coach k wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Obesity in America is up to about 80%.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> > > > > > > healthier lives.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What evidence do you have to support this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > aegis
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2915-4928r.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Take that, fat basher!
> > > >
> > > > That article provides no evidence.
> > >
> > > Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills. The article clearly
> > > states that in 1900 the life expectancy was 47 and today it's 77.
> > > Anybody with a pulse above room temp already knows that Americans today
> > > live longer than they did a hundred years ago.
> > >
> > > That doesn't say that those who are in the morbidly obese group will
> > > live as long as those who are not. And it doesn't say that the overall
> > > life expectancy would not be higher if people were not obese. But
> > > you're not going to convince people with your arguments when you refuse
> > > to acknowledge established facts.
> > >
> >
> > Why not try reading my post next time before responding to it?
>
>
> I did read it. A poster had stated:
>
> "And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> healthier lives. "
>
>
> You asked for proof, as if this was an incredible statement. Anyone
> who follows the news at all already knows that today we are living
> longer lives than we did 30, 50, or 100 years ago. The poster
> provided you with a direct link to a news article that stated life
> expectancy today is 77, compared to 47 in 1900.
>
>
> > The people that are living to a ripe old age /today/ did /not/
> > necessarrily have the same diet as /young people today/.
>
> Who is arguing cause and effect or diet? All the poster stated was
> that the population today is living longer than we did in the past.
> It's a proven fact. End of discussion.
>

That is not all that the poster stated. Why are you posting
to this thread if you don't bother to read it?

>
> >
> > Ergo, you can't imply that because the younger people today
> > are overweight or obese(whatever RealBBW meant by 'fatter')
> > that they will necessarily live longer.
>
> No one implied any such thing. What was saod was that we are living
> longer today than we did in the past. And that is a fact.
>

No, you are mistaken. What was said was that 'as the population is
getting fatter, we are living longer and healthier lives'.

The implication obviously that living longer and healthier is somehow
magically predicated upon being 'fatter'(Still something that was never
fully defined; it could mean overweight, obese, etc.)

Additionally,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../307/5716/1716
and http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm

The above is a more uptodate study, linking obesity with decline
in life expectancy.

--
aegis

Nunya B. wrote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167692389.784260.110380@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Nunya B. wrote:
> >> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >> > A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
> >> > thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
> >> > work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
> >>
> >> And what if he couldn't work it out with a reasonable amount of exercise
> >> and
> >> calorie restriction? Would that be ok as long as he's exercising and
> >> eating
> >> right?
> >
> > I don't understand your question. Are we talking about the hypothetical
> > average person? Or some worst case scenario?
>
> Either. You state that your friend is thicker than he wants to be but "it's
> not anything he can't work off." What if he couldn't work it off and was
> still thicker than he wanted to be? To what extreme should he push before
> it's considered making excuses or being a FFID?

Who ever said a word about "extremes?" And why are you applying the
FFID label to a bicyclist who added a few pounds in the off-season? I
merely cited my friend as a person who has 'thyroid problems' and deals
with them. Incidentally, I said that HE thinks he's "thick"; most of
the world wouldn't.

> >> Well it certainly depends on your definition of fat. Some people think a
> >> BMI of 26 is fat. To what extremes does a person need to go to before
> >> they're making excuses? That's probably the crux of the issue.
> >
> > Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'
>
> Probably just the definitions of fat since hormonal imbalances generally
> affect only a small percentage of the population.

In other words, you've entered the thread to change the topic to your
crusade.

I've gone from having
> PCOS to post menopausal in the course of a day - both conditions lend
> themselves to a difficulty in losing weight. If I'm working out an hour a
> day (once I'm medically cleared) and restricting my eating to a reasonable
> 6-8 cal/lb. and yet still not down to my ideal weight in a year (more than
> reasonable under the circumstances - It will be another 2 months before I'm
> cleared for volleyball and weightlifting and anything else that includes
> lifting, jumping, or diving onto hardwood floors), am I a FFID because I'm
> not willing or able to do 2 hours a day of workouts or cut my calories to an
> unsafe level?

I sensed there was some personal reason for your rather strange
responses. Please disengage. Put away your strawman. Also, consider
that the D in FFID stands for Denial. Are you in denial,
vollyballchick?

> > Obviously
> >> the SFA posters are the extreme example of what not to do
> >
> > FFIDs, in other words.
>
> The very definition of such as it may be.

Oh look, we agree again. Let me mark this a red-letter day. And then
move on to better things.

In article <_p-dndIYZfBz0QXYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
real_bbw@nopublicemailaddy.net says...
> James wrote:
>
> > but what was the nature of the
> > neck surgery that caused you to overeat during this period?
>
> 99.9% of fat people do not overeat, fat basher!
>

and the other %.1 don't lie about it.



--
"Once you black, you go deaf"

Family Guy.

aegis wrote:
> trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > aegis wrote:
> > > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > > > aegis wrote:
> > > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > > aegis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > > > > coach k wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Obesity in America is up to about 80%.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> > > > > > > > healthier lives.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What evidence do you have to support this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > aegis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2915-4928r.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take that, fat basher!
> > > > >
> > > > > That article provides no evidence.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills. The article clearly
> > > > states that in 1900 the life expectancy was 47 and today it's 77.
> > > > Anybody with a pulse above room temp already knows that Americans today
> > > > live longer than they did a hundred years ago.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't say that those who are in the morbidly obese group will
> > > > live as long as those who are not. And it doesn't say that the overall
> > > > life expectancy would not be higher if people were not obese. But
> > > > you're not going to convince people with your arguments when you refuse
> > > > to acknowledge established facts.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not try reading my post next time before responding to it?
> >
> >
> > I did read it. A poster had stated:
> >
> > "And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> > healthier lives. "
> >
> >
> > You asked for proof, as if this was an incredible statement. Anyone
> > who follows the news at all already knows that today we are living
> > longer lives than we did 30, 50, or 100 years ago. The poster
> > provided you with a direct link to a news article that stated life
> > expectancy today is 77, compared to 47 in 1900.
> >
> >
> > > The people that are living to a ripe old age /today/ did /not/
> > > necessarrily have the same diet as /young people today/.
> >
> > Who is arguing cause and effect or diet? All the poster stated was
> > that the population today is living longer than we did in the past.
> > It's a proven fact. End of discussion.
> >
>
> That is not all that the poster stated. Why are you posting
> to this thread if you don't bother to read it?

I did read it and what she stated IS true. While we the population is
fatter today than ever before, the population as a whole are living
longer. Again, you just make a fool of yourself when you deny the
truth.



>
> >
> > >
> > > Ergo, you can't imply that because the younger people today
> > > are overweight or obese(whatever RealBBW meant by 'fatter')
> > > that they will necessarily live longer.
> >
> > No one implied any such thing. What was saod was that we are living
> > longer today than we did in the past. And that is a fact.
> >
>
> No, you are mistaken. What was said was that 'as the population is
> getting fatter, we are living longer and healthier lives'.


Yes, and the above atement is true, yet you fail to acknowledge it.


>
> The implication obviously that living longer and healthier is somehow
> magically predicated upon being 'fatter'(Still something that was never
> fully defined; it could mean overweight, obese, etc.)

I don't see it being predicated on any such thing. I see it as simply
stating that perhaps things aren't as bad or dire as you think, because
if they were, then as the population has gotten fatter, lifespan would
be going down, not up. Serious obesity is a factor, but it clearly
has been outweighed by other positive factors affecting our health,
resulting in a longer lifespan.

If you have a point to make, instead of denying the obvious facts about
life expectancy which she provided you, complete with reference, you
could get off your ass and dig up some actual facts of your own that
show morbidly obese folks have a shorter life expectancy. But be
careful, even the CDC had to bactrack recently and admit that contrary
to what they have been spouting for decades, a recent major study
showed that being modestly overweight actually led to a LONGER life
expectancy than being at the supposed ideal weight.



>
> Additionally,
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../307/5716/1716
> and http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm
>
> The above is a more uptodate study, linking obesity with decline
> in life expectancy.
>
> --
> aegis


Once again, you destroy your own credibility, this time by deliberately
mistating references. Direct from the headline for the article you
provided:

"The rising incidence of obesity, especially among children and
teenagers, is leading to a variety of diseases that could depress
average life span"

Notice the word "COULD"? And the whole article, if you bothered to
read it, talks about metabolic syndrome and kidney disease. It's not
even close to a study or conclusion on life expectancy.

"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167713725.246339.112530@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Nunya B. wrote:
>> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167692389.784260.110380@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Nunya B. wrote:
>> >> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>> >> > A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
>> >> > thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
>> >> > work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
>> >>
>> >> And what if he couldn't work it out with a reasonable amount of
>> >> exercise
>> >> and
>> >> calorie restriction? Would that be ok as long as he's exercising and
>> >> eating
>> >> right?
>> >
>> > I don't understand your question. Are we talking about the hypothetical
>> > average person? Or some worst case scenario?
>>
>> Either. You state that your friend is thicker than he wants to be but
>> "it's
>> not anything he can't work off." What if he couldn't work it off and was
>> still thicker than he wanted to be? To what extreme should he push
>> before
>> it's considered making excuses or being a FFID?
>
> Who ever said a word about "extremes?" And why are you applying the
> FFID label to a bicyclist who added a few pounds in the off-season? I
> merely cited my friend as a person who has 'thyroid problems' and deals
> with them. Incidentally, I said that HE thinks he's "thick"; most of
> the world wouldn't.

I'm not applying any labels. I was just wondering where the threshold is.
Apparently I'm not as good as you at knowing everything a person means just
by what they write.

>> >> Well it certainly depends on your definition of fat. Some people
>> >> think a
>> >> BMI of 26 is fat. To what extremes does a person need to go to before
>> >> they're making excuses? That's probably the crux of the issue.
>> >
>> > Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'
>>
>> Probably just the definitions of fat since hormonal imbalances generally
>> affect only a small percentage of the population.
>
> In other words, you've entered the thread to change the topic to your
> crusade.

Crusade? Isn't that just a bit extreme? Just what is my crusade? Why is
it that you are getting defensive?

See, this is why I was disinclined to get into any sort of discussion with
you. No, Neil, I'm not a FFID and no, you don't know everything about me
simply by what I post. But to suggest anything different gets you going in a
direction that is not the most flattering for you.

FYI, I already lost a significant amount of weight (started the diet 4 years
ago next week actually), kept most of it off but as a somewhat normal adult
I'm still battling extra weight I don't care to. I'll never be 300+ lbs.
again because I choose to do whatever it takes, except relapsing back into
bulimia.

However, it took me a long time and a lot of experimentation to learn about
"whatever it takes" and I wasn't automatically successful the first few
times out. Luckily for me I had some great support from people here who let
me vent and then tried to help me work through things - even when they
didn't agree with me or didn't understand what I was trying to say. That
doesn't mean there wasn't an asshole or two who attempted to make the road
difficult. You always get to choose who you want to be.
--
the volleyballchick

Nunya B. wrote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167713725.246339.112530@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Nunya B. wrote:
> >> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1167692389.784260.110380@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Nunya B. wrote:
> >> >> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1167688369.997960.138450@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
> >> >> > A friend of mine had his cancerous thyroid removed. He's a little
> >> >> > thicker than he says he wants to be, but it's not anything he can't
> >> >> > work off. He bikes, and when warm weather returns...
> >> >>
> >> >> And what if he couldn't work it out with a reasonable amount of
> >> >> exercise
> >> >> and
> >> >> calorie restriction? Would that be ok as long as he's exercising and
> >> >> eating
> >> >> right?
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand your question. Are we talking about the hypothetical
> >> > average person? Or some worst case scenario?
> >>
> >> Either. You state that your friend is thicker than he wants to be but
> >> "it's
> >> not anything he can't work off." What if he couldn't work it off and was
> >> still thicker than he wanted to be? To what extreme should he push
> >> before
> >> it's considered making excuses or being a FFID?
> >
> > Who ever said a word about "extremes?" And why are you applying the
> > FFID label to a bicyclist who added a few pounds in the off-season? I
> > merely cited my friend as a person who has 'thyroid problems' and deals
> > with them. Incidentally, I said that HE thinks he's "thick"; most of
> > the world wouldn't.
>
> I'm not applying any labels. I was just wondering where the threshold is.
> Apparently I'm not as good as you at knowing everything a person means just
> by what they write.

You might try reading what's written first.

> >> >> Well it certainly depends on your definition of fat. Some people
> >> >> think a
> >> >> BMI of 26 is fat. To what extremes does a person need to go to before
> >> >> they're making excuses? That's probably the crux of the issue.
> >> >
> >> > Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'
> >>
> >> Probably just the definitions of fat since hormonal imbalances generally
> >> affect only a small percentage of the population.
> >
> > In other words, you've entered the thread to change the topic to your
> > crusade.
>
> Crusade? Isn't that just a bit extreme? Just what is my crusade? Why is
> it that you are getting defensive?

I see. I'm supposedly getting defensive. That probably explains why
twice in 24 hours you've posted statements that YOU are not a FFID,
despite no one saying that you were.

> See, this is why I was disinclined to get into any sort of discussion with
> you.

What a sacrifice you have made! Could you resume that disinclination,
please? I recall you also stated you were disinclined to post to asd.
Is that resumption on the cards are well?

No, Neil, I'm not a FFID and no, you don't know everything about me
> simply by what I post.

No, I only know what you write. Like a character in Shakespeare, you
have no existence aside from the text. I am merely responding to what
you've written.

But to suggest anything different gets you going in a
> direction that is not the most flattering for you.

Ah, more of the defensiveness you've mentioned. Note the paragraph
below. I am sorry that I am so defensive as to force you to post
details of and justification for your weight loss when you are
disinclined to do so. Shame on me. I suppose I should be called a
'snotty booger' next.

> FYI, I already lost a significant amount of weight (started the diet 4 years
> ago next week actually), kept most of it off but as a somewhat normal adult
> I'm still battling extra weight I don't care to. I'll never be 300+ lbs.
> again because I choose to do whatever it takes, except relapsing back into
> bulimia.
>
> However, it took me a long time and a lot of experimentation to learn about
> "whatever it takes" and I wasn't automatically successful the first few
> times out. Luckily for me I had some great support from people here who let
> me vent and then tried to help me work through things - even when they
> didn't agree with me or didn't understand what I was trying to say. That
> doesn't mean there wasn't an asshole or two who attempted to make the road
> difficult. You always get to choose who you want to be.

Again, thank you for fighting your disinclination. But please don't
feel the need to do so in the future.

"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167752280.997853.217400@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Nunya B. wrote:
>> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1167713725.246339.112530@a3g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>> >
>> > Nunya B. wrote:
>> >> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1167692389.784260.110380@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...



>> >> > Are we discussing hormonal imbalances, or definitions of 'fat?'
>> >>
>> >> Probably just the definitions of fat since hormonal imbalances
>> >> generally
>> >> affect only a small percentage of the population.
>> >
>> > In other words, you've entered the thread to change the topic to your
>> > crusade.
>>
>> Crusade? Isn't that just a bit extreme? Just what is my crusade? Why
>> is
>> it that you are getting defensive?
>
> I see. I'm supposedly getting defensive. That probably explains why
> twice in 24 hours you've posted statements that YOU are not a FFID,
> despite no one saying that you were.

No, actually you did mention something of the nature when pointing out that
the D stands for denial and then asking me if I was in denial. I just chose
to cut that bit of unpleasantness from the reply before because I figured it
was not something you really wanted to pursue. I guess I was wrong and
that's ok. I don't claim to know everything.

>> See, this is why I was disinclined to get into any sort of discussion
>> with
>> you.
>
> What a sacrifice you have made! Could you resume that disinclination,
> please? I recall you also stated you were disinclined to post to asd.
> Is that resumption on the cards are well?

Well, as I feel I do have some valuable experience to offer, I will continue
to post to this group as I have done for the last nearly 4 years. But don't
worry, I'll go back to letting you do your thing without adding my opinions
of your views. You've shown me pretty much what I thought would happen if I
attempted to engage you in any kind of introspection.

> Ah, more of the defensiveness you've mentioned. Note the paragraph
> below. I am sorry that I am so defensive as to force you to post
> details of and justification for your weight loss when you are
> disinclined to do so. Shame on me. I suppose I should be called a
> 'snotty booger' next.

Nah, that's not my style. I'll just go back to letting you do your thing
and I'll go back to doing mine - yes, I promise.

>> FYI, I already lost a significant amount of weight (started the diet 4
>> years
>> ago next week actually), kept most of it off but as a somewhat normal
>> adult
>> I'm still battling extra weight I don't care to. I'll never be 300+ lbs.
>> again because I choose to do whatever it takes, except relapsing back
>> into
>> bulimia.
>>
>> However, it took me a long time and a lot of experimentation to learn
>> about
>> "whatever it takes" and I wasn't automatically successful the first few
>> times out. Luckily for me I had some great support from people here who
>> let
>> me vent and then tried to help me work through things - even when they
>> didn't agree with me or didn't understand what I was trying to say. That
>> doesn't mean there wasn't an asshole or two who attempted to make the
>> road
>> difficult. You always get to choose who you want to be.
>
> Again, thank you for fighting your disinclination. But please don't
> feel the need to do so in the future.

Again, no worries there. I will continue to post to ASD, but go back to
ignoring you as I did in the past. My sincere apologies for having offended
your delicate nature. I wish you nothing but continued success in your
efforts.
--
the volleyballchick

trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> aegis wrote:
> > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > > aegis wrote:
> > > > trader4@optonline.net wrote:
> > > > > aegis wrote:
> > > > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > > > aegis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Real BBW wrote:
> > > > > > > > > coach k wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Obesity in America is up to about 80%.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> > > > > > > > > healthier lives.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What evidence do you have to support this?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > aegis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2915-4928r.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Take that, fat basher!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That article provides no evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you lack reading comprehension skills. The article clearly
> > > > > states that in 1900 the life expectancy was 47 and today it's 77.
> > > > > Anybody with a pulse above room temp already knows that Americans today
> > > > > live longer than they did a hundred years ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > That doesn't say that those who are in the morbidly obese group will
> > > > > live as long as those who are not. And it doesn't say that the overall
> > > > > life expectancy would not be higher if people were not obese. But
> > > > > you're not going to convince people with your arguments when you refuse
> > > > > to acknowledge established facts.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why not try reading my post next time before responding to it?
> > >
> > >
> > > I did read it. A poster had stated:
> > >
> > > "And as the population is getting fatter, we are living longer and
> > > healthier lives. "
> > >
> > >
> > > You asked for proof, as if this was an incredible statement. Anyone
> > > who follows the news at all already knows that today we are living
> > > longer lives than we did 30, 50, or 100 years ago. The poster
> > > provided you with a direct link to a news article that stated life
> > > expectancy today is 77, compared to 47 in 1900.
> > >
> > >
> > > > The people that are living to a ripe old age /today/ did /not/
> > > > necessarrily have the same diet as /young people today/.
> > >
> > > Who is arguing cause and effect or diet? All the poster stated was
> > > that the population today is living longer than we did in the past.
> > > It's a proven fact. End of discussion.
> > >
> >
> > That is not all that the poster stated. Why are you posting
> > to this thread if you don't bother to read it?
>
> I did read it and what she stated IS true. While we the population is
> fatter today than ever before, the population as a whole are living
> longer. Again, you just make a fool of yourself when you deny the
> truth.





>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ergo, you can't imply that because the younger people today
> > > > are overweight or obese(whatever RealBBW meant by 'fatter')
> > > > that they will necessarily live longer.
> > >
> > > No one implied any such thing. What was saod was that we are living
> > > longer today than we did in the past. And that is a fact.
> > >
> >
> > No, you are mistaken. What was said was that 'as the population is
> > getting fatter, we are living longer and healthier lives'.
>
>
> Yes, and the above atement is true, yet you fail to acknowledge it.
>
>
> >
> > The implication obviously that living longer and healthier is somehow
> > magically predicated upon being 'fatter'(Still something that was never
> > fully defined; it could mean overweight, obese, etc.)
>
> I don't see it being predicated on any such thing. I see it as simply
> stating that perhaps things aren't as bad or dire as you think, because
> if they were, then as the population has gotten fatter, lifespan would
> be going down, not up. Serious obesity is a factor, but it clearly
> has been outweighed by other positive factors affecting our health,
> resulting in a longer lifespan.


I don't care about how /you/ see it. As it was written, there was
a supposed implication between fatness and longevity. Which
there was no evidence to support this position. The age range
from the poster's article didn't give the percentange of older
folk from the percentage of the overall increase. And therefore,
you can't draw such conclusions. It could be the case that
the increase is mostly held by the younger folk, say less than 40
years of age. And that the individuals which are living to a great
age /now/, do so because they've sustained a different diet
from the newer generations.

>
> If you have a point to make, instead of denying the obvious facts about
> life expectancy which she provided you, complete with reference, you
> could get off your ass and dig up some actual facts of your own that
> show morbidly obese folks have a shorter life expectancy. But be
> careful, even the CDC had to bactrack recently and admit that contrary
> to what they have been spouting for decades, a recent major study
> showed that being modestly overweight actually led to a LONGER life
> expectancy than being at the supposed ideal weight.
>

I've already explained that the implication the poster was making
is false. And I provided reasoning as to why.

And no, that report you are referring to did not show that modestly
overweight people led such a longer life than their ideal weight
counterparts. Instead, longevity was experienced over their
underweight counterparts. Being at an ideal weight and being
underweight are not the samething.

I'll quote their claim:

"Underweight individuals (BMI of less than 18.5) had a higher risk
of death with nearly 34,000 more deaths than expected. Most
excess deaths among the underweight occurred in people age
70 or older. Among the obese, the increased risk of death was
most pronounced among people younger than 70."


>
> >
> > Additionally,
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../307/5716/1716
> > and http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm
> >
> > The above is a more uptodate study, linking obesity with decline
> > in life expectancy.
> >
> > --
> > aegis
>
>
> Once again, you destroy your own credibility, this time by deliberately
> mistating references. Direct from the headline for the article you
> provided:
>
> "The rising incidence of obesity, especially among children and
> teenagers, is leading to a variety of diseases that could depress
> average life span"
>
> Notice the word "COULD"? And the whole article, if you bothered to
> read it, talks about metabolic syndrome and kidney disease. It's not
> even close to a study or conclusion on life expectancy.

That's because you didn't actually read it or the other article
I made reference to.

http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...l/22/1/15#SEC5

Is the section of interest from the article you claim 'doesn't talk
about it.'

and the other article, again, is
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm

--
aegis

<Jason> wrote in message news:khgip2566qnb7a4e7ndtjui77pd8jmblqh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:18:54 GMT, "Patricia Heil"
> <pajheil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kelly" <kellyforyou@futurewebhost.com> wrote in message
>>news:TZLTNMFF39082.4792476852@anonymous.poster.. .
>>> The national obesity rate is an embarrassment to the USA.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why do so many trolls try to hide behind anonymous remailers?
>>
>
> The prudent poster has learned that when they included a working email
> address reprobates such as Lady Veteran were not content to discuss
> the issues raised in the newsgroup forums in the newsgroup forums but
> took a campaign of harassment to the other persons email.
>
> A prudent poster should not post their actual email address any more
> than they should post their phone number or postal address.
>
> It should be patently obvious that an issue raised in a newsgroup
> would be discussed in the newsgroup. It would be out of order to send
> the other poster email, make a phone call to the other poster or to
> mail them a response via the USPS.
>
> Lady Veteran has in the past tried to get posters to include more
> personal information about them selves so that she could take it real
> word an off line. BE WARY
>
> Jason

Yes. Lady Veteran is a psycho who harasses people offline if what they post
makes her mad. She even hired a PI to track down a troll just because his
flames made her angry.

Total wackjob. She should be in jail.

Real BBW wrote:
> James wrote:
>
>> but what was the nature of the
>> neck surgery that caused you to overeat during this period?
>
> 99.9% of fat people do not overeat, fat basher!


A person needs to eat about 625 extra calories a day to gain and
maintain an extra 100 pounds. I'd say that's overeating, wouldn't you?
--

Cheese

http://cheesensweets.com/contacts/cheese.php

In article <_p-dndIYZfBz0QXYnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Real BBW <real_bbw@nopublicemailaddy.net> wrote:

>99.9% of fat people do not overeat,

They just eat too much.

Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Except sushi rice, seaweed, and wasabi.

Nunya B. wrote:

> > Again, thank you for fighting your disinclination. But please don't
> > feel the need to do so in the future.
>
> Again, no worries there. I will continue to post to ASD, but go back to
> ignoring you as I did in the past. My sincere apologies for having offended
> your delicate nature. I wish you nothing but continued success in your
> efforts.

No offense was taken. I only wished I had not wasted my time trying to
understand someone who, frankly, has greater problems than obesity.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:49:36 -0500, "Naughty Elf"
<santasux@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>
><Jason> wrote in message news:khgip2566qnb7a4e7ndtjui77pd8jmblqh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:18:54 GMT, "Patricia Heil"
>> <pajheil@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Kelly" <kellyforyou@futurewebhost.com> wrote in message
>>>news:TZLTNMFF39082.4792476852@anonymous.poster. ..
>>>> The national obesity rate is an embarrassment to the USA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why do so many trolls try to hide behind anonymous remailers?
>>>
>>
>> The prudent poster has learned that when they included a working email
>> address reprobates such as Lady Veteran were not content to discuss
>> the issues raised in the newsgroup forums in the newsgroup forums but
>> took a campaign of harassment to the other persons email.
>>
>> A prudent poster should not post their actual email address any more
>> than they should post their phone number or postal address.
>>
>> It should be patently obvious that an issue raised in a newsgroup
>> would be discussed in the newsgroup. It would be out of order to send
>> the other poster email, make a phone call to the other poster or to
>> mail them a response via the USPS.
>>
>> Lady Veteran has in the past tried to get posters to include more
>> personal information about them selves so that she could take it real
>> word an off line. BE WARY
>>
>> Jason
>
>Yes. Lady Veteran is a psycho who harasses people offline if what they post
>makes her mad. She even hired a PI to track down a troll just because his
>flames made her angry.
>
>Total wackjob. She should be in jail.

No, not necessarily in jail. A mental institution my be the proper
place for her.
Her raucous postings point to that direction.
Jail is not the place for the mentally ill.

Edna

>

coach k wrote:
> Real BBW wrote:
> > Kelly wrote:
> >
> > > The national obesity rate is an embarrassment to the USA.
> >
> > I'm going to eat what I want. Dieting is the number one cause of death
> > among fat people.
> >
> > Ignorant fat bashers are a national disgrace.
>
> Kelly:
> It's up to the person to do something about there own weight.
> Obesity in America is up to about 80%.

This will bankrupt America's health care system in time.

> Just look around when you go to
> the malls. Look in our schools. Are the kids getting enough physical
> education?

Actually, the kids playing extramural sports are often even more obese.

Exercise makes folks hungrier compelling those who have been
brainwashed to falsely believe that "hunger is bad" to eat even more.

> Now a days both parents are working and running around to
> soccer practice, religon, dance, etc. Whre ae the home cooked meals?

Actually, those kids blessed with home-cooked meals tend to be more
obese because food that is lovingly prepared at home compels them to
eat more if they have been brainwashed into falsely believing that
hunger is bad.

> It's easy to stop off at a fast food place. Did you see the movie
> Super Size me?

Yes. Morgan Spurlock simply ate too much. Recall he interviewed some
lean&trim folks who stated on camera that they ate at McDonald's every
day (just not supersizing everything).

> What are government is pushing into are school lunches!

There is now too much food available for brainwashed children to
overeat.

> If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.

Yes, Morgan Spurlock single-handedly proved that it is how much is
being overeaten that is driving up cholesterol and blood pressure in
many folks.

> You have to be happy in how you look and feel.

If there is too much visceral adipose tissue (VAT) as was what happened
to Director Morgan Spurlock by nearly 30 lbs worth, you will not be
happy with how bad you both look and feel as was evidently the case for
Mr. Spurlock.

Another example is Julanna:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/overweight.asp

The simple solution now comes with a million dollar guarantee:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp

Where you can hear the details about the guarantee:

http://TheHealthFair.com

May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water so that we
can love our neighbors a little more and LORD Jesus Christ a lot more,
dear Joe whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love

Meanwhile, HIS brethren have been blessed:

http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/DreadNought

.... and continue to be blessed:

http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/Guarantee

(note: Only those who are blessed by GOD will have access to these and
other related OurLittle.net articles per a secure IP database. All
others will have to make charitable $30.00 donations to
TheWellnessFoundation.com first to gain access.)

"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167796417.086532.183110@48g2000cwx.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Nunya B. wrote:
>
>> > Again, thank you for fighting your disinclination. But please don't
>> > feel the need to do so in the future.
>>
>> Again, no worries there. I will continue to post to ASD, but go back to
>> ignoring you as I did in the past. My sincere apologies for having
>> offended
>> your delicate nature. I wish you nothing but continued success in your
>> efforts.
>
> No offense was taken. I only wished I had not wasted my time trying to
> understand someone who, frankly, has greater problems than obesity.

Hmm, pot-kettle-black it appears. I don't see why you feel the need to be
so nasty, but that would be your problem no matter how much you want to make
it mine. Very unflattering. Ta.
--
the volleyballchick

Well today is the first day back on weightwatchers online. I joined
again back in the beginning of December but decided to wait until the
first of the year. Mainly this was because I was going to be out of
town for most of the month and not in a place where I would be able to
stick to weightwatchers (My dad's). Anyhow I stepped on the scale this
morning and I am SHOCKED!!! I lost 2 pounds from the beginning of
December. I started walking more and I did watch what I ate (or as much
as I could).
I am debating whether or not to try going to the meetings. I may go to
one on Saturday and see how I like it.

cyberstalking pervert and extortionist Earthquack wrote:

> coach k wrote:
> > Real BBW wrote:
> > > Kelly wrote:
> > >
> > > > The national obesity rate is an embarrassment to the USA.
> > >
> > > I'm going to eat what I want. Dieting is the number one cause of death
> > > among fat people.
> > >
> > > Ignorant fat bashers are a national disgrace.
> >
> > Kelly:
> > It's up to the person to do something about there own weight.
> > Obesity in America is up to about 80%.
>
> This will bankrupt America's health care system in time.
>
> > Just look around when you go to
> > the malls. Look in our schools. Are the kids getting enough physical
> > education?
>
> Actually, the kids playing extramural sports are often even more obese.
>
> Exercise makes folks hungrier compelling those who have been
> brainwashed to falsely believe that "hunger is bad" to eat even more.
>
> > Now a days both parents are working and running around to
> > soccer practice, religon, dance, etc. Whre ae the home cooked meals?
>
> Actually, those kids blessed with home-cooked meals tend to be more
> obese because food that is lovingly prepared at home compels them to
> eat more if they have been brainwashed into falsely believing that
> hunger is bad.
>
> > It's easy to stop off at a fast food place. Did you see the movie
> > Super Size me?
>
> Yes. Morgan Spurlock simply ate too much. Recall he interviewed some
> lean&trim folks who stated on camera that they ate at McDonald's every
> day (just not supersizing everything).
>
> > What are government is pushing into are school lunches!
>
> There is now too much food available for brainwashed children to
> overeat.
>
> > If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.
>
> Yes, Morgan Spurlock single-handedly proved that it is how much is
> being overeaten that is driving up cholesterol and blood pressure in
> many folks.
>
> > You have to be happy in how you look and feel.
>
> If there is too much visceral adipose tissue (VAT) as was what happened
> to Director Morgan Spurlock by nearly 30 lbs worth, you will not be
> happy with how bad you both look and feel as was evidently the case for
> Mr. Spurlock.
>

I'd love for you to come and practice here in the UK. You'd break all
records for the speed and extent of getting struck off by the GMC.

"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1167846895.033247.262580@48g2000cwx.googlegro ups.com...
> cyberstalking pervert and extortionist Earthquack wrote:
>
>> coach k wrote:
>> > Real BBW wrote:
>> > > Kelly wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > The national obesity rate is an embarrassment to the USA.
>> > >
>> > > I'm going to eat what I want. Dieting is the number one cause of
>> > > death
>> > > among fat people.
>> > >
>> > > Ignorant fat bashers are a national disgrace.
>> >
>> > Kelly:
>> > It's up to the person to do something about there own weight.
>> > Obesity in America is up to about 80%.
>>
>> This will bankrupt America's health care system in time.
>>
>> > Just look around when you go to
>> > the malls. Look in our schools. Are the kids getting enough physical
>> > education?
>>
>> Actually, the kids playing extramural sports are often even more obese.
>>
>> Exercise makes folks hungrier compelling those who have been
>> brainwashed to falsely believe that "hunger is bad" to eat even more.
>>
>> > Now a days both parents are working and running around to
>> > soccer practice, religon, dance, etc. Whre ae the home cooked meals?
>>
>> Actually, those kids blessed with home-cooked meals tend to be more
>> obese because food that is lovingly prepared at home compels them to
>> eat more if they have been brainwashed into falsely believing that
>> hunger is bad.
>>
>> > It's easy to stop off at a fast food place. Did you see the movie
>> > Super Size me?
>>
>> Yes. Morgan Spurlock simply ate too much. Recall he interviewed some
>> lean&trim folks who stated on camera that they ate at McDonald's every
>> day (just not supersizing everything).
>>
>> > What are government is pushing into are school lunches!
>>
>> There is now too much food available for brainwashed children to
>> overeat.
>>
>> > If you haven't seen this movie, check it out.
>>
&g