At 10/13/09 03:42 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

there's no reason to believe that a program designed as such would have ANY short OR long-term benefits to either the children's well-being or the overall costs of healthcare throughout the nation.

Except it does work.
http://www.healthcamps.org.nz/facts.html
http://www.askdeb.com/health/weight/loss /camps/
http://www.fatcampsinfo.com/do_fat_camps _work.html ( read more than one sentence )

Ultimately this is not rock-solid data. The truth is that there's no long-term studies or even mid-term studies on this that I could find.

Your argument entirely boils down to your gut feeling that kids won't stick to it for whatever reason you can imagine.

This is the person you're arguing with. Someone who cannot commit one entire month to eating healthy without binging afterwards, and who's only real experience with exercise is transporting himself around town and carrying his groceries home.

See, this is what we know as "ad hominem".
This has no relevance to anything.

But he knows how to solve the national obesity problem and reduce healthcare costs for all.

Actually there is one good argument against me in that matter that you people have yet to stumble on.
That's because you guys'll take the time to make a 500 character personal attack but you won't spend 2 minutes doing a Google search to actually bring up valid points.

he can barely commit to the things he WANTS to commit himself to unless he can somehow turn it into a temporary game for himself.

Yeah except I did manage to lose 50 pounds and keep it off.
And when I did it, it wasn't through dieting, it was summer and I was actually outside doing exercise.

aaaaaaaaaaaaw

I managed to lose weight without outside help.

Does this knowledge suddenly make my arguments more valid?
No.
It just makes you look dumber for having tried to use an ad hominem in lieu of actual arguments.

In truth, it doesn't matter who I am or what I have done. If I'm right, I'm right.

At 10/13/09 01:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

And you've been arguing to use School Facilities and make it an everyday part of the school year, which runs counter to your own argument.

I never once mentioned this would be part of everyday school.

Right by that logic I can sue a school if I get injured there in any way, shape or form.

Actually, you can.

Look the point is that you'd expect parents to not be so fucking stupid that they'd sue the camp for regular playing injury. You were asking "what if the kid gets injured?". Yeah, what if? That will inevitably happen.
Kids get injured nonstop, you don't automatically have to sue the person nearest to the kid at the time.

If there was definite malpractice in the camp and the injury was a result of bad counseling, then YES, sue the camp. Otherwise, like I said: tough shit, you're paying the bill.

I've said about 50 times that the bare minimum required has 0 machines and doesn't require the building of anything new.

Opinion, not backed up by anything.

You don't need any machines to work out and you don't need any new buildings built when you can simply rent empty ones. The bare bones, poorest, shittiest programs could go by without so much as a soccer ball.
A fair level of equipment for the shittier camp would probably only consist of free weights, balls, minimal sports equipment. That's probably what you'd find in the poor areas.
Then it scales up from there depending on how much money you pay.

You're running a camp that puts the emphasis on physical activity, specifically for those who are not otherwise physically active. You will need either 2 doctors

Oh yeah that's right!
That also explains why every school hires 2 full-time doctors to supervise their gym classes.

After the first doctor visit to ascertain that the kid is not too fucked up to go run outside, he's fine.

And if they are, what then? You're program won't work for them, yet they're probably the ones who need it most.

If your kid is at that point, he'll be in the hospital anyway. That's where he'll be and that's where he'll get help.

Which shoots a hole in the point YOU'VE been arguing that BMI is a valid measure of health.

I never once said that.
It's just a very good benchmark to see who's overweight and who isn't, especially for kids.

They'd sooner go without a new high-school than pay extra on wheel tax. What makes them think they'll vote for your proposition?

It won't be up to them anyway.

I'm talking about YOU. Throughout this topic your argument has hinged on your experiences with weight loss and how they should/could apply to the general population at large.

Not once did I mention anyone should do any of the things I've done.

You want to talk about how bad it feels to be overweight, I'm asking you if you had the same issues with weight loss that the average person does, and wether or not you realize this would play a determining factor in how effective this program would be.

My personal experience has nothing to do with anything.
I could be the only person on the planet who can lose weight by drinking cooking oil and liquefied hamburgers and it wouldn't change anything I'm saying.

So your point is: abolish school?

No, my point is that if they won't give special heed to the lessons taught at school, there is no reason to think they will pay attention to your fat camp ideas.

Right so let's abolish school! If they're not paying attention in school, why send them?

So I'm asking you; if this was truly the case, why aren't they losing weight already with the information that's already available?

Because their parents are idiots, because they don't control what they eat, because they're weak, because they're misinformed, because they get left out of activities, because they don't know how to eat, because they've never experienced a good balance etc.

There's tons of reasons and they differ for each kid.

At any age, the average is 100.

Actually, the average range is between 90 and 110.

http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definit ion_of_IQ.html
" The average IQ of the population as a whole is, by definition, 100. "
It's not "between 90 and 110 ( which is 100 anyway, genius )" it's EXACTLY 100.

IQ tests are made this way: you make people take the test, you take the average and that average becomes 100. Then you measure how much better or worse than average someone did and you tack a number onto that.

100 is always the average. ALWAYS. If you are under 100, you're under average. You have scored lower than the average person taking the test. That's what it means.

So he's just on the lower end of "normal" for adults. The point being,

IQ tests ask your age and divide people into age groups. His score is compared to his age group, not to adults.

But yes, I want to hear your theory on what differences there are and how they make it so Brittish kids can keep the weight off while Americans kids couldn't.

Better dietary habits, for starters.

First, that doesn't even make sense because it looks at the ability for people who WERE fat to keep their weight loss. So if they had better diets, they wouldn't be fat in the first place.

Second, British people have a terrible diet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19114067/
It's not particularly better or worse than the diet of Canadians, Americans, Australians and other such rich english-speaking populations.

If you get a 50% rate of success, which is MUCH lower than what the stats from the fat camp site showed, that's a reduction in average costs of 700$ per year per person.

So you make the kids loose the weight, woo-hoo. What's going to happen when they get out of the camp and gain the weight back when they go right back into the environment that allowed them to gain the weight to begin with?

Yeah that's what I said: a 50% success rate.
Success is when you make a kid stick to it.
50% is shit. The fat camp in the studies claim an 80% success rate. And that's just one year.
Let's say the camp runs for 5 years before you don't have to go, and each yeah you have a success rate of 50%.

That means that 50 out of ever 100 kid who started the first year won't need to come back. Then that means for the next year, 25 out of the 50 remaining kids won't come back the 3rd. And so on.

To total rate of success would be
50 + 25 + 12 + 6 + 3, which is 96%

Even assuming an ABYSMAL 10% succes rate per year, you'd still get:
10 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 19%
Which is 26 billion a year less money spent in future fatness costs from the 5th year onward.

At 10/13/09 11:07 AM, Proteas wrote:

I'm aware of what they do there, the point being (which you conveniently didn't respond to) was that this topic is called fat camp, as in, a seperate facility out in the woods somewhere or completely seperated from the normal part of everyday society (which most summer camps are), not a program that is merely an extension of everyday gym class.

Yeah, that's what a fat camp is. That's what I linked on that site. You're obviously not aware of what they do there since IT'S A SUMMER CAMP. Not "an extension of everyday gym class". NOTICE HOW IT SAYS SUMMER IN THERE? Yes, the same summer during which kids are not at school. That summer.

If a kid gets injured, why the fuck is it the camp's problem?

Because you're responsible for the child's well being while they are in your care, that's simple law.

Right by that logic I can sue a school if I get injured there in any way, shape or form.

So now you've got the costs of...
- a separate fully furnished facility
- exercise equipment
- medical professionals consult and monitoring
- sports medicine doctor's to help ensure safety
- on staff dietitians

I've said about 50 times that the bare minimum required has 0 machines and doesn't require the building of anything new. And you don't need to hire 2 doctors per camp. You're not running the New York Yankees, it's a fat camp for fuck's sake. After the first doctor visit to ascertain that the kid is not too fucked up to go run outside, he's fine.

The only people you'll need to hire are camp counselors with a rudimentary knowledge of healthy diets and exercise. That's about it. You could train someone to do this in a month. Easy.

They could.

Even at a freakish 230 pound for 6 foot 2, they don't qualify as obese. And that is one HUGE KID.

the heavyweight classes putting you right at a 30 rating.

It depends on your height.
Again, this is a completely irrelevant point since you need to go to the doctor before being sent off to camp. They'd get weeded out REGARDLESS.

I don't, I intend to force them.

Doesn't work that way.

Yes, that's called "taxes".

and you'll have to deal with the public at large in order to pass any kind of new tax measure,

Hahahahahaha

As you said, "it feels bad to be overweight." How frustrated were you when you first started exercising to lose weight, working your ass off only to get the most minimal of results? Did you quit for a while? Were you REALLY pissed off when you gained weight muscle mass from exercising instead of just loosing weight? I bet you quit for a while, and probably gained more weight.

What are you even talking about.

How long did it take you to come to the conclusion that starving yourself was the way to go?

Who gives a shit?

The point being that if kids don't take particular interest or even care about the lessons learned in school as it is, why would they care about this?

So your point is: abolish school?

I can tell you one thing: any fat teenager cares a lot more about being thin than about math and history.

Whatever identity teenagers want, FATNESS is not part of it.

Then why is obesity so pandemic in this country among our youth?

Really?
Really???

Hell, my five year old nephew was shown to have an IQ of 90, and that's on par with the average intelligence of most adults, he blows other 5 year olds out of the water.

IQ is adjusted for age and 90 is under average by 10 points. At any age, the average is 100. That's how IQ tests are designed. Congrats, your nephew is slightly retarded.

Your study talks about kids who were in the United Kingdom, not the United States, two very different cultures.

Aside from Canada, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more similar culture on the globe.
But yes, I want to hear your theory on what differences there are and how they make it so Brittish kids can keep the weight off while Americans kids couldn't.

I've got the bill right here for my Ear-Nose-and-Throat doctor, and before my health insurance kicked in, it was a $130 bill for just a consultation.

Wow that's peanuts.
Hiring 20 doctors at 130$ an hour for 2 weeks for 8 hours a day would cost you 290 000$. That's NOTHING.
Absolutely, NOTHING. 10 times that amount would be nothing. 100 times that amount wouldn't even make a blip in the US finances. That's a quarter of a billion. 140 times less than what Americans spend each and every year on their fat-related health problems.

So... this program is probably going to cost the government $100 a pop at the very least (I would THINK) just to have a doctor give a kid the okay.

Again, even if the government was the one footing 100% of that bill, it would be nothing.
Like I said, the average fatass spends 1400$ PER YEAR due to his obesity later in life.

If you get a 50% rate of success, which is MUCH lower than what the stats from the fat camp site showed, that's a reduction in average costs of 700$ per year per person. That's reduction enough in one year to send a kid to the doctor every year from 10 to 16 before he goes to fat camp.

Another question:

Are you autistic and/or under 10 years old?

At 10/13/09 01:42 AM, dizzenbee wrote:

1.Well the year of 2009 is:7,133,760 (world wide)

I asked you how many people you convert with your door-to-door shit, not how many of you there are in total.
All I find is this: http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/w orldwide_report.htm

Which says that for 2008, 290 000 were baptized. Which is probably mostly people who were born in Jahova's witness families.

But it says you guys spent 1,488,658,249 hours preaching. Hahahahahahahaha that's 5000 hours of preaching for each new convert. Converts who probably are just THOSE PEOPLE'S KIDS.

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/statis tics.php

hahahahaha
"Due to the high rise in people leaving, the number of hours preaching required per additional publisher increased between 1991 and 2005 from 4,000 to 16,000, an increase of 400%! "

HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA

Yes, how many people do you convert per year preaching door-to-door?
Also, do you like it when people come to your house and try to sell you stupid things like insurance policy and roofing inspection?

Do you enjoy phone surveys?

What do you think of Mormons? I hear they have bicycles on their conversion missions. Why don't you guys get bicycles?

At 10/13/09 12:29 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/11/09 12:24 AM, poxpower wrote: It's not.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this topic NOT called "Fat Camp?"

Yeah FAT CAMP, not BOOT CAMP.
This is a fat camp: http://www.weightlosscamps.com/weight-lo ss-camps/childhood-obesity-statistics.ht m

Did any of you even take 5 seconds to go look up what it is they do there?

I think the health care system will handle it just fine here in the next 20 years when all the baby boomers start dying off. That will free up a LOT of government expenditures.

Wow then there's no problem at all! What are you complaining about?

Real compassionate viewpoint you've got there, don't you? Force people into exercising for the good of their own health, force them to pay for it, but leave them out in the cold if they hurt themselves.

The goal of the camp is to foster safe exercise. If a kid gets injured, why the fuck is it the camp's problem? Do people sue schools when they get injured in phys ed? If they do, they're assholes.

No, but there are kids out there who are athletes. Highschool sports after all, an example of which being wrestling.

14 year old wrestlers don't have a 30 bmi generated by muslce mass.
To get to that level you'd need somewhere around 30% of your target health weight added on IN PURE MUSCLE MASS.

And you intend to persuade the parents to help pay for this, how?

I don't, I intend to force them.

What incentive is there to keep doing it?

Well you got me there.
What incentive could there be for anyone to stick to a weight loss plan and get fit and healthy?
Beats me.

You admitted you're forcing a lifestyle on somebody because you can, not because they want to follow that life style. They're not going to take to kindly to you telling them they HAVE to do something simply because you said so.

You're right, schools are a terrible idea.
....wait I mean fat camps. Fat camps are a terrible idea, as this argument applies only to them and nothing else like driving lessons or mandatory vaccinations.

You're also talking about an age group known for being especially finicky and out to find their own identity in the world.

Whatever identity teenagers want, FATNESS is not part of it.

So kids are smart now? Prove it.

Why? I never claimed their intelligence is required. Plus that request doesn't even make any sense. Smart compared to who? Kids? How can kids be smart compared to kids? Compared to adults? Compared to babies?

All they need is dedication. With the right program, they can do it.
http://www.fatcampsinfo.com/do_fat_camps _work.html

" In 2000, a study appeared in the International Journal of Obesity in which British researchers tracked nearly 200 children who participated in a two-month weight-loss camp. Nearly all the campers lost weight and achieved a lower Body Mass Index (BMI). But what's most fascinating about the study is that 11 months later, 80% of the kids still had a lower BMI than they'd had before going to the camp. That's a significant statistic when you consider that, among the general population, 95% of all people who use dieting to lose weight eventually gain all the weight back."

Got that?

And ultimately, it's not up to me to decide. I'm smart enough to know a panel of physicians should be consulted before making rules on entry.

And how much is that going to cost the program? Doctor's don't work for free.

Yeah, how much do YOU think it would cost?
Before asking that, did you even go"hey I wonder what it would cost to run studies and consult experts for 5 years on this matter".
Take a guess.
Is it closer to 1 million dollars ( pocket change ) or 100 billion dollars ( 60% of what the USA spends on obesity each year)?

TAKE A WILD GUESS.

At 10/12/09 02:42 AM, falz3333 wrote:

I think the only way to really test this thing is to get a school to agree to test this out somewhere.

Obviously. Fat camps already provide a good baseline, you'd just need to study them closer.
Hopefully it all speeds up the process of working out the early kinks to launch it ASAP.
I'd say within 5 years you could start this. 10 tops.

By the way I am mostly on Pox's side.

That's really wise.

I just think if he had devised his original statement a little better the discussion would not have been so uphill for him.

The more I write, the less they read.
I can't win.

If it were my idea there would be almost no exercise involved. It would be a 3-4 hour a day session of just educating on good habits and life-styles. I think that would have a really good outcome.

Nah, you need to make kids do the work. In 7 weeks, you can get them in much better shape. It's very important for their health.
Just talk won't cut it.

At 10/12/09 10:08 AM, azaleawanderer wrote:

their premiums go up much more and should encourage them to get thin.

You need so much more than that.

Uuuh no, it makes that decision for them and has someone else cover it. Knowledge, time, and even courage are costly. Forcing them into them camp means: screw the courage of the kids, we'll get the money for info, equipment and trainers from someone else, and time? we didn't create more time, you took it away from them.

What...the hell...

Granted that in some programs, school n the like, you don't trust kids to make that decision themselves. But I think this is more of a lifestyle choice than a lack of information one, and for those that it is your excluding their feelings.

What?

I guess if you can convince me that it is something that kids and/or parents shouldn't be able to decide for themselves, then we're square

No one wants to be fat yet obesity rates are above 30%.
I guess that's a fair estimate of how good people are at making that decision for themselves.

We didn't create jobs either. jobs arent created EVER.

Yeah they are. For instance: I will hire you to gargle my balls for 10 dollars a day. Boom, job created.

We buy people's time and effort, only difference in public programs is that the people buy it and not a boss or company. And more importantly we only do it when its profitable to us, which is the real issue, it only creates WEALTH if I want this more than the money I give, and right now no, i dont.

No more drugs for you young man.

At 10/12/09 12:31 AM, ChocEliteBar wrote: I think I'll be a vegan for a couple of months instead. I'm not gonna go to some fucking camp to lose weight...

You can get just as fat being a vegan.
That probably means you'll still eat shit like pasta, bread, soy milk, vegetable oils, cereal. All things that are really high in calories.

At 10/12/09 12:34 AM, azaleawanderer wrote: Honestly I've nvr given rats ass if my neighbor is obese or not.

You will when your taxes pay for his heart surgery.
You're already paying for it with increased health insurance premiums. The cost of other people's fatness trickles down on everyone in one way or the other.

Otherwise they would already join the private fat camps, or gym or whatever, which are all available, to them if they are willing to do it themselves.

And a lot of people just don't have the dedication, the knowledge, the money, the time or the courage.

Mandatory fat camps address all of these issues.

I have to agree with the rabble and say that forcing kids into fat camp is pretty damn crazy, even worse ur gonna tell me that I'm gonna pay for it.

It's going to cost you more to NOT send them there than to send them there, unless the program is a SPECTACULAR failure.
The health costs of one fatass alone for last 30 years of his life could send an entire school to camp for the entire summer.

Plus you'll create tons of stable jobs for as long as the camp program runs.
Though they'll mostly be seasonal. Hey, work is work.

At 10/11/09 10:04 PM, amaterasu wrote:

In that case I would ask how you can make that argument without knowing the current potential amount of evil in comparison the current actual amount of evil. But we are getting pretty obscure at this point, since you can't measure the amount of evil in the world.

Well first off, we all know that good and evil don't really exist anyway since they're moral concepts made from whole cloth by humans.

But religious people usually hold the idea that there IS such a thing as good and evil and their guidelines are dictated by God.

So based on that notion, let's assume there is such a thing and that it can be at least qualified in some form if we assume God knows what's good and what's evil in an objective fashion ( which is crazy but whatever, religion ).

So ok, in this world, there is such a thing as good and evil and there is a way to know what is good and what is evil.

So then it falls upon the religious to give me examples of what is good and what is evil.
I think that based on any example given, I can show a potential reduction of the evil without a reduction of the good.

If it's possibly to reduce evil ( thereby increasing good ) then why doesn't God do it?

If it's not possible to reduce evil, then why fight evil as humans? Most religions have tenants about helping others and doing good. Well, if there is always going to be a perfect balance of good and evil, why bother? Helping someone means you just created some evil somewhere else. On the reverse, punching someone in the face means you've created an equal amount of good.

Any way you slice it, religious positions are untenable on this matter. The only possible way to square it is that there is no objective standard for good and evil and so we shouldn't even bother slapping those labels on anything because we'll just confuse issues.

I've yet to see a religion say "there is no such thing as good or evil" without simply replacing the words with something else that means the same thing.

At 10/11/09 09:22 PM, amaterasu wrote:

Before you say that's a good argument ask yourself: how could "good" exist without "evil"?

Well you can certainly have LESS evil,
In which case the argument still stands: why doesn't god prevent as much evil as possible?

At 10/11/09 06:26 PM, DaShadowz wrote: i ger really pissed when someone jokes about Christianity.

O.O
O.O

>_>
<_<
>_>
<_<

J..

>_>
<_<
>_>

hihihihihihihihihihihi

At 10/10/09 06:33 AM, UpoqvoSAMMIovpoqU wrote:

With shows like the X factor, Britain & America's got talent, do you find it uncomfortable to see the amount of people who seem slightly insane?

You're only seeing a very small fraction of the total number of auditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s _Got_Talent
Most of them don't even make it to the set of the show, let alone television.

At the end of the day, it's a tv show so they probably let a couple of crazies slip by. Who knows. I think if you want to sing for a living and your idea of getting there is auditioning in front of 3 assholes on live tv without ever having taken a single singing class, you're already out of your damn mind.

But it worked for William Hung somehow. Still better than rap.

Is it morally right to laugh at people who have bad voices or act,

Yes. Yes it is.
I laugh AT them. Then I feed on their crushed dreams.

Are we bullying these individuals by selecting them due to their vulnerability?

Definitely.

Or is it just a piece of fun that is perfectly harmless for kids?

What amazes me is that after like 5-6 years of this sort of thing PEOPLE STILL SHOW UP WHO HAVE 0 TRAINING IN THE THING THEY WANT TO DO FOR A LIVING.

That's just amazing. They're fans of the show yet haven't realized that 100% of the time, people who only sing at karaoke bars or do magic acts in front of their pets get humiliated on national tv.

So I would have said " at least kids learn a valuable lesson: don't be an idiot" but apparently nothing will keep these people from showing up in droves at those auditions.

Hopefully there's some sort of process in place to make sure they don't put people on there who have real medical mental issues.

At 10/11/09 06:52 PM, Brick-top wrote:

You constantly keep modifying the concept

Show me one example.

Not to mention you keep making claims without proving them (even after I post a link showing otherwise).

Like what?
I'm pretty confident that I have smashed all your links.

assuming people will do X after Y doesn't mean they will.

Obesity-related health costs are in the tens of billions.
TENS OF BILLIONS.
147 billion in fact
1400$ a year for the average fat-ass.

Where's you magical argument against that? NOWHERE. You don't have any.

The only half-valid argument anyone ever brought up in this thread is that they're sure this will fail based on their own personal idea of how the camp would run or how stupid kids are.

Where's your evidence of that? I can't even find any stats of fat camps or health camps myself. So I assume YOU have or else you wouldn't be saying people wouldn't stick with it.

Having no knowledge on exactly who applies, examination techniques, construction, the aftermath etc etc etc etc is not an excuse.

I've answered all of those very well.
And ultimately, it's not up to me to decide. I'm smart enough to know a panel of physicians should be consulted before making rules on entry.

But I've given you an excellent baseline which you've completely ignored.

BMI is used by doctors themselves to determine obesity-related health risks.
http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/
home/healthy/food/improve/788.html

Again the only time you should stop using that as an indicator IS IF YOU GET INTO BODYBUILDING OR HEAVY MUSCLE GAIN.

Show me a 12 year-old kid with a 34 BMI and I'll show you a fatass.

You've done no research into this and you're trying to save an already un-savable burning house.

I don't even need to to counter your points, that's the sad part.
I know enough off-hand about obesity to answer just about all your points without even cracking a Google search. Holy smokes.

Maybe YOU should have done a little bit of research.

If you're going to argue like a creationist, then I'm not going to argue about it.

Wow that is super-sad.

I don't even get why people do this. Like that's going to impress me somehow or make me change my ways which I have no idea what that would be seeing as you bring up crazy argument like "diabetes is also caused by XXXXX" as a rebuttal to "diabetes is caused by obesity".

You're better than this.

At 10/11/09 04:47 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

One can assume that there is a means to determine the existence of God, only not in our reach.

Then you're still an idiot.
Example: I believe there are goblins at the center of Mars. Once we build a giant drill and bring it to mars to drill to the core, we'll know for sure.
Until then, I'll hold the belief that they exist.

See? Crazy.

Its existence would be convenient because it would fit

God is not a convenient explanation for anything.

At 10/11/09 08:15 PM, chiefindomer wrote:

so you compared an agnostic theist with a carnivorous vegan, it was an unfair comparison.

Yes those weren't good examples.

While agnostic theists do seem a bit gullible, I find their stance to be a much more honest one than that of a gnostic theist.

I think it's worse. They admit they don't know but STILL believe. That's just blatant infantile reasoning. At least I respect people who believe based on having bad evidence. That at least is a rational stance.
Of course the irrationality comes whenever they have to debate the evidence. Then suddenly they judge evidence by a different standard for their own thing than they'd judge evidence for anything else.

At 10/11/09 12:19 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

In another sense, it's a lot like believing in something like intelligent life on other planets

No, believing in God is nothing like that.
someone else explain it, my vision is getting blurry.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you only believe in things that can be proven, then you're either a religious zealot who thinks your holy book -is- proof, or you're a very boring person.

Holy shit I wonder what crazy thing I believe in since I'm not boring.
Wait.... I always say how impossibly awesome I am.... but can that be proven?

Oh wait, of course it can: http://www.thepoxbox.com/imageviewer.php ?id=drawing053
just in case

At 10/11/09 09:09 AM, chiefindomer wrote:

I have to disagree with this. An agnostic theist BELIEVES in a creator while admitting it's unknowable whether or not a creator exists. T

It's outright admitting "you know what? Fuck evidence. I don't have any and I don't want any. I'm going to believe in whatever I want even if I know there's no proof for it".

A person having that state of mind for ANY THING OTHER THAN RELIGION will instantly be seen as a retard but religion gets a special little asterisk that it's fine just in this case to randomly believe something you admit you couldn't possibly ever have evidence for.

Try it yourself! I'm an agnostic toothfairist. I believe in the tooth fairy but I do realize there's no way to really know whether or not there is a tooth fairy. I still place teeth under my pillow every night just in case she's coming.

I'm an agnostic bigfootist. I believe bigfoot to be a magical being capable of turning invisible at will, so yes we'll never have evidence of him. But I just choose to believe in him because my parents brought me up saying he was real. That's good enough for me because my name is rusco, I live in a pickup truck and my dream is to one day finish elementary school with my 4 sons.

At 10/11/09 03:19 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Because our ability to ascertain the truth value of various claims (e.g. the existence of something) is dependent upon a wide variety of changing factors e.g. available body of knowledge, immediate sensory input, mental/emotional states, technological advancement, time.sdfdsfdsfdsagsdafdsaf

Here read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_th eism
Agnostic theist. They're WRONG by definition.

"Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable."

They believe something THEY ADMIT CAN'T BE VALIDATED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

It's like an carnivorous vegan or a towering midget.

At 10/11/09 12:48 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Since there are agnostics on both sides of the theism/atheism fence

I don't think that by definition you can be an agnostic believer in something.
How can you believe something exist while at the same time holding the position that it's impossible to ascertain whether that thing exists or not?

That's basically admitting you're an idiot.

At 10/10/09 12:37 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

The reason I'm so specific about all this is because a boot-camp setup (which seems to be what you're proposing)

It's not.

At 10/10/09 08:14 PM, Brick-top wrote:

You suggested sending kids (with an unknown age or physical/mental health) to fat camp.

You'll know by the time you send them.

The link showed it was the elderly who are higher on the obesity scale.

No shit, unchecked obesity gets worse every year on top of the human metabolism slowing down with age.

So, your idea is flawed. Even if the concept of sending people to camps were viable, it would be older people who would be sent.

You can't force adults to do anything in this society, that's the entire point on which this thread hinges.
With kids you have the unique opportunity of forcing them to go and they can't say shit.

You are the one who must work out all the problems if you are the originator.

Nope.
That's why you hire experts.

When your concept is passed, 41 million people will (by law) need to visit the doctor. Will it be on the same day? How will you coordinate that many people? And when did you earlier say it was annual?

Actually it's more than that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic s_of_the_United_States#Age_structure

Obviously it's not the 0-19 age range that's being targetted. More like the 10-16 range.

Anyway not all kids will need to see the doctor. Each year you'd have a school-wide fitness evaluation with weight taken and any kid over a 30 BMI goes.

If you think the health system can't handle that strain now, what makes you think it can handle the tenfold strain of those kids being obese in adulthood later on?

Ultimately, any way you look at it, it will reduce doctor visits in the long run.

But here's a fun question, how many injuries are caused in gyms?

A bunch? So what?
If you train wrong or too hard, you'll get injured. Too bad.

Diabetes can also be caused by age, pregnancy, toxins, diseases etc etc etc.

And obesity.
And obesity.
And obesity.

Oh yes, this new service is doing quite well.
Maybe you can speak to this girl.

My point wasn't that anti-smoking bans, laws campaigns etc AREN'T working, my point is that is that after 40 years, smoking still is the top cause of death. That's not acceptable. It's completely ridiculous in fact.

If you don't want a repeat of this with obesity, you need to act NOW and use hardass measures. Or else, it'll take 40 years starting FROM TODAY. Millions of lives, billions of dollars shat down the drain because people are pussies.

You said BMI tests are a good indicator

Yes it's a pretty good indicator. The only time it fails is when you put BODYBUILDERS into the equation, which is the standard "ha-haw BMI is stupid" argument.
Kids aren't bodybuilders. BMI will give you accurate reading 99.9999999999% of the time on them.
Plus, you send them to the doctor afterwards anyway.

Roughly 24% of Americas (united states) population (24% of 300 million is 72 million) would require placement (depending on who qualifies).

Since we're targeting kids 10-16 AT MOST, that's already less than 24% of the total population.
And about 1/3 of them would have to go based on current stats.

That's probably more around 6-7 million kids. 10 times less than your estimate.

I don't know how many kids actually already go to camp during summer, but remember that you'd deduce them from the total of "new camps needed" too. Let's say none go, that's still 7 million campers.

How many treadmills will there be in each camp? 10 people per treadmill, that would make it 10 treadmills per campe.

Uh yeah read the thread. Oh fuck it: camps aren't gyms or lodges in the woods. They'd mostly be based in leased school gyms, which tons of camps already do anything.

And parents would front part of the bill combined with government. Not to mention that this is a one-time cost that carries over every year you run the program and that could be 20 years easily.

Again, PEANUTS.

That costs over three and a half billion.

Even that would be nothing. Absolutely ridiculously low. Ten times that would not even be too much. You'll probably save one hundred times that money in 20 years EASY.

This program doesn't COST money, it MAKES money.

You really haven't thought this through have you?

I have. You just haven't read the rest of the thread. Half your points have been answered already.

I forgot to mention, in the UK schools send children to work for 2 weeks to gain experience. They may get some minor rewards but they're not entitled to any payment whatsoever.

Great, who cares?

If I were honest, I'd rather work a job that gives me spending money.

Then quit being fat.

Healthy weight loss is 1-2 pounds per week.
If someone is 60lbs overweight, that would be 30 weeks. That's over 6 months in camp.

YOU KEEP DOING IT AFTER YOU LEAVE.
That's the entire point of the camp, to teach you how to do it on your own.
If you have to go back each year from the time you're 10 to the time you're 16 and STILL haven't learned, then you're on your own. Tough shit.

They have real lives to attend to, they can't spent the time you're suggesting in fat camp.

Yeah overweight 11 year old kids really have a lot of shit to get to during the summer.
If you're still in fat camp by the time you're 14, then it's your own dam fault. Too bad.

It's hilarious how no one seems to have picked up on the fact that we already force kids to do pretty much anything we want.

Such as?

LIKE GOING TO SCHOOL FOR 10 MONTHS OUT OF A YEAR FOR ROUGHLY 11 YEARS AT LEAST?
If you're going to not care about doing that, by what crazy insane twisted logic do you figure they shouldn't be made to go to fat camps?
All of a sudden they had shit to do that summer and you care? The other 10 months, it's not important if they want to do something like work at Applebee's, they can fuck off, but for those 2 months of summer, then it's suddenly the best argument ever?

Le lol

I said I lost weight because of my job.
You said it was anecdotal and according to stats it's not working.
My link shows work CAN have an effect on your weight.

No shit.
But MOST PEOPLE DON'T LOSE WEIGHT AT WORK. And most people AREN'T LOSING WEIGHT and most people DON'T WANT TO WORK AT THE MEAT PACKING PLANT.

Remember kids, if you disagree with me, take a few moments to find out why you're wrong.

You lost weight, YOU ARE AN EXCEPTION. ( if you manage to actually keep it off ).

We can't unlearn how to make nukes.
Too late.

It's hard to say when knowledge is or isn't worth gaining.

For instance, do you know what these advances will mean for the porn industry? This discovery could be worth millions of dollars and at least 300 movies scripts about psycho rapists with big dicks.

At 10/8/09 10:42 PM, cATbYtE wrote:

That depends if THEY WANT to loose the weight.

All fat people want to lose weight, plus since when do we give a shit what kids want?
No one asks them if they want to learn how to read.

At 10/9/09 09:09 PM, Brick-top wrote:

It seems the capping off point isn't long enough.

?

But this is your idea, you must consider all options.

Yeah I CONSIDERED it and I DON'T CARE. Someone else can figure out a solution.

Which would increase cost for examinations and cause massive waiting times.

Yeah I don't think going to the doctor once a year is going to cripple the system.
Especially considering that this program is intended to lower future doctor visits. Guess how many times you have to go see the doctor when you get diabetes.

However, this is done by choice, they are not forced into it

We see how well that's working.

You'd have to build a more detailed system than just checking BMI but it's a pretty strong indicator right off the bat.

You mean like this?

?

Which would cost more money. Your original scenario was for to hinder costs, not increase them.

Increase costs of what?
?

When you tally up all the costs, it is considerably high.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/obesity -fat-costs_cx_mh_0720obesity.html
Being fat costs us tens of BILLIONS.

How many camps do you think you can build with just one billion dollars?

Why not? Most of us are stunned when we leave school and enter the real world. Doing this gives you at least some warning. Not to mention some extra money in your pocket.

This isn't China, you don't need to work when you're 12.
You can go work at McDonald's when you're 16 and can skip fat camp you lard.
Or like I said, lose the weight if you want a job next summer instead of going to camp.

Yeah read the thread

Every post?

No, only my posts are relevant ( as usual )

That difference compared to being taken away and dumped in a site. You're basically saying that eating too much is illegal.

If you're a kid.
It's hilarious how no one seems to have picked up on the fact that we already force kids to do pretty much anything we want. BUT OH NO PLEASE DON'T MAKE THEM GO TO CAMP NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I said my jobs need for more physical activity caused me to lose weight.
You said that doesn't fit the stats.

Yeah I don't get your point.
I was talking about people who manage to lose weight and keep it off. We are a minority among dieters and an even smaller minority among fat people.

At 10/8/09 09:59 PM, Exodus212 wrote:

Another one is trying to impregnate a woman with sperm from a dog.

BUT... THINK OF THE POWER!
THE POWWEEEEEEEEEERRR!

At 10/8/09 11:15 PM, michelinman wrote: All your solutions fall under the category of cruel and unusual.

I think it's fair to say that strapping a man down in a chair to kill him in cold blood to take revenge for someone else is cruel enough.

At 10/8/09 04:28 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Firstly, you need to qualify age.

I'm not a doctor, a nutritionist or trainer. I can't tell you when it's good to start or not.
The thing would cap probably at 16, which is the drop out age for school ( here at least).
I don't know when it would start. I'd say between primary and high school, whatever your age might happen to be at the time, so around 11-12?

Do the disabled qualify? I know several fat people with severe autism. Would they be sent away?

I don't know how to answer that or how that would work. I don't really care.

After you have established age, what about weight?

Well first there will be a mandatory doctor visit to determine your health risks and fitness level.
Then, it all will depend on the stats. Right off the bat, you'd have to set an weight, probably around 30 BMI. Then depending on the success rate of that or the risk of other kids to develop obesity later on, you can lower it or raise it.

You'd have to build a more detailed system than just checking BMI but it's a pretty strong indicator right off the bat.

You then need to build the camps, employ and/or train people to work.

Piece of cake.

Could this cost be higher than treating fat people in hospitals?

I highly doubt it unless every camp has a horse ranch and 10 gym machines for every fat kid.

Most younger kids have part time jobs (delivering newspapers, putting Menu's through people's doors etc). Older kids work in small shops, do odd jobs or do higher education.

You're not supposed to work when you're 13. Though shit. If they want to work next year instead of going to fat camp, then they know what to do.

Being of average weight is about lifestyle, not how many weeks you spend in a camp doing push ups and running for miles at a time.

Yeah read the thread

I haven't felt this good in years, and I'm getting PAID for it.

Yeah maybe you can make fat kids work at the camp. But that would sound unethical.
I'm all for it.

Anyway I'm kind of sick of hearing the anecdotal evidence of how someone lost weight. Good for you if it worked, stats show it's not working for over 50% of people in America. I did it, you're doing it, Elfer did it. Big deal, we're 3 people. For every story like ours there 40 about some fat piece of shit losing 30 pounds on the carrot diet and then gaining them back the next month.

At 10/8/09 06:43 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/7/09 11:57 PM, poxpower wrote: Wow you had actually seen the show but still wouldn't believe me when I said kids could lose 20-40 pounds in 7 weeks.

Start an ad campaign that emphasizes that good eating and excercise habits start in the home.

That's already being done.
It's not working. Even MORE than that has been done in the last 20 years. Not working.
Ad campaigns work less and less each year in general anyway. People are jaded.

At 10/8/09 09:32 AM, Elfer wrote:

If you think your fat camp will be better, why not just modify phys ed classes to include the better ideas from your fat camp?
At least a couple of years of mandatory cooking classes in high school.

The fat camp is the last resort. It's for every case where all of this DOESN'T work.
If fat camp won't work, then it's out of our hands. It's up to the kid.

This is the problem, the issue is not as simple as writing a couple of pieces of legislation and throwing some money at it.

Fat camps already exist. All you have to do is find the best ones in the country with the best results and consult with those people to form a program that works for the most kids possible. That will give you the opportunity to approach the kid and teach them anything you want as well as grabbing the parents on the side to let them know they're fucking up.

There needs to be a gradual social shift to place more importance on eating healthy and staying in shape. This actually does work and has happened before (c.f. public perception of smoking in 1950 vs. 2010).

Smoking is still the number one cause of death in the USA.
Over 400 000 people.
Smoking went down, but that rate is ridiculously low. 40 years and bans of all kinds and you still have people drop like flies.

Are we going to wait 40 years for obesity?

I'm not saying fat camps are the only thing that will work. I'm saying they're the fastest and the best, especially combined with anything else you'd do.

It would save probably hundreds of thousands of lives 30 years down the line.

What if there was something that was geared towards fun and kids, but wasn't mandatory? For example, a range of affordable (or free) sports camps that also

That's the same thing I'm proposing, except not mandatory.
To a kid, there's no difference between being forced to go to fat camp by their parents and being forced to go to fat camp by their parents because it's the law.

And your trick to teaching these kids good nutrition is what, having someone else cook for them?

Whatever works.

And you're pretending that leasing these facilities for a fat camp would cost you nothing?

Well it costs less than building entire camps.
The idea is that it will SAVE money be cutting into future health costs related to morbid obesity.

Yes, precisely, it was too bad. Too bad of an idea to actually work.

I can't find the stats on weight loss camp success rates, ( apparently I'm not alone: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/0 3/health/main664519.shtml ) but if it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for a lot of other people.

People just hate being told what to do.

A kid's entire life is spent being told what to do already.

As for money not being any issue with regards to obesity, why is it then that low income neighbourhoods are associated with higher obesity rates?

Poor people smoke more too: http://www1.worldbank.org/tobacco/tcdc/0 41TO062.PDF ( skip to page 56 )

It's about education and motivation, not money.
Being healthy costs FAR LESS in the long run than being overweight.

First, educate. When that inevitably fails in a lot of cases, build habits at fat camp.
Then you've done everything you can.

At 10/7/09 10:02 PM, Proteas wrote:

You don't need to be a fucking doctor to know this.

No, but you do need to be a doctor in order for people to trust your opinions on medical matters.

Hahahahaha

Except... they actually eat on that show.

Wow you had actually seen the show but still wouldn't believe me when I said kids could lose 20-40 pounds in 7 weeks.

hahahaha

Then why not make a campaign that focuses on the parent's involvement in their kid's health?

Like what?
And: why not both?

At 10/7/09 10:47 PM, Elfer wrote:

I never said that the way schooling is set up makes sense.

Well the second you accept even the premise of mandatory school of any kind, I can't see why you wouldn't accept the idea of mandatory fitness and health requirements. Especially if you want public healthcare.

That component is pretty essential to my argument. If you think everyone should be 100% responsible for their health care costs, then yes, fat camps aren't fair.

On the other hand, if this actually was a great camp that people would really want to go to, doesn't that create a perverse incentive for kids to not exercise on their own time?

I can't imagine anyone purposely gaining weight to waste their summers at fat camp. Especially in their teenage years.
If they love it so much, they can come back as counselors.

You don't see any chance of a relapse?

There's always one regardless of what you'll try.
A habit-building camp is the best bet I can imagine.

Pushing for fitness at home would be MUCH more effective.

Like what? What programs would those be?

Yeah, because it's not as if this camp is a place you go to, then leave, right?

Ultimately people have to leave and do it on their own. That's true of any method or program you can think of.
It's a unique opportunity for a kid to EXPERIENCE what it's like to live healthy for 6-7 weeks. You can't teach that with a PSA and a book.

Regular camps give kids plenty of exercise and time to do things outdoors that they enjoy.

Fat camp is as much about nutrition as it is about being active. I can't think of any regular camp that gives a shit about teaching kids nutrition. Except maybe some sort of chef camp. Or a health camp. Which isn't a regular camp anyway.

Nutrition is the most important thing to prevent obesity. That's the bottom line.

And put them where, a parking lot?

A camp isn't some remote facility in the woods, it can be anything anywhere. It could be in the middle of New York city. All you need is a gym ( the room with or without equipment), a dorm and a kitchen. That's the basic package.
It should be wherever the kids live. How else are they going to find something they like nearby?

And your way to provide motivation is through forcing people to exercise whether they like it or not?

Yep.

My parents tried that on me when I was a kid, didn't work.

Too bad?

The money to actually do this shit.

Over half of American adults are obese....yet I assume they have the money.
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/un derstanding.htm

If having more money solved weight problems, then America would be the thinnest nation.

It's about education and since people frown on me forcing parents to go to classes, then I target the kids. WEEE

At 10/7/09 06:01 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I'll play the same cliche melody, though, and hold to the statement that some people get fat more easily than others and unless they starve themselves there's no way they can lose it.

Well according to the laws of physics, you're wrong.
Your body CANNOT gain more weight than the calories you burn. It's not possible.
Fat people EAT TOO MUCH and need to MOVE MORE.

At 10/7/09 06:01 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote:

I recommend better use of the current gym classes, a significantly more cost effective solution which doesn't rely on keeping kids somewhere away from their families for 7 weeks.

I've already suggested that in other threads and quite frankly I doubt it's enough to solve the problem cases.
School alone JUST ISN'T ENOUGH.
The only way gym and nutrition classes will solve this problem is if you devote a REALLY significant amount of time to it, to the point where it's detrimental to the kids who don't need it.

The goal was to inform kids to make smart choices later in life and put them / keep them on the right track. Tons of people get fat later in life because they don't know what to eat or what activities they can do other than play on a sports team. As their metabolism slows down and their activity level drops, they get fat and then they don't have the right habits or information to pass onto their kids.

But the kids who are ALREADY obese when they get to these classes? It's not going to be enough. The problem starts at home with what they and their parents eat and you can talk all you want in class about eating veggies, the kid is NOT in charge of cooking diner. If he's too fat, gym class becomes dangerous for him. And just 3-4 hours of power walk a week ( which is already way more than kids do ) is FAR from enough to turn it around. One taco and your entire day's work is ruined.

Those people need to be taken aside and made to do the work.

At 10/7/09 07:11 PM, hansari wrote:

But "medical qualifications" sounds like he is asking for the degrees that represent your understanding of personal fitness. Or the total hours you have put in practicing medicine.

I don't NEED medical qualifications. It's a retarded demand.
It's like "ok so you say crocodiles are reptiles, but how many zoology degrees do you have?"

The point was never to prove that this stupid experiment qualifies me as a health specialist. It was just to shut his mouth and prove it's more than possible to lose a measly 20 pounds in 7 weeks.

In fact, even people who's entire knowledge on health, medicine and fitness was watching the show "The BIggest Loser" would know this.

Doesn't that show have a cash incentive of getting hundreds of thousands of dollars?

So what?
It's possible whether you give them 0$ or 50 trillion.

Even if you're not a contestant on that show, the monetary incentives to be healthy are HUGE.
Some people spend thousands of dollars a year on medication for diabetes, high blood pressure, heart problems etc. All things that can actually GO AWAY ENTIRELY if you get in shape.

Imagine how much money a kid will save by turning his life around at 13 years of age instead of waiting until he's 40. Or dies. If public healthcare shoulders the cost of these procedures and medications one day, then we as a country would save trillions.

And at the end of the day, for most fat people, it's NOT about the money. It's about not being a fat piece of shit. If you're fat or have ever been fat, you'll understand this.

Plenty of resident doctors frequent this one.

Please post a link to the thread you make there over here as well, so that we may all revel in your mastery of the art of persuasion.

haha that sounds fun.

At 10/7/09 08:10 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote:

You've just trolled

You don't know what a troll or trolling is.
Quit while you're not too far behind.

I thought up a more efficient solution in the time it took to read this thread.

Which is?
???

At 10/7/09 01:33 PM, hansari wrote:

50+ posts and no one brings up how hilarious and insane this is?!

He flat-out wondered how on earth I could know you can lose that amount of weight in 7 weeks. I'VE DONE IT IN LESS.
In fact, TONS OF PEOPLE HAVE.

You don't need to be a fucking doctor to know this.
In fact, even people who's entire knowledge on health, medicine and fitness was watching the show "The BIggest Loser" would know this.

Man this is too easy. I should have been a lawyer.