At 10/16/09 11:20 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/16/09 01:11 AM, poxpower wrote:

Why do you think we have an obesity problem to begin with?

- Losing weight is hard
- People don't cook
- People don't know anything about nutrition
- People don't have the time to work out / exercise
- People don't have the willpower to resist cravings / exercise
- People have bad habits from their youth
- Losing weight takes a long time
- Becoming obese is a long, slow process that people don't see coming
- The majority of food available on the go is bad for you
- Portions are too big and people don't know what a portion of something should be
- People eat too much meat, sugars and fats.

All things that can be taught in a fat camp.

You're not forcing a healthy perception on these kids to style themselves after, and you're going to give these kids a complex about their body image.

First, society already does that tenfold.
Second, who said anything about not forcing a healthy perception? It's not a bodybuilding camp.

Oh, that's right, you're just talking about how cool your idea would be if it were to come to pass.

duh

You gave a pathetic success rate of 10%.

Yeah, to illustrate that even a worst-case scenario is worth the money.
Even at 10% the program "makes" money within 10 years. If a bank offered interests rate like the cash you'd save with this, you'd be an idiot not to take it.

Before they even start doing anything you're already suspecting them of fucking it all up.

Because I am basing that on reality, the easiest thing for me to cite right now being the healthcare bill that's on the table right now.

It's not even passed yet. At least pick one of the many failures that has already been done like the war on drugs.

To cynically say that ideas are worthless because "the government would fuck it up anyway" will lead us nowhere.

At 10/15/09 09:35 PM, DarkBetaStudios wrote:

*ahem* "Show me some data that shows most fat kids would love the chance to be shipped to a camp with other obese children to sweat off a few pounds."

Well first off, no one wants to be fat. So right off the bat you know that if they don't want to be at the camp, they at least want to achieve the goal the camp promises.
Second, most kids are team players and behave in just about every circumstance. Why would that be different this time?
Third, just about any testimonial you'll read from kids who have been at fat camps say it was loads of fun even though they felt embarassed to go at first. That's obviously not unbiased data but it's all I can find.

In short, there's really nothing to suggest that this would fail more than anything else we make kids do. They manage to brush their teeth, wear braces, glasses, contacts, attend school and some even get forced into taking up jobs or going to boot camps or the scouts and they all seem to be doing just fine.

Apparently there's a special property of fat kids in Proteas's world that makes them lazy quitters who wouldn't miss the opportunity to stir as much shit as possible while they're at camp.

maybe the answer is buried somewhere in this paper http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/186 162.pdf
But I'm not gonna read it. It's 1am and I've been up for like 20 hours.

At 10/15/09 11:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

Change comes from within, not without. You can no more force weight loss on somebody than you can force rehab on somebody with a crack addiction, it just doesn't work that way.

The key point being that kids WANT to lose weight. As I have now said for the 100th time.
It's an indisputable truth of modern culture. Everyone wants to be thin and muscular. No one wants to be a fat sack of lard.

Yeah, it's called "the law" and if you don't follow it, you get fines and jail time for child abuse or whatever ridiculous term you want to tack onto making your kid into a fat butterball.

You can't make the law if you're not in charge, remember?

That's clearly not the point.

Assuming a pathetic success rate of 10%

Your program would get scrapped before the next generation of fat people die off in order to save you money.

You wanted to talk numbers but then you just go "no fuck your numbers, I have decided that your plan would fail no matter what".

Do you honestly trust the government to execute a program you will have no say in?

Who cares? This doesn't counter any points, it's just more conspiracy-theorist like arguments about the evil incompetent government.

Before they even start doing anything you're already suspecting them of fucking it all up.

At 10/16/09 12:44 AM, All-Hallows wrote: Children are still growing and BMI is really just for adults.

No, it's not.
http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/b micalculator.html

A better measurement for body fat would be to use Skinfold Calipers

Yeah that's just harder to do for the average person at home.

The sad fact of the matter is that many schools do not have the funds for a healthy lunch. I was listening to a radio interview with a school lunch lady, who said that they get only about $1 per lunch per student to actually make the lunch. Can you imagine the crap they have to put in lunches to only spend $1 per lunch? And to finance their lunch programs, they are forced to stick vending machines in their cafeterias, usually stocked with sodas, candy bars, and chips.

Yeah that's one problem. There's tons and tons of little things you can do to try and lower obesity in children.
Some schools have taken to banning vending machines for instance, or just offering healthy options in the cafeteria.

At 10/15/09 08:45 PM, DarkBetaStudios wrote:

What would today's obese children, as adults, say to their children, had your idea come to pass?

Nothing?

There goes individuality out the window.

Every fat camp testimonial, fiber of logic in my brain and personal experience says otherwise. Any kid who accomplishes a weight loss goal will be healthier, feel better, feel more confidant and be able to roundhouse a midget out a skylight. Sometimes.

Getting fat is what makes people lose their identity and their lives, not getting thin.

Ok, I'm done. Now, let the nitpicking and tearing apart of my post BEGIN! :D

Nah I'm bored.

Now go find some data that says kids are unhappy and destroyed after coming back from fat camps and then maybe you'll have some kind of point.

At 10/15/09 06:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

This is a capitlist nation of sort, people want to go, ergo, fat camps exist. If people didn't want to go, those camps would not exist. I don't have to cite a thing.

The kids aren't the ones paying for the camps.

If people want to lose weight, they'll lose the weight. Simple logic which you have used throughout this topic.

No. Once again, one of your arguments that you try to pass off on me.
I've made it abundantly clear that I believe every fat person wants to lose weight yet obesity rates are still rising and people fail miserably at dieting on their own.

You were arguing that kids wouldn't pay attention in fat camp since they don't pay attention in school.

School is mandatory, you're fat camp is mandatory. See a similarity?

Back to square one: again, what argument do you have to keep school over fat camps? Surely you should be crusading so that taxpayers don't have to spend money on education that is just wasted on kids right?

99.9% of fat people want to lose weight.

Now who's pulling numbers out of their ass?

It's like law of nature like how everyone wants to have money, love and success.
The only people who value obesity are sumo wrestlers, fat fetishists and those tribal people who view excess weight as a sign of wealth.
I'm pretty sure they don't even account to the generous 0.1 percent of the world's population I afforded them.

You can't muster anything that will force a kid to participate in your camp, so logic would indicate that you can't muster anything to make parents send their kids to the camp against their will.

Yeah, it's called "the law" and if you don't follow it, you get fines and jail time for child abuse or whatever ridiculous term you want to tack onto making your kid into a fat butterball.

And again, most kids behave in every aspect of society. You're just imagining some random super-problem asshole kid and trying to base some kind of argument around that to expand it to every other kid and the entire program.

Get a grip.

Even the lowest estimates are at 45 billion.

You discussed costs of healthcare in this country, not costs of your program.

Yes, I have. But let's do it again.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/R efMedia.aspx?refid=461544035
Let's say the age range is 10-15 ( 16 being the age at which you can opt out )
The USA has a population of 307 million.

Kids 0-14: 22% ( adusting to keep only the 10-14 ) ====> 7.3%
Kids 15-19: 7% ( adjusting to keep only the 15 yeard olds ) ====> 1.4 %
total: 8.7%

Child obesity is at around 17% http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity/

8.7 x 0.17 = 1.5%
1.5% of 307 million = 4 605 000

Assuming that the government would fund this program at a rate of 5000$ dollars per kid per year ( completely ridiculously way over what would be needed but let's pretend ) that makes a cost of
23 billion dollars. That's ignoring the money the parents would have to spend for the camp they choose, the existing locals, equipment, competing private camps etc.
If a camp has 100 kids, they'd get 500 000 bucks from the government to run the camp for the summer plus the parent's money.

Assuming a pathetic success rate of 10% per year of camp ( from 10 to 15, so 6 years)( so starting at 100 kids :
10 kids the first year, 9 the next, 8.1 the next then 7.3 then 6.6 then 5.9 = 41%.

Now assuming the lowest cost for obesity is 45 billion per year, those 41% of the kids would then save a quarter of a billion each year from that point on until the rest of their lives.
As time goes by, the current generation of fatasses will die and that 41% will accumulate each year to eventually become 41% of the TOTAL amount of money spent on obesity.

So yeah, tweaking the figures for highs and lows, it could probably cost as little as 10 billion dollars per year to run and save, in the first 5 years, anywhere from 5 to 35+ billion. After 10 years you'd probably reach the hundred billion mark in money saved on obesity spending. After 20 years you'd probably be in the many hundreds of billions saved as your upkeep costs would slowly decrease for the camps at the same time since the first generation of kid would have already have had their kids and we'd assume the 41% who kept good habits would pass them onto their own kids.

This whole topic was predicated on what you would do, was it not?

No, I never said I'd run this program or be in charge of it.
I just think it's an awesome idea.

At 10/15/09 08:04 PM, Elfer wrote:

this point is incorrect.

Yeah that's the one wrong thing you single out?
Haha he says about 10 things of that caliber in every reply. I don't even understand where this stuff comes from half the time it's so crazy.

Like how the 80% success rate boasted by a fat camp wouldn't apply to American kids because British people have a waaaay different and better culture. There's just so many things wrong with that argument, from the logic of it down to it's sheer factual inaccuracy....

Anyway the most recent Tedtalk I've seen makes me wonder if there's a better way than making it mandatory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=audakxABY Uc&feature=channel_page

Example: while some asshole ruler wanted to outlaw veils, he realized it wouldn't work so instead be made it mandatory for prostitutes to wear veils. That's brilliant. That's so damn brilliant.

How can we apply this to fat people? Maybe make a special kind of pants in only slim sizes and start a campaign to convince people that those are the pants you should be wearing RIGHT NOW.
Like pants that warm your legs automatically in the winter and can change color and capture sunlight to power an intergrated MP3 player.

The ipants. Sizes 34 and down only. IT'S THE LAW.

At 10/15/09 05:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

Capitalism allows people to participate in the market of their own chosing, you're forcing a choice on people and calling it capitalism, when it reality, it's a weird hybrid socialist communism.

You asked how come rich people would get the better camps. BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE MONEY.

Capitalism. And common sense.

So now you're saying kids DO want to go to fat camp?
Yet again based on nothing. Did you find an article that said anything about this? A link? A study? A camp statement?

That article predates this topic, which means it was their idea first and you agree with them, not the other way around.

I had this idea independently of them. I just find it a funny coincidence that there's actually someone going down that road while all you people are screaming at me that this is a terrible idea while pediatricians clearly encourage as many kids as possible to attend said camps.

If I had known about this sooner, I would have posted it in the first post.

Which makes their idea completely different from yours, because it allows the kids who want to lose the weight the ability to get help to do so, thus ensuring a 100% success rate.

Lol ensuring a 100% rate. Again a number completely pulled out of your ass.
The only way in which this differs from my idea is that the kids might have a chance to sway their parents into bailing them out of the camps.
I wouldn't be surprised if a voluntary program has a higher success rate than a completely mandatory one, but for the 10th time: there exists no data on this. You don't know if it's a 1% of a 50% difference.

You say that now after I've been hammering you over it, but I doubt that was always the plan.

Read the thread and read what fat camps do. Again you could have saved yourself the embarrassment by reading for 2 minutes.

Second, where have you heard that fat camps employ doctors? And sport doctors?

Click.

Yeah you now have a sample of one. Congrats.
Reading the description of several camps, you'll find that the people with a PH.D usually have the job of being consultants for the program.
They don't actually work at the camp and could cover multiple camps.

And they seem to require only one per camp.

No doubt this could be made even more efficient with more camps.

So you're going to force people to participate but you're going to let volunteers work there?

Yeah why not? They cost less money to employ.

Because Physical Education is not a required course in American Highschools anymore. They have no REASON to pay attention to it.

You were arguing that kids wouldn't pay attention in fat camp since they don't pay attention in school.
Now suddenly this logic only applies to gym class? I've never even heard of anyone failing gym class that's the funniest part.

Because those kids WANT to lose the weight. Comprende?

99.9% of fat people want to lose weight.
Your argument was that they wanted to be at the camp, which again is unsubstantiated.
How do you know the proportion of kids who were sent there by their parents vs the percentage who volunteered to go?

That's you're brilliant idea? After all this hardass bullshittery on your part, you're going to just yell at the kids? And if they don't cooperate, you'll call their parents on them? To do what, let them yell at the kid from long distance?! Then you're just going to ignore the kid completely and let them do what they want?!

Yeah it works just fine.
If a kid misbehaves too much, he's out of camp and their parents are out of the 7 weeks of money. Hopefully that initiates a couple of beatings and groundings once the kid returns home.

Firstly, you still won't actually discuss COST.

I have talked about it many times already in response to Brick-Top.

The AACAP estimates that between 16 and 33 percent of children are obese. Roughly 20.7% of the population is between the ages of 5 and 19 (roughly what your plan applies to)

I have already discussed this exact figure with Brick-Top.

So, at $100 a pop for doctor's visits, that's $989 million to $2.05 BILLION dollars in medical costs alone, just to start up the program, and that cost DOUBLES when you include post fat camp follow ups.

For the 1894238419023th time: Obesity costs the USA 140 billion dollars a year.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2 009-07/2009-07-29-voa32.cfm?CFID=3106757 71&CFTOKEN=87485862&jsessionid=de3086b4e fd2105591b2e3e326674d7b5d51

Even the lowest estimates are at 45 billion.

And that's a cost that will be incurred annually,

It would cost more at first to start it up then less and less as the population thins over the decades.
Eventually they would be abolished.

And then, the one underlying pretense for this topic is that YOU WILL BE IN CHARGE when this all goes down.

What? I never said that. I don't want to waste my days managing a fat camp program for fat kids. I don't give a shit about them. I won't be the one who dies from a hearth attack.
I just mainly don't want their fat asses to drain the public healthcare for the next 50 years.

So in short, this ain't happening.

Wow really, you figured that out all by yourself?

You don't believe in God, you don't believe in magic, so there's no way in hell you're just going to magically take over this country or the universe, and you don't have enough support to overthrow a government.

Do you even realize the insane things you've started to say?

By the way, where's your clever retort to your ass being handed to you on a silver platter about the Brittish people not having fast food in their culture? I guess a severe dose of daily humiliation is the only way you'll learn how to use google. You could have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong about BMI, IQ tests and fat camp programs.

At 10/15/09 11:27 AM, Jerich0 wrote: Well if you do happen to eat calories make sure you have lots of celery sticks its Negative calories. Because the power it takes to chew it burns some and celery sticks are zero calories.

Yeah but that's stupid since by that logic I could eat anything I want and then burn it off on a treadmill and pretend it was also negative calories.
And it's not the chewing of celery that costs you the most calories but the digesting of it.
Celery has calories.

What really has negative calories are things like ice cubes and CoCa-Cola 0.

At 10/15/09 12:32 PM, zrick wrote: Is this just for fun pox or a serious attempt to lose weight? Because it probably isn't the best way to lose the weight and keep it off.

Mainly for fun and also because I was kind of got fat at my parent's house for that month in the summer and didn't feel like waiting 6-7 months to lose the weight.

It's hard to change my lifestyle because every 3-4 months I go back to my parent's place for anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks during which time they actively feed me as much as they can.

It's not like I can complain but it's hard to keep a balanced diet when you're not in charge of making your food and whatnot.

At 10/15/09 12:27 PM, amaterasu wrote:

70% success rate means 7 out of 10 kids can't pass high school???

Yeah that should have been a 3.

At 10/15/09 12:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

Which makes you unqualified to make statements about their well being.

Despite what you may think, you don't need to care about something to be right about it.
Welcome to reality.

The "too fat to participate" comment. You offer nothing in the way of help for them.

Like I said when I replied to that: kids who are so fat and sick that they cannot even attend a camp are usually in the hospital or on their way there already and heavily medicated and watched.

You argued they were idiots and that they wouldn't pay attention in school, ergo, they won't pay attention to this.

ARG I JUST LOST SOME IQ POINTS READING THIS

Yeah they're called camp counselors.

Camp Counselors =/= Medical health professionals

You don't need to be a doctor to make a fat kid run and eat salad.

So they get better quality assistance with their healthcare, while the rest of us get shit. Yeah, that's going to fly.

It's called capitalism.

The fat camps we have now exist because people want to go to them

What do you base this on? Where did you hear this? I can't find this information. How do you know the parents aren't forcing the kids to go?

Anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health news/6142249/Labours-secret-plan-to-send -overweight-children-to-NHS-fat-camps.ht ml
"paediatricians welcomed the move."

Look at that bitch from a Parent's group complaining about it like it was mandated by Hitler while the doctors basically agree with me.

Again, no data anywhere on how the kid wanting to go affects anything. All I know is that a decent amount of the kids who are going succeed.

Ah, but those are REAL fat camps, not YOUR doctorless money saving fat camps

First off, the plan was always to have a doctor visit before and after the camp to track health progress. Second, where have you heard that fat camps employ doctors? And sport doctors?

Some of the workers are volunteers and some are kids from years past who come back to work. Yeah sounds like you need a fuckton of training to work there.

the reality is that if they do not pay attention and will not excel in school, there is no reason to think they will do so in your program.

Like I said, 70% of kids pass high school. Apparently at least 70% of them are paying attention.
Awaiting for you data-backed arguments for why this wouldn't translate to fat camps.

You have no confidence in these kids abilities to lose weight on their own now with the information that is available.

Yeah no shit, the stats tell it all: they don't do it on their own.
That doesn't make them stupid.

If they don't have the will to lose weight on their own, they're not going to have the will to continue losing weight after fat camp is over for the summer,

Again ignoring the 80% success rate figure.

that's assuming they lose weight to begin with through this "fun" way of forcing kids to exercise sans equipment you seem to have cooked up.

Losing weight is easy. In fact since the camp would control what they eat, they'd be pretty good to manage to gain any weight while there. They'd have to sneak-in hamburgers.

What are you going to do, force the kids to exercise at gun point? You'll be kicked out of office so fast that your head will spin.

First, yelling. Then, call to parents. Then ignore them.
WHen they get tired of being ignored and treated like shit for being douchebags and when they see their mates lose weight while they just sit around they'll feel the pressure.
If none of that works, too bad.
See you next year, stupid kid who'd rather be fat and throw tantrums and waste his summer than put in some effort.

Wait... no obviously you don't. The wiki paints a clear picture: English people shove as much crap as possible down their maws.

And you know what they lack? Fast food, sodas, and a plethora of fried foods like what we have here in the United States.

Again, you could have yourself saved the embarassment of another beating with 2 minutes of Googling:

"A 2008 study was conducted worldwide counting the number of fast food restaurants per person.The UK has claimed this title with Australia second and the United States third. England alone accounted for 25% of all fast food. In the United Kingdom the most popular restaurant was McDonalds, with Burger King and KFC its only rivals"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_food#U nited_Kingdom

They may have access to it, but it is not so deeply ingrained in their culture as to be a part of it the way it is in American cuisine.

They are 3rd IN THE WORLD for obesity.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_ob e-health-obesity

At 10/15/09 10:35 AM, Proteas wrote: So, to summarize Pox's arguments thus far...

- He doesn't actually give a shit about the kids.

correct

- They won't have a thing to actually excercise with.

depends what camp they go to

- The kids who really need it the most are s.o.l.

wtf are you talking about

- He thinks the kids are to stupid to stick with the plan.

That's your argument. I've never said anything about the kid's intelligence. Aside from you 10% stupid nephew who's 90 point IQ you found impressive. WOW

- There won't be any qualified people to ensure safety (not that he could afford them).

Yeah they're called camp counselors.

- If you get injured, tough shit, because Uncle Poxy ain't paying for a doctor for you.

duh. You'll have public healthcare soon enough anyway.

- Rich people can opt out of the program, thereby assuring they can get what they want.

no they can't opt out of it. They can just pick more expensive camps.

- He thinks he can actually force people to pay for this program without getting voted out of office or dethroned.

Yep

- He doesn't understand the simple difference between wanting to lose weight and being forced to do it, or how this will effect the success of his program.

Show me the stats. 99% of kids who went to fat camps say they were please with the experience. That sure sounds impressive considering your own argument is that THEY'RE ALREADY FORCED TO GO BY THEIR PARENTS.

- He can't/won't do anything to help with homelife,

Nope, never said that. If you had read any of the links I've posted about fat camps, you'd know they have follow-up program to check up on the kids and parent consultations.

At 10/15/09 10:08 AM, Proteas wrote:

The argument of kids not paying attention in highschool is something you postulated on several occasions before this topic, remember?

Wether or not they pay attention in school has no relevance to my argument.
It's YOU who keeps saying that fat camps won't work because kids don't pay attention in school.

Which doesn't keep them from finishing high school even though they can drop out.
In fact the success rate is 70%, which is STUPID LOW. That means 7 out of 10 kid can't pass high school. Morons.

But If you apply this to the fat camp, you'd get a 70% success rate. Shit, even if you don't apply that rate yearly, that's HUGE. Way way better than any diet or any current measure or measure I've heard proposed to lower obesity.

But again, there's no way to say that this rate would transfer to the camp program. There's no reliable data on that. You don't have a foot to stand on by saying it wouldn't work. Neither of us really knows but it's the most promising method I can imagine.

I haven't argued either, but hey finally somewhere you can easily be right! Find the quotes from this topic.

I got you to argue kids were idiots already, dude, thereby causing you to defeat your own argument.

You live in some crazy insane world of delusions.

I hope someone else is reading this exchange and just laughing their asses off at the way your argue. It would take you 2 minutes of ctrl+f ing my posts in this topic to realize I've yet to argue either that kids are smart or that they're stupid.

If the kid does not want to exercise, your authority to make them do anything means nothing, it will just be wasted effort.

Yeah what percentage of kids do you think will actually manage to throw a tantrum every day for 7 weeks to avoid exercise?

I've seen nothing to indicate Btrittish health/ food culture is any different that the USA from their horrible shitty diets to theirobesity levels being the highest in Europe.

I don't know why I didn't just do this to begin with.

English Cuisine versus American Cuisine.

Holy shit, not only does this not magically erase the 25% obesity rate or invalidate the numerous studies on how bad their diet is but IT'S NOT EVEN CONVINCING YOU DOLT.

Did you even read what the dishes are?

Fish and chips? Roast with potatoes and gravy? Mashed potatoes? THE FULL ENGLISH BREAKFAST?? Then there's bacon, sausages, pies...

Do you even know the first thing about nutrition, fat contents or calories?
Wait... no obviously you don't. The wiki paints a clear picture: English people shove as much crap as possible down their maws.

YOU'RE COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR MIND

At 10/15/09 04:07 AM, Gagsy wrote: Why are you always messing with your intake of food?

Why aren't YOU?
:O
:O
:D

At 10/14/09 10:43 PM, Blaze-Heatnix wrote:

It's hardly help if it's fucking essential to win.

Here's how you beat 100% of FF games:

- Find a save point
- Level up

Success.
All of them are calibrated for you to get to the final boss at level like 35-40. The second you beat that by like 10 levels the games become really easy. The only time this trick may not entirely work is on FF8. But that game is so easy to abuse in so many other fun ways and is by far the easiest FF game ever made if you know what you're doing.

At 10/14/09 08:15 PM, Jerich0 wrote: Zero calories? Are you eating Celery and Carrots all day???

Nope those have calories.

At 10/14/09 08:27 PM, DarkRedFlame wrote: How does it feel, that tomorrow you can finally eat grapes again?

I'm eating my cup of salad now, which is 70% of my calories for today. YUMMY.
Anyway, when you starve yourself long enough, your body enters the "I don't give a shit anymore" stage where it'll nag you about being hungry maybe once or twice per day and then just give up.

Basically you get as hungry eating normally but skipping one meal as you get starving yourself like a retard. Which is why people get fat normally since hunger is not proportional to how much you're not eating. So they eat 1800 calories at dinner when they're used to 2200 and then have to eat some sort of snack in front of the tv later in the night. That snack being an entire bag of chips or that sort of thing.

At 10/14/09 08:37 PM, Tykwa wrote: I've lost 24 pounds, I however, weigh much more than you do pox, I'm a day behind you, I get to drink that yummy water and eat "almost" nothing!

YAY

Haha wow that's awesome.
Hey, do you mind keeping a log of this for me? Like from now on, write how much you weight each day if you haven't started doing that already.
I'd like to put your experience with this on my website too when this is over in like 20 days.

Yay.

At 10/12/09 11:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I do not understand why Creationists are fighting so hard against the theory of Evolution. It's basically proven, but it, by itself, does not in fact DISPROVE their CENTRAL thesis

Creationists are bible literalists ( which is a religious position that actually makes sense as opposed to the pick and choose approach most christians employ ).

So given that, they can't ignore things like the flood and Genesis. Evolution ( and modern science...) blows all that shit out of the water entirely.

That's how religion works. They starts eons ago when people don't know anything, then make tons of crazy claims to explain those. After that, every time a new piece of evidence or social changes comes along that contradicts their religion, they fight it. Then, 2-3 generations later, that new thing becomes too widely accepted for the majority of them to still deny it so they move on to the next new thing.

Though I think they're just about at the end of their rope at this point. But hey they're still resisting gayness and all that stuff so hurraaaaay.

At 10/14/09 08:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Why should they be forced to chose between your shitty, equipmentless, doctorless, money saving camps when they can pay to have their kids sent to a good camps run by people who actually give a shit about their kids?

If they have the money, they can send the kid anywhere.

I am in no way, shape or form legally liable for the things I write on that website. But go ahead and try.

I wonder if your web hosting service would say differently in their end-user-agreement.

They have the right to shut down the website if they want but no one can randomly sue me just for saying things on a website.

Now, if you want to argue that school should be abolished, you go right ahead.

I don't say that, YOU say that. You still haven't explained why schools are great while fat camps aren't even though your only arguments for resisting the fat camp idea are "it won't work because it's mandatory". Yes, mandatory, aka THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF ALL SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

If I say "most people are at around 90 to 110," guess what? I'm right.

Yes, but THAT WAS YOUR COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO "IT'S ALWAYS 100".
Holy shit.

Jesus Christ, make up your mind. Either you think I'm arguing kids are smart or either you think I'm arguing they're idiots.

You've been arguing both, dude.

I haven't argued either, but hey finally somewhere you can easily be right! Find the quotes from this topic.

That's what I'm saying; you're not automatically right when there's no data available.

First off, how can I be wrong when I haven't even made any claims? All I said is that I don't have available data on this matter, i.e. the rate of kids who would replace kids who leave the camp each year,
I never gave any numbers or how many kids that way or said it won't happen.

All I know is that during my high school years, no kids got fat who wasn't already fat before entering. I have no idea if that holds true in general but it seemed to work for 150 kids.

An easy explanation for this is that obesity usually starts at a very young age and gets worse each year from then on.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles /134524.php

So yeah, by the time they're 10-11, you have a pretty decent idea of what kids will get fat and what kids won't during high school.

The other time people get fat is when they leave to live on their own, which happen after this camp.

What percentage of kids voluntarily go there and what percentage are sent there by their parents?

Moot argument; kids can't consent to anything, they're parents do it for them.

BUT THAT'S YOUR OWN ARGUMENT HOLY FUCK.
All this time you've been saying this won't work because the kids would be FORCED to go.
Now you're saying "that's a moot point because kids are forced to do anything".

WHICH IS MY ARGUMENT. From the very first post of this thread this is what I've been saying: who gives a shit about forcing kids to go? We already force them do to anything we want.

If someone argues with me for 4 pages, then I'M WRONG. If someone argues with you for 4 pages, then THEY'RE wrong?

What have you done to show that you are right in this matter, besides shoot holes in my "different culture" argument?

I SHOT HOLES IN YOUR ARGUMENT THAT'S WHAT I DID TO PROVE YOU WERE WRONG HELLO DO YOU LIVE ON PLANET EARTH HOLY SMOKES.

I've seen nothing to indicate Btrittish health/ food culture is any different that the USA from their horrible shitty diets to theirobesity levels being the highest in Europe.
25% of adults are OBESE. Not just fat, OBESE.

At 10/14/09 05:25 PM, TheSilverGuitar wrote: You know, ever since I saw this on your site I've wanted to try it.

Well let me know how that works out for you.

At 10/14/09 06:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're legally responsible for the physical well being of the child while they are in your custody, that's the law.

I'm pretty sure that if a kid gets into an accident that has nothing to do with you, you're not liable, as much as the parents will try to sue you for it.
You actually have to prove that the injury was the fault of the caretaker.

If somebody is rich enough that they can afford to send their kid to fat camp to begin with, why would they want their kids in your program?

The only thing from the program that would apply to them is that they'd be forced to pick a camp.
They can send the kid anywhere they want if they have the money.

Yes, you did. You only modified your position to say that a medical evaluation would be required for this program after I called you out on how the BMI rating system was not an indicator of health.

The first person to mention BMI in this thread was YOU.
All I said was that a 30 BMI was a good benchmark to qualify a kid for the camp when you asked what weight they would need to be to get sent there.

I've never held the position that based on BMI alone you would ship any kid off the camp. And even if you based it on BMI alone, you couldn't skip a doctor visit.

Second, I never said anywhere that anyone should try to lose weight based on any of the things I've done. Not here or on my website.

You do realize that you could be held personally liable for any injuries or deaths related to people following your diet advise, right?

Really? That's your reply to "I WOULD NEVER ADVISE ANYONE TO DO THIS"?

After all, nowhere on this website or that one is a disclaimer stating that you are not a medical/health professional and that your articles should only be taken at face value for entertainment purposes.

I am in no way, shape or form legally liable for the things I write on that website. But go ahead and try.

So why send them to one and not the other?

That a whole different can of worms, man. A topic unto itself.

Yeah seems you should address the main arguments seeing as you're reading to shoot down fat camps based on the same arguments you'd shoot down schools.
Based on your idea that kids can't stick to anything and don't apply what they don't give a shit about to their lives, why the hell would you advocate schooling?

All I have to do is throw your argument right back at you and say that schools are obviously stupid and would never work because kids can't commit to it especially if you force them to go. That's your argument.

It's ONE HUNDRED.

That is a MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE.

Yes, finally you're starting to understand.

I'm going to give you an explanation of how this works

Wow that's rich. One day ago you had no idea how IQ tests worked and now you're proving yourself wrong after having said about 4 times that "most people are at around 90 to 110" in response to me saying the average is 100.

Hey, here's another bit of math of you: ( 90 + 110 ) / 2 = 100
wow

What you could possibly achieve by proving he's smart to me, I have no idea.

My point was that not every kid is going to be smart the way you were originally arguing that they were,

Jesus Christ, make up your mind. Either you think I'm arguing kids are smart or either you think I'm arguing they're idiots.
Like I said, smart / idiots COMPARED TO WHO?

Well I have no rates on that.

Then you have nothing to base your opinion on

That means YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RATES EITHER.
You're not automatically right when there's no data available.

Yes, it does make sense; the fat camps we have now are voluntary, people WANT TO GO TO THEM.

Again, what do you base this on? What percentage of kids voluntarily go there and what percentage are sent there by their parents?
And based on that, what is the percentage of success for the kids who were forced and what is the percentage of success for the kids who weren't?

I sure can't find that information. It's a pretty bold claim to say that the one huge factor that defines success or failure in weight loss camp programs is if the kid wanted to go or not.

they are in an environment that allowed them to get that way, when they leave they are heading right back to it, and they probably don't want to change anyway.

Right like I've posted before, a camp boasts an 80 success rate after one year, i.e. kids keeping the weight off.
All you said to that was "they've brittish so like....their culture is different' which is ridiculous. You haven't explained that at all, you only tried to say their diet was better which is 100% bogus as any google search will tell you.

Shit, English people are world-famous for eating crap food.

I did it before even starting my page.

Then why wasn't it the first thing you put up?!

Why would it be?
Who gives a shit?

If that were the case, what are doing 4 pages and a week later still discussing all the glaring flaws in your plan with you revising it all the way, hm?

If someone argues with me for 4 pages, then I'M WRONG. If someone argues with you for 4 pages, then THEY'RE wrong?

At 10/14/09 04:34 PM, Legionnaire-X wrote: 14 pounds in 20 days? What?!

I'm as surprised as anyone :O
I did the calculations and since a pound of fat is 3500 calories and I need around 2200 a day, I counted that I'd have lost 14 pounds after the full 41 days.
Kinda scary but my body can handle it.

At 10/14/09 04:42 PM, ChocEliteBar wrote: Are you going to go on an eating binge after that?

Well I would tomorrow if this ended tomorrow haha.
But since i'm slowly climbing back up to 2000, I'll probably not be that hungry at that point.

At 10/14/09 04:45 PM, Uchumaru08 wrote: Hmmm, remember drinking water curbs your hunger

Yes I'm sucking down the green tea and the Coca-Cola 0.
Being tired curbs your hunger more...

also did you exercise through-out these painstaking days???

Nope

At 10/14/09 04:49 PM, Sizzlebuzz wrote: I remember in highschool when I stopped eating. I lost 7 pounds in 2 days. I did that a lot.

Yeah 2 day measures are pretty worthless.
What happens is that you weigh yourself one day when you're full of food, shit and water, then starve for the next day or two, thereby emptying your bowels, digesting your food and losing water/salt.
Which usually creates a sharp 3-5 pound drop within a day. But you'll just gain it back one day after when you eat something.

At 10/14/09 04:51 PM, matrix5565 wrote: Approximately what was your calorie intake before you started?

I dunno. It varies. But I was at my parent's place for like a month and they feed me a lot. Probably in the 2500s range if not more during that time. I gained a good 10 pounds haha.

I'm having trouble grasping that you would start losing weight so quickly unless you were ingesting monstrous amounts of food beforehand.

Well it's possible that the starting amount of 180 was too high by perhaps 2 pounds. I.e. it was an inflated weight based on the food I ate the previous day etc. The first sudden drop is also caused by starting to lose weight. That usually gives you a steep decrease in the first few days.

But even accounting for all that, the drop is still going just as fast 3 weeks later : O

And It's not because I'm not drinking anything. I probably drink 2 liters of water a day.

At 10/14/09 05:01 PM, AlphaCentauri wrote:

The comments were pretty funny, you know, to actually be able to hear what a man thinks about slowly dying.

Yeah, do you know how sad it is to eat ONE CUP of spaghetti?
You just drop that tiny handful at the bottom of a bowl, knowing that's like 2/3rd of your food for that day.

Haha.

So 21 days ago I started an experiment whereby, starting at 2000, I would reduce my calorie intake by 100 each day until I reach 0 ( today ) and then I would climb back up to 2000.

So yeah, I'm halfway there!
http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=cal orieladderupdate

You can read about what I have learned and ask questions.

In short: it sucks but it's fun to learn counting calories.
Also I lost 14 pounds...hmmm that's sort of scary.

Wait I don't get where the challenge is.

Is there a time limit?
Some sort... of... challenge?
None of those games are particularly hard to finish anyway :O
Plus you've already finished them.

I don't get this. BUT HEY :D

At 10/14/09 10:43 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/13/09 02:21 PM, poxpower wrote: I never once mentioned this would be part of everyday school.

"So I say: let's do that for fat kids. If you are a kid of X weight, then you spend your summer in fat camp. You get extra gym classes."

First post, dude.

I thought you were talking about fat camps being part of school which they obviously wouldn't be.
Anyway I retract the extra gym classes idea. That would overload their schedule during school year.

And that's the difference between the United States and Canada; we are a more litigious culture

Again, I know they'll sue but it's not the camp's responsibility to pay for the random injury bills and it's entirely fair.

So you're going to force people to pay for this system, yet, the richer people who can probably afford to do this on their own anyway are going to get a better quality of weight loss camps? Is that what you're telling me?

I imagine it would divide into a public/ private system like schools. But basically the goal is the make a basic camp affordable to everyone but not so cheap that they undercut every other possible camp option.

Yes, you did, and drove that point home by showing that only exception to this being bodybuilders who blow the BMI system out of the water by being well past the 30 BMI point mark, yet were very physically fit.

Again, BMI is not a defining factor for health. I've never said that and never held that position. It's just a quick easy way to know who's obese and who isn't and works 99.999999% of the time.

Then why do you take such an authoritative/informative tone in instructing people on how to do as you do in those weight loss articles on your website?

First off, this whole thing started because you asked me how I knew that it was possible to lose 20-40 pounds in 7 weeks. Having done it, I think I'd know.
Second, I never said anywhere that anyone should try to lose weight based on any of the things I've done. Not here or on my website.

Especially not this: http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=cal orieladder

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

Reductio ad absurdum.

Not really. Your point is that they won't give a shit about fat camp because they don't give a shit about school. So why send them to one and not the other?

Seeing as how I can't find find a chart stating what the average IQ of a child is

It's ONE HUNDRED.
Man this is just hilarious. You actually JUST "explained" to me that the average IQ is 100 ( after I had already told you since you didn't know ) and now you instantly forgot that information in hopes that maybe your nephew is really smart.
What you could possibly achieve by proving he's smart to me, I have no idea.

That assumes that you're dealing with a static number of children, man. In reality, you wouldn't be dealing with a fixed or smaller number every year, as new kids would get added every school year.

Well I have no rates on that. It's probably fair to say some kids would become fat enough to join camps but I don't know how many that is. Based on my experience of high school, kids who entered thin left thin and kids who entered fat left fat.
Most data I've looked at indicated that obesity starts young. So if you nip it in the bud early on, you'll probably not get too many replacement fatties.

If you've got a 50% success rate, there's no guarantee those kids you failed to help last year will lose weight this year.

No one's arguing that fat camps don't work, we're arguing that yours won't.

That makes no sense since there would be no difference between current fat camps and this program. If anything, they'd be even better since this campaign would require brief studies and sample testings to determine the best programs.

Contradictory argument; you've already argued that kids are stupid and would have no reason to continue on your program, remember?

YOU argued that kids are stupid. and YOU argued that they wouldn't stick with it. This entire time I've been giving you nimrods reasons for why kids don't want to be fat, on top of the reasons they SHOULDN'T want to be fat.

So why isn't THAT on you're web page, instead of all this liquid diet/ice diet/starvation tips mess you've got on there?

I did it before even starting my page.

If you were right, you wouldn't have to put so much effort into defending yourself against us

Wow what a great benchmark for evaluating the truth of a claim.
You know, there must be something to that Intelligent Design idea. If evolution really was that brilliant of an idea, then they wouldn't have such a hard time convincing religious people that it's true.

YOU MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING HERE

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.