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.

At 10/7/09 01:19 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

he's just in love with his own ideas.

That's our pox!

You know you love it.

At 10/7/09 12:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

Uh huh. Yeah, sure.

I meant in schools as in forcing kids.
I had typed some more but I deleted it before posting that.

Anyway. There's probably a lot of local programs and community things that are done and some state-wide campaigns. But it's not enough. Obesity and child obesity are still rising.

Plus, it would have been easy to hand off to law and decision makers in my country

hahahhaha
Yes sorry I should have made this proposal in bullet-point form so you could show it off in your next meeting with the president.

No... I was pointing out how it was truly odd that you are so focused on obesity when you clearly showed that it was the number #2 cause of preventable death in this country.

If you think that's odd, it's because YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR MIND.

Also I don't really give a shit about kids. This is about my awesome idea. One day you will realize that even ideas that don't solve every problem at once can still be awesome.

At 10/6/09 11:33 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: he's not just blowing smoke this time.

People need to realize that I AM ALWAYS RIGHT.
It pisses people off a LOT when an asshole is right and they're wrong. Well, tough shit kids.

I still think mandatory fat camp is a super-awesome idea. In fact, it's the best idea anyone ever had on this forum. I crown myself Champion of Great Ideas 2009.

The only real no-nonsense criticism I got was that there's no guarantee people would stick with it. Well no shit. There is no system IN EXISTENCE that will guarantee people stick with it.

You could strap a bomb to people's chest that explodes if they get like 15% body fat and they'd still fail. Targeting kids and teenagers before their problem spirals out of control is A SUPER-AWESOME IDEA.

But for some reason, nothing's being done for obesity. Kids aren't made to work out. Kids aren't made to eat healthy. And often, it's the parent's faults. They don't know any better. You can't change a kid's habit through information alone and if the parents can't help them, then FAT CAMP FOR YOU. It's a pretty clear sign that the parents are clueless when a 12 year old weighs 200 pounds.

And why isn't this more fleshed-out?
Well, would you really have wanted to read a 4000 character starting post? No.
I've answered all questions and will answer any other ones. Except insane things like "HA SO SMOKING IS STILL NUMBER ONE, THEREFORE YOUR IDEA IS CRAP!"

If you can't realize how retarded that "argument" is, then no one can help you.

At 10/6/09 10:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

Pox, if you're so damned concerned about the health of the general public, why not go after the number one cause of preventable death -- smoking -- as apposed to the number two preventable cause of death, obesity?

I don't have any new ideas to attack smoking with, plus it's already being dealt with about as well as it can.
What is this bullshit? It's like I invented a cure for AIDs but you're pissed that I couldn't invent the cure for cancer instead like that's how it worked.

You know, going vegan isn't a way to lose weight really.

Grains and soy products are really high in calories. If you eat a good-sized bowl of whole grain cereal with tons of shit in it with like 2 cups of soy milk on top, then that's probably 600-700 calories right there.

Also eating too much soy is not good for men. It contains a chemical similar to estrogen and fucks with your hormones. But again, if you eat/ drink TOO MUCH.

Anyway good luck with that.

The Biggest Loser, season 8.

I love that show. It's the only reality show I know of that actually makes the contestants do something non-random. Fear Factor is retarded, what have you accomplished? You bathed in scorpions and then beat a woman in a car across a bus suspended in the air? Big deal.
And the other ones like survivor, temptation island.... what is this bullshit?

On the Biggest Loser, you have people losing 100+ pounds WHILE GAINING MUSCLE without the help of surgeries, medication, diets etc. It's awesome. It's a badass factory.

Except for all the crying. Those people need to STOP CRYING.

Anyway, everyone should watch that show, because I said so.

At 10/6/09 09:25 AM, Elfer wrote:

You can't MAKE people like something unless they think it was their own idea. A mandatory fat camp is the complete opposite of what you're attempting to describe now.

I was fat. I know what it's like to not have the courage to start it on your own.
These people need the push. Once you get them going and they see results, they'll stick with it.

You're saying that, but making it mandatory seems to run against all of the goals you're trying to set here.

I don't know if it would HAVE to be mandatory but my guess is that, yeah, it should. It doesn't run against any goals just like schooling kids doesn't run against the goal of making them learn or some shit.
The entire point of this is to show that we force kids to go to school until they're 16 without even questioning it but now sending them to fat camp for the summer seems ludicrous? Please.

For example, religion just gives people answers to questions that are really difficult if you actually try to figure them out.

Look at Muslims. They pray 3 times a day and attend mosque. On top of all the other things they do each day.

What we need is a bigger push towards making people WANT to exercise, and associating it with fun.

What's more fun than a summer camp with kids just like you where you learn how to live healthy and lose weight? Holy shit now I want to go.

People need to get physical activity more with their family and friends

Fat people usually don't have thin, healthy active families with whom to work out.
You need to start the trend somewhere.

You don't see how that's likely to have a HUGE rebound effect once they get out of camp?

How do you know? You've tried it before?
What has a rebound effect are diets. People go ON the diet, lose weight, then OFF the diet. Learning a new lifestyle is your best possible bet to get people to stick with it.

They're called regular camps.

No those aren't tailored for fat kids.

So instead of building these camps where people are forced to do shit that they don't like, how about giving big subsidies to recreational sport areas.

I didn't mention anything about building new camps.
You just need to form special groups with all fat kids and special trainers.

What if a membership at a gym with a pool only cost ten bucks a month instead of sixty?

Like I said, it could be free and they won't go.
All you need to lose weight is a stretch of street or a jump rope. The problem is not the facilities, it's the motivation.

Fat people NEED and WANT a push. They need to be MADE to do it.

At 10/6/09 01:58 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

Don't force them into something they don't want to do -- give them enough options so that they'd find something they WANT to be involved in.

No fuck this, you don't let your kid choose anything in school and all of a sudden comes in this wacky theory that unless they really want to go to fat camp, they won't learn from it? Nonsense.

Elfer covered what I was trying to convey earlier so you can just refer to what he said. I think the whole "mandatory" nature of this idea is the primary reason it'd be a failure

Yeah just like schools, religion, braces, teeth brushing, driving school, taxes etc. etc. etc. etc.

The resistance to this idea is nothing short of ridiculous. You've got people staring me in the face thinking it's a great idea to make a kid spend 16+ years in school to learned basically... how to read and count... who are outraged at the notion that a kid who's health is in danger should be made to get healthy over a summer.

This camp could litteraly save the kid's life AND get him laid. Holy smokes I have to write the president with this idea, the best anyone ever had.

I think you are crazyholic.

At 10/5/09 11:14 PM, Elfer wrote: Pox, you know as well as I do why mandatory fat camp is a shit idea: Because you can't make people form habits that they don't like.

The point of fat camp is to make them like the good habits.

You can't FORCE people to build healthy habits

People don't choose to have bad habits and to be fat.
They were just never shown the good habits. They were never made to have any of them.

We need to do a better job of showing people the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, not just from a health perspective, but from a lifestyle perspective as well.

Yeah that's the point of said fat camps.
It's an education experience, not a concentration camp.

People will do what they want to do whether you like it or not.

That's clearly false as shown by the very existence of religion. It proves that habits cemented early on stay for life. Drugs is not the same at all for a lot of reasons I won't go into. Unless you really want me to. But it would be a waste of time.

Your solution takes the form of the classic legislative policy failure: It addresses the symptoms while completely ignoring the problem.

And what problem is that exactly?

At 10/5/09 10:24 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're talking about two weeks of hardcore exercise where 5 to 7 pounds of weight loss a week is NOTHING,

I never mentioned 2 weeks, the level of exercise or the expected per week amount of weight that would actually be demanded/ expected.

Straw man argument.
You keep doing it. Over and over and over. For years now.

Clever. My point still stands;

Wow, everyone take a picture of this as Proteas, having been shown 100% wrong on BMI ignores it and even turns it into an attempt by ME to sneakily advance my points.

just to fit in with what a number says about they're overall health, as apposed to what an actual doctor has to say about their overall health (which is what the BMI does not take into account, much less individual body mass).

A BMI wouldn't be sufficient to send a kid there. They'd need doctor approval.

... you starved yourself instead of exercising, and then went on a McDonald's binge afterward. And now you want to dictate a national health directive on weight loss.

You were wrong, I was right.
I win.

Which brings us back to a previous point that you won't acknowledge; how do you intend for kids to stick with this?

Because they might enjoy not being fat pieces of shit? Because they might like the prospect of living to be 50? Because other kids tease them? Because they can get a date? Because they'll feel better and have more energy? Because they'll be overall happier? Because they'll be afraid to go back next year and be embarrassed?

I said preventable deaths, pox. I don't know where you got preventable disease from. Clean your computer screen. :-)

Yeah, DEATHS FROM PREVENTABLE DISEASES ARRRR YOU ARE NUTS.

Actually, if your math skills didn't SUCK, it would be #1. :-)

Smoking is number 1.
And my math skills have nothing to do with it you nincompoop since I have no data on how many it would actually take from 1,2,3,4 and 6.

My point is that it DIDN'T mentally scar them and it was way way worse than forcing a kid to do situps.

.... to which I again say, "bullshit," because now you're back to arguing converse accident.

Yeah it fucked them up so badly that Quebec is one of the leading provinces in one of the leading countries on earth. WOW THAT REALLY FUCKED THOSE PEOPLE UP BUT GOOD.