Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/7/09 12:07 AM, poxpower wrote: People need to realize that I AM ALWAYS RIGHT.

Poxpower: And 5 pounds is nothing. In 7 weeks, you can easily get a kid to lose 20-40 pounds.

Proteas: And you're medical qualification on the matter is what?

Poxpower: I've done it. http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=liq uid

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

Its like if a General came out and said of his qualifications "Well, I volunteered my services as I have much experience in this matter. I recall many times me and my friends would kick other kids out of the sandbox. And we were able to maintain order too! So you know...deserts got a lot of sand too...."

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.

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. My girlfriend, for instance, is a bit overweight, yet I eat a whole lot more than her.

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

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.

Only when you do.

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

Which is?
???

Try actually reading my previous posts. 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.

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.

Wow. First time I've ever heard anyone ASK to be a blood sucking parasite. Granted, it may be a step up in some cases...

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.

I'm not disagreeing with the statement.

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.

Using that insane experiment to signify that...well thats hilarious!!!

I mean...imagine if someone is applying for a job in construction and is asked about his "qualifications." And then the guy replies, "well, I have put in a lot of hours working with my legos..."

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote: You don't need to be a fucking doctor to know this.

No, but I'd take his proposal a little more seriously...not the guy who starved himself for fun...

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote: 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?

I missed that awesome part of your proposed program...cause people will do things for money...even for a little...

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote: Man this is too easy. I should have been a lawyer.

Maybe you should shoot this idea the next time you go see your doctor.

Or for more convenience, my enlightened word-weaver (I made that up just for you as "lawyer" doesn't do you justice), you could post this idea on a forum for doctors and see what they have to say!

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.

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 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.

As hansari astutely pointed out, what I asked was what your medical qualifications were on the matter, as in, where you got your phd from. I was being sarcastic.

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. You're not a doctor, and you your methods for weight loss are not consistent with the ideas you espouse in this topic (i.e.; you starved yourself like a Holocaust Survivor, yet you're espousing the virtues of excercise which you never did to loose your weight).

Without that, you're just some random dude from the internet talking about how he starved himself.

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

Except... they actually eat on that show. I've seen them do it. I also know for a fact that they excercise up to several hours a day for days at a time, something you never did.... thereby blowing any personal qualifications on your part out of the water.

Oh, and by the way? I don't know if you've ever watched an episode all the way through, but generally, the people are there because they want to be, not because somebody forced them to be there. You have more motivation to loose weight and keep it off if you want to do it for yourself (the way you did for you) as apposed to doing it because somebody forced you to do it.

At 10/7/09 07:56 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.

Then why not make a campaign that focuses on the parent's involvement in their kid's health? Because even if you force a kid to go to fat camp, once they leave, they're going right back into the environment that allowed them to become obese to begin with, and your effort will be for naught.

I don't NEED medical qualifications. It's a retarded demand.

Then write your own wikipedia article on the matter and cite yourself as a source if you're so confident on the matter.

At 10/6/09 04:28 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.

I was fat too. Evidently, we both overcame it without a mandatory camp.

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.

I never said that the way schooling is set up makes sense. It doesn't. High schools are one of the most bafflingly problematic systems that we have.

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

Right, because a magic being with infinite power will give them infinite rewards forever and ever. I don't think your fat camps offer that.

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.

Video games, apparently. Anything that people are forcing you to do counts as work.

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? If they get fat enough, they get a free trip to camp and they'll lose the weight anyway.

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

So your plan is to remove them from the unhealthy environment, drop them in a completely different, healthier one, then throw them right back to fat town and expect them to keep their habits intact? You don't see any chance of a relapse?

Pushing for fitness at home would be MUCH more effective.

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.

Yeah, because it's not as if this camp is a place you go to, then leave, right? A diet can teach you healthy eating habits, yet people drop them anyway.

They're called regular camps.

No those aren't tailored for fat kids.

Regular camps give kids plenty of exercise and time to do things outdoors that they enjoy. If you want a camp that people go to where you engage in physical activity that's fun and not laboriously forced, what you want is a regular camp.

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

And put them where, a parking lot?

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.

And your way to provide motivation is through forcing people to exercise whether they like it or not? My parents tried that on me when I was a kid, didn't work. Know why? I hate walking and running for exercise. It's mind-numbingly boring and not enjoyable at all. When I had the resources to seek out and try physical activity on my own, I started living a lot healthier. You know what resources I have now that I didn't back then? The money to actually do this shit.

Your plan is just going to make people RESENT physical activity, not enjoy it. You can force someone to do shit, but you can't make them like it.

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 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.

Again, I asked you what your medical qualifications were to make such a judgment (sarcasm), linking to a website that advised against losing such great amounts of weight in such a short amount of time because it was bad for your health. I didn't doubt you could do it, what I was doing was saying, hey, rapid weight loss isn't healthy either.

Two pounds a week would be pushing what's considered healthy weight loss, 5 pounds a week and you're verging on working those kids to death, regardless of the amount of time you do it for.

The contestants on the Biggest Loser actually exercise in addition to eating healthy (neither of which you are qualified to speak on) to loose weight on the show, and they are also monitored by health professionals in their field to prevent them from killing over from either over-exertion or pre-existing conditions. In order for your program to be effective and not kill anybody, you're going to have to hire a bunch of medical professionals to monitor these kids, and how much more is that going to cost your program in the long run?

*pours napalm on strawman accusation and sets on fire*

Like what?
And: why not both?

Start an ad campaign that emphasizes that good eating and excercise habits start in the home. Beyond that, there isn't much you can do, as your plan limits itself to school age children (a major flaw).

At 10/5/09 05:39 PM, homor wrote: watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit episode on fatties.

1- being fat doesn't always translate to bad health.
2- some people are born fat, and are going to be fat the rest of their natural lives.
3- going from fat to skinny doesn't always translate to better health.

This. Some people are going to be, not necessarily fat (but not thin either), if you do anything short of putting them in concentration camps and giving them starvation rations. They're just genetically predisposed to having more fat, which used to be a big advantage in caveman society and their bodies could handle it just fine. What you need to do is make them fit, not thin.

At 10/7/09 11:57 PM, poxpower wrote:

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

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.

Mandatory schooling, in my mind, primarily serves the purpose of ensuring that parents aren't holding their kids back from being educated. As for mandatory fitness and health requirements, that would be the idea behind gym class. As you'll note: The mandatory exercise and nutrition taught in phys ed classes have failed to prevent obesity in children. 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?

Also, let me throw out an idea here: At least a couple of years of mandatory cooking classes in high school. It's a much more valuable life skill than say, literary analysis that you would learn in English classes, and once people know how easy it is to cook healthy stuff and how much better the food tastes, they'd be more inclined to do it on their own.

I'm not saying there won't be a bunch of people who'll just hop right back on the fatwagon, but considering the number of university students I know who can barely open a jar of sauce and pour it into a pan, I think it would be a good idea regardless.

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.

I never said fat camps aren't fair. I said they aren't going to work. There's a difference.

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.

And I think it would work better if fitness was encouraged in the home. If we look at fervently religious people, what do you think the ratio is between those of them who had very religious parents and those that didn't?

Pushing for fitness at home would be MUCH more effective.

Like what? What programs would those be?

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

Fortunately, this sort of change is already happening. Many more companies have instituted health and wellness programs for their employees, governments are offering subsidies for thigns like exercise equipment and gym memberships, etc.

It's not something you can fix in one fell swoop. If it happens, it'll happen gradually. Trying to work with people is a very messy business. They're like stem cells; At first you can get people to change their ways, but the longer you go, the more difficult it becomes to get them to do anything any other way than the one they already know. Luckily for us, old humans eventually slough off and are replaced by new ones.

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.

Yes, I'm aware of this. The problem is that if you're forcing them to do this, it's going to seem more like an ordeal than an opportunity.

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

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

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

And your trick to teaching these kids good nutrition is what, having someone else cook for them? Then send them back to their fat parents? Or do you want to put kids into a kitchen to cook for themselves, opening up gigantic liability issues (if we're talking about grade school aged kids)?

The programs you're proposing don't actually work outside the home.

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.

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

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?

Yes, precisely, it was too bad. Too bad of an idea to actually work. Barring some odd Stockholm Syndrome situation, you're not going to get a whole lot of people to stay on board after they leave the camp.

People just hate being told what to do. You need to convince them that it was their idea to do it in the first place, like how religion does.

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

Which people also frown on. You see what people are frowning on? What's the common element between forcing parents to do something and forcing kids to do something?

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?

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

Note to self: Stop responding to posts nonlinearly.

A range of affordable or free sports camps that also taught kids good nutrition, but let them choose the nature of the stuff they wanted to do and how often they wanted to go. There could be one for certain team sports, one for racquet sports, ones for the weird individual sports like climbing, outdoorsy ones, etc. etc.

Either that or even just make casual sports clubs more accessible to kids. I would have gotten a lot more exercise as a kid if I had more opportunity to do something like say, play a few games of badminton at lunch.

well, as a preteen i was slightly chubby, but as puberty kicked in i became underweight and now i can eat a bucket of ice cream without gaining any weight other than the weight of what i ate

i demand they teach this
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web &ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikiped ia.org%2Fwiki%2FMacrobiotic_diet&ei=aOvN SvbIMpKgsgP9rNnHDg&rct=j&q=macrobiotics&
usg=AFQjCNGIVDHOnCe20CN8te0WOIwF0qHyaQ
especially the chew thoroughly part

this part of the wiki is interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic _diet#Tobacco

and efficient cooking, like with a pressure cooker

can just read that here
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=
pressure+cooking+benefits&btnG=Google+Se arch&meta=&aq=f&oq=pressure+cooking+bene fit&fp=2e6e289080ce88e

can't really happen when rich powerful people are pushing crappy food

so i agree with other people, camps are not the way

At 10/8/09 09:43 AM, pr0ded wrote: i demand they teach this
especially the chew thoroughly part

The chewing thing seems kind of weird, since your body can process anything that's been chewed enough to swallow comfortably.

Otherwise, the macrobiotic diet looks pretty much like "Eat healthy foods in a normal way." Cooking according to season is something most people do anyway.

no, its about organic unprocessed food, and conflicts with that is considered healthy

see people eating way too fast
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=
benefits+of+chewing+food+thoroughly&btnG =Google+Search&meta=&aq=0m&oq=chewing+fo od+tho&fp=2e6e289080ce88e

We'd probably kill a shitload of people for no reason and WASTE billions. How about we just illegalize wearing, possessing, selling or transporting any shirt above size XL in a regular store (ie. Target, Macys). And pants above 38, 36. And make being naked illegal.

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 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

Being healthy and being educated are very different things altogether.

I agree, we should all live in a wonderful society where everyone is happy, healthy and intelligent. But that's not going to happen. There are still people in the world who think the earth is stationary.

Firstly, you need to qualify age. Who applies to this? People under 16? 15? 25? 50? I doubt a 75 year old with a plump belly is going to do well climbing ropes and running treadmills.

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

After you have established age, what about weight? What if their BMI is borderlined but still over? Do you take them to fat camp for a mere several days?

You then need to build the camps, employ and/or train people to work. You need suppliers, electricity, gas, transportation etc. It's basically like suddenly starting a business on a national level.

If not done carefully, it can have a very decremental effect. Everything would need to be discussed, reviewed, planned and executed. Could this cost be higher than treating fat people in hospitals?

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. Would these be impeded because they needed to go to fat camp?

On top of all of this, TV, radio, schools, supermarkets etc have all jumped on the bandwagon for making the world healthier. Countless commercials with "Don't smoke, don't eat fat, don't live in populated areas because of pollution etc etc etc"

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.

For example, 6 months ago I got a new job. It involves more physical activity than my previous employments. I have lost roughly 25lbs since I started. I'm eating more fruits and vegetables. I don't eat as much junk anymore and I've almost entirely cut out the booze.

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

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 04:12 PM, poxpower wrote: 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.

Then there is no hope for your plan, ipso facto. It would be like picking up a hobo from Skid Row in California, sending them to detox for a month, then sending them right back to Skid Row. You're just wasting money.

At 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: So it's a goal for just about every country to make sure as many of the population as possible is literate. We do this because it produces educated workers and better citizens and is overall better for everyone.

If you suck in school, they will put you in a class to make you learn how to read. There are tutors, special classes and summer schools etc.

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. You're gonna LOSE THE WEIGHT. With public healthcare, we can't afford all the fatties. And those people can't afford to be fat either. Free fat camp would save billions in the long run.

Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

That depends if THEY WANT to loose the weight. If they don't want to then technically no one can make them. Fat Camps will only work if the person in question wants to loose weight and better themselves to being more healthy. If they don't want to and are happy the way they are then we shouldn't force them to go into a fat camp against their wishes.

At 10/8/09 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote: 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?

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

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.

But this is your idea, you must consider all options. Or are you just throwing something vague into the ring and letting everyone else figure it out for you?

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.

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

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.

The NHS already funds stop smoking services and treatment for people who are morbidly obese.

However, this is done by choice, they are not forced into it (and doctors get a bonus if they achieve either in their patients).

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?

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

Piece of cake.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Every post?

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.

Of course it's unethical, because it's forced. When you're employed, you're choosing to do the job and you're getting paid for it.

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

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

WRONG.

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

Say what now?

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 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: So it's a goal for just about every country to make sure as many of the population as possible is literate. We do this because it produces educated workers and better citizens and is overall better for everyone.

Agreed. Moving on.

If you suck in school, they will put you in a class to make you learn how to read. There are tutors, special classes and summer schools etc.

They do? Last I checked bad grades got ignored so the kids could be pushed through the system; I was in a graduating class half full of people who couldn't spell on a sixth-grade level.

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. You're gonna LOSE THE WEIGHT.

Better idea: have the schools offer a voluntary program, after providing said children with health information on the negative effects of being overweight and how to reverse it. Said offer is made on a personal level by the school nurse (and your school DOES have a nurse, right?); kids are less likely to take offense at the nurse than the principal or the gym coach. Shape the program so the kids are doing physical activity they enjoy, along with cardio and weight training to burn the fat; furthermore, provide educational catering to teach kids to cook healthy meals for themselves.

The reason I'm so specific about all this is because a boot-camp setup (which seems to be what you're proposing) won't solve the problem. Overweight people are demeaned enough as it is, and low self-esteem just contributes to gaining the weight.

At 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

Sorry, but that sounds like an enormous waste of government monies to me. We have more pressing concerns at the moment - for example, the fact that we'll all be a lot thinner from starvation anyways if we don't get this economy under control.

Fat people are disgusting and the posts in this topic make me feel proud im not american

At 10/9/09 09:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

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

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

?

You suggested sending kids (with an unknown age or physical/mental health) to fat camp. The link showed it was the elderly who are higher on the obesity scale.

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.

Did you even bother to read any of the links I provided?

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

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

For example, if two NASA researchers were talking:
"Hey, when the new shuttle program begins in 2010, let's send someone to Pluto" (the space shuttle program ends next year, in case you didn't know)
"Okay, how?"
"I don't care, you figure it out"

If you're just going to throw any idea on to the table and then let everyone else do the leg work, all your ideas would be dismissed.

Yeah I don't think going to the doctor once a year is going to cripple the system.

Okay, there are roughly 41 million people in the US who are under 19.

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?

You've gave us a vague concept, and then you keep adding to it when someone questions or criticises it. Like I said, you think about this thoroughly and then present your case.

Especially considering that this program is intended to lower future doctor visits.

'Intended' doesn't mean "it will cause".

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

Guess how many times you have to go see the doctor when you get diabetes.

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

Does that mean we should also send the elderly and pregnant woman away? They cost more money in hospitals too ;)

We see how well that's working.

Oh yes, this new service is doing quite well.

Maybe you can speak to this girl.

You mean like this?

?

You said BMI tests are a good indicator, the link showed it's not accurate. And you made a thread not long ago criticising the accuracy of the polygraph machine.

So you're happy to use one inaccurate method, but you bash another?

Increase costs of what?
?

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

Let's say you made camps that could hold 100 personnel. That's 720,000 buildings.

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

From the shopping sites I've been on, a good commercial treadmill will cost you roughly $5000 (USD) each.

That costs over three and a half billion.

My math may be rough and you have yet to specifically specify exactly who qualifies.

But don't forget to add all the other machinery. Then you need to buy the land, construct a building with electricity, water and gas supply. Will they be staying overnight? If so you need to build living quarters.

You really haven't thought this through have you?

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?

Apparently that wont cover the cost for the machines, let alone construction.

This isn't China, you don't need to work when you're 12.

I never said 12.

However, they do get experience and money working very simple and small jobs.

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.

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

You can go work at McDonald's when you're 16 and can skip fat camp you lard.

Obviously every worker at Mcdonalds will be hugely fat. And every plastic surgeon is stunningly handsome, every dentist has perfect teeth, every make up artist is gorgeous and every flight attendant is a 24 year old single blonde.

Oh wait, they're not.

Or like I said, lose the weight if you want a job next summer instead of going to camp.

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.

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

Yeah read the thread

Every post?

No, only my posts are relevant ( as usual )

Yet they always seem to be met with negativity, a list of links, arguments etc debunking everything you say and most importantly they're never anything original, interesting or presented.

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.

Such as? One example could refute this statement since you said it was a fact and you're implying it's been done throughout by not saying 'some' or 'most'.

Therefore, I'm the example. My parents never made me 'do everything they want'. They advised what I should and shouldn't do, I was free to make my own decision (unless it caused harm to myself and others).

The only thing they need to do is:
1. Not break any laws.
2. Get an education.

BUT OH NO PLEASE DON'T MAKE THEM GO TO CAMP NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You're right because their levels of responsibility is 'shockingly' high..

..oh wait, it isn't. I feed my pets everyday since I was 6, I volunteered to do it, I was never forced to do so. If I cannot someone else does. Simple as that.

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.

lolwut?

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.

First line:
"Desk jobs are increasing obesity, with many employees and employers ignorant of the risks of sitting down all day"

holy shit man can you write my school essays

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 ).