quote:
And/or suffer serious health problems before loosing the excess weight.


MALKIE'S REASONING: LOL, so you agree you'd lose weight. Thanks for agreeing with me - that was my only point.

Proves it isn't the steriods, but the choices made by the person on steriods.



It would seem that Malkie is so desperate to prove that people are able to lose weight when they are on medication that he totally ignores or is dismissive of the fact that patients on these drugs would be liable to put their health severely at risk. Anorexics and famine victims show that it is possible to lose weight by eating nothing, but their internal systems are totally shot and they suffer all sorts of nutritional deficiencies. People don't get put on steroid medication lightly, and are usually on it for good reason. To actually cut down on a reasonable diet for the reason of staying at the same weight when suffering severe illness sounds like some kind of statement made by a quack.

You must have missed this bit: "suffer serious health problems before loosing the excess weight..."

On that note, I'm still waiting for your evidence that significant and non-life threatening weight loss can be acheived with minimum effort.

eat less, and do more - where's the effort in that?

Infact, it requires LESS effort to eat less food. Less time shopping and preparing food, and less time doing the washing up.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
eat less, and do more - where's the effort in that?

Infact, it requires LESS effort to eat less food. Less time shopping and preparing food, and less time doing the washing up.

And, if you die of starvation, just think of even all the more time and effort you could save! Good one, Malkie!

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
eat less, and do more - where's the effort in that?

Infact, it requires LESS effort to eat less food. Less time shopping and preparing food, and less time doing the washing up.

'cept for those of us who have people to do these mundane tasks, then there's absolutely no effort at all...

quote:

it requires LESS effort to eat less food

Tell that to people who have no food to eat in the first place.

That's just your opinion. It means nothing without actual scientific backing.

A study using qualitative techniques to outline physical and psychological barriers to weight loss in children concluded that "Addressing these levers and barriers whilst acknowledging the complex interplay of social and emotional factors unique to the individual, may well promote successful weight control."

Another study in adults showed that a combination of psychological (particularly behavioural) interventions along with dieary and exercise strategies significantly enhance weight reduction. That is scientific evidence.

This

quote:

eat less, and do more

is nothing.

Where's your evidence that significant, non-life threatening weight loss requires minimum effort?

Malkie: Infact, it requires LESS effort to eat less food.

If this is true, then it would be just as well, because you would have LESS energy and therefore LESS effort to spread around...

quote:

Where's your evidence that significant, non-life threatening weight loss requires minimum effort?

do you need evidence to show that putting less food into your mouth requires any effort at all.

It's simple - don't put food into mouth - it's hardly rocket science.

So you don't have any hard evidence that significant, non life threatening weight loss requires minimum effort? I didn't think so.

If you can't contest the scientific facts, there's no reason to acknowledge your brainless rants any longer.

quote:

Originally posted by A-D:
So you don't have any hard evidence that significant, non life threatening weight loss requires minimum effort? I didn't think so.

If you can't contest the scientific facts, there's no reason to acknowledge your brainless rants any longer.

I don't think Malkie can get past the mechanics of the thing - open mouth, put food in. It must fascinate him...

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:

quote:

However, I DO have a medical condition, the treatment for which was years on a high dosage of steroids, which caused my weight to increase quite significantly.

Being on steroids doesn't cause weight gain.
Eating inappropriately while on steroids causes weight gain.


You are spouting absolute bullsh*te. The chief Consultant at the hospital in charge of my case told me that one of the MAJOR side effects of taking the dosage I would be prescribed, would be weight gain. This eminantly qualified professional informed me that dieting would not work whilst I was on steroids. Too make sure that my diet was adequet I was also under the hospital dietitian for the first two years on steroids. The dietitian was happy with my diet, even though I was gaining weight steadily.

Why should I be forced to pay because you couldn't maintain a healthy diet?

You wanna see my notes from the hospital?? Hospital dietition consistantly said my diet was healthy

quote:

What makes them think they are incapable of facing a normal life? People like yourself who judge others on their physical attributes.

Where have I judged anyone on physical attributes?

However, it's worth noting that weight gain is a choice, and 100% reversible. It's not the same as (for example) being born with only one ear, and getting a plastic one fitted to appear "normal".

yawn....yawn....yawn. bored now. You have no idea what you`re talking about with regards weight gain on steroids.

quote:

You for one, are saying just that. "Tax the fat because they are not intelligent enough to lose weight. [quote]

show me where I posted that, or retract your nonsense comment.

Take time to read what I actually posted, and not what you think I posted.

[quote]Some people on benifits are already working a full time job, as well as raising children. When do you suggest they try and fit in this community work?

um, why is someone who can (and is) working a full time job on benefits ?

Did you not know that single mothers working full time can get working tax credits, and other benifits? Child care is paid for to allow the mother to work. So something else you are spouting off about , and about which you know nothing about.

To clarify my point, I was more specifically referring to those claiming unemployment benefit. I'd have them doing community service.

Back tracking, huh? Perhaps you realised that not all people on "benifits" are unemployed

quote:

And who then pays for the childcare while the parent is doing this community work?

Why does the child need to be in childcare while the parent does service? That's a really, really narrow minded comment.

There are plenty of community activities that you could bring your child along to.

Be specific now. Exactly WHAT kind of jobs are you meaning?

Furthermore there are plenty of community activities you can do from the comfort of your own home.

Again, be much more specific in listing these jobs

Let me guess, you expect community service to be picking up litter from a local park

No, in my area, people are paid to be "wombles". Not criminals on community service punishment.

quote:

Even more money is wasted through the exhorbitant wages of beaurocrats and pen pushers.

I won't argue with you there.

quote:

So you don't have any hard evidence that significant, non life threatening weight loss requires minimum effort? I didn't think so.

Simple fact that eating less food requires less effort than eating too much food. Hardly requries a Nobel Prize to grasp that one.

quote:

The chief Consultant at the hospital in charge of my case told me that one of the MAJOR side effects of taking the dosage I would be prescribed, would be weight gain.

Out of interest, where did the weight gain come from ? Did it come from the ingestion of the steriods, or the food that was going into your mouth.

If you conceed it was from the food going into your mouth then I've proven my point.

quote:

You have no idea what you`re talking about with regards weight gain on steroids.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

quote:

Back tracking, huh? Perhaps you realised that not all people on "benifits" are unemployed

Not at all, just clarifying my point. Besides, if someone has a job they shouldn't be on benefits - simple as that. Why do they need to be on benefits if they are working?

quote:

Did you not know that single mothers working full time can get working tax credits, and other benifits? Child care is paid for to allow the mother to work.

See my above point. Why should a single mother get help ? That's discrimination against non-single mothers, and single women who aren't stupid enough to have a child without sensible finacial backing.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as a single mother. There are only single mothers because of the choices people make - why should I have to pay for other people's poor choices?

You can't have a baby without a father, hence there is no such thing as a single mother.

I don't see why I should have to be paying for their pitiful choices.

quote:

Be specific now. Exactly WHAT kind of jobs are you meaning?.........Again, be much more specific in listing these jobs

Two simple examples are local council leaflet delivery, or putting letters into envelops. Sounds dull, but someone has to do it, and that's exactly why I'd have the benefit munchers doing it.

Malkie - you're talking rubbish again. Sorry that's offensive but it's true.

quote:

Infact, it requires LESS effort to eat less food. Less time shopping and preparing food, and less time doing the washing up.

Of course healthy food usually requires cooking from scratch... eating ready meals - often high in fat, calories, salt etc - is so much quicker and easier. Remove packaging, stick in microwave, eat. You don't have half as much washing up either - maybe a fork - no pots and pans etc.
Anyway, I think this whole issue about "effort" was meant to be related to the psychological effort. If I am hungry and really want ice cream the easy option is to eat ice cream. To decide not to eat at all, or to have a piece of fruit instead of a bowl of ben and jerrys requires a lot of effort - and I don't even have a problem with my weight. To overcome bad eating and lifestyle habits, especially if you have had them for years, requires tremendous effort. Hence why so many people in this country are constantly dieting - they succeed for a while and lose a few pounds, then relapse, gain a few, then go back and lose some more etc etc. These people are trying really hard but don't always succeed. If they were "lazy and unwilling" as you accuse, they wouldn't be trying in the first place.

quote:

Why should a single mother get help ? That's discrimination against non-single mothers, and single women who aren't stupid enough to have a child without sensible finacial backing.

Furthermore, there's no such thing as a single mother. There are only single mothers because of the choices people make - why should I have to pay for other people's poor choices?

You can't have a baby without a father, hence there is no such thing as a single mother.

I don't see why I should have to be paying for their pitiful choices.

Let me give you an example. A woman (who has worked since leaving school and paid her taxes) goes to the doctor for problems with her period. She is told by this highly qualified professional what the problem is, and that it is unlikely she will ever be able to have children. On top of this he advises her to start using the contraceptive pill (which is 99.9% effective) to control the problem.
This woman is in what she believes to be a happy, stable, serious relationship. She does not know until quite late into the pregnancy that she is expecting - hell she thought it couldn't happen. So she has the child, and continues her relationship with the father, who she has been with for years.
Until that is - the father happens to c**k up and the woman finds out he is in fact married already. The father leaves, cuts off all contact and refuses point blank to pay anything towards the child for years - until the authorities get involved.
The mother now has a choice - go out to work or stay at home with the child. If she stayed at home she would be on full benefits, relying on the state. If she goes to work she will have to pay for childcare 5 long days per week. If you didn't know, childcare is expensive and trying to pay for that as well as keeping a roof over your head and feeding and clothing a baby is bl**dy difficult on an average income for one person. That is why they need a little bit extra - to cover these costs.

quote:

I don't see why I should have to be paying for their pitiful choices

God forbid you should ever find yourself in a position where you need help!

Sorry Malkie - but your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You've not only demonstrated you know nothing about healthy eating and weight gain, you also just proved you know nothing about single parents either. Well done, round of applause.

WELFARIST: Sorry Malkie - but your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You've not only demonstrated you know nothing about healthy eating and weight gain, you also just proved you know nothing about single parents either. Well done, round of applause.

Well said, Welfarist, and a good post too.

I suppose at least Malkie has just proved he/she is good at SOMETHING - being arrogant and ignorant! We have got to give Malkie credit where credit is due...

quote:

Simple fact that eating less food requires less effort than eating too much food.

Still nothing but your opinion. I need evidence. If its such a simple concept, it shouldn't be so hard to find a scientific publication to back it up right? If you can't contest the scientific facts I cited then this debate is over.

Just to reiterate, I'm looking for scientific evidence that significant, weight loss can be acheived with zero health risk AND minimum effort. Its a simple question; I just need evidence with your answer as your opinion means nothing to me.

quote:

Why should a single mother get help ? That's discrimination against non-single mothers, and single women who aren't stupid enough to have a child without sensible finacial backing.

We've established your stance against society's vulnerable. You reckon they should be held accountable. My question is what if they can't afford to be held accountable? What if this single mother would not be able to afford to raise the child without governement help? You're damning both mother and child.

Your bitter rants serves no purpose in the real world and that makes you more useless than any benefit munchers.

quote:

If I am hungry and really want ice cream the easy option is to eat ice cream.

No, the easier option is to stay on the couch and not get the icecream - it requries less effort.

quote:

The father leaves, cuts off all contact and refuses point blank to pay anything towards the child for years - until the authorities get involved.

So she isn't a single mother because the father exists and should be paying money - your example is useless.

I'm also slightly amused by your collection of dramatic situations where she doesn't know she's pregnant, and doesn't know her partner is already married.

quote:

God forbid you should ever find yourself in a position where you need help!

LOL, I love this comment. So, explain to me a situation I'd find myself in that I'd need help. (Because I know you can't).

quote:

Sorry Malkie - but your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You've not only demonstrated you know nothing about healthy eating and weight gain, you also just proved you know nothing about single parents either.

That simply isn't the case - you just don't like my tough love attitude, and it's people like you who tolerate the lazy and unwilling that is ruining our country.

quote:

Still nothing but your opinion. I need evidence. If its such a simple concept, it shouldn't be so hard to find a scientific publication to back it up right?

Staying on the couch not eating food reqires less effort than getting up, going to the fridge and getting food.

Do you want me to reference a secondary school biology book which shows that sitting down uses less energy than standing up and walking to the fridge. I'm sure I could find you the text book you need.

quote:

Just to reiterate, I'm looking for scientific evidence that significant, weight loss can be acheived with zero health risk AND minimum effort.

fair enough, read :-

quote:

Genetics of obesity
Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Volume 361, Issue 1471, July 29, 2006, Pages 1095-1105
O'rahilly, Stephen; Farooqi, I Sadaf

which concludes :-

quote:

To conclude, the evidence we have to date suggests that the major impact of genes on human obesity is just as likely (or perhaps more likely) to directly impact on hunger, satiety and food intake rather than metabolic rate or nutrient partitioning. At the risk of oversimplification, it seems that from an aetiological/genetic standpoint, human obesity appears less a metabolic than a neuro-behavioural disease.

That certainly puts your metabolism nonsense into place

then read :-

quote:

Weight-control practices among u.s. Adults, 2001-2002
American Journal Of Preventive Medicine, Volume 31, Issue 1, July 2006, Pages 18-24
Weiss, Edward C; Galuska, Deborah A; Khan, Laura Kettel; Serdula, Mary K

Which shows that the vast majority of people trying to control their weight aren't doing it properly "Less than one fourth combined caloric restriction with the higher levels of physical activity".

You claim it more than a little effort, but I'm proving to you that people performed the correct combination of changes to their life it is only a little effort.

According to this study people believed that they could control their weight by eat less ONLY, or eating less fat ONLY, or increasing exercise ONLY. The study proves that the true way to achieve weight loss is by a moderate combination of them all - ie a little effort.

then read :-

quote:

Obesity, weight loss, and physician's advice
Social Science & Medicine (1982), Volume 62, Issue 10, May 2006, Pages 2458-2468
Loureiro, Maria L; Nayga, Rodolfo M, Jr

This paper is outstanding - the basic principle here is that their doctor told them that he felt they needed to lose some weight on medical grounds. That was all the motivation they needed to actuall start losing weight (despite having tried dieting etc etc previously).

That certainly destroys your arguement that it requires effort - just proves that they can do it easily when told to.

If you are interested in the child aspect then read:-

quote:

Childhood obesity: trends and potential causes
The Future Of Children / Center For The Future Of Children, The David And Lucile Packard Foundation, Volume 16, Issue 1, Spring 2006, Pages 19-45
Anderson, Patricia M; Butcher, Kristin E

Which simply concludes that all children need to do is walk to school to turn the trend of childhood obesity around. Doesn't sound like much effort to me.

also read :-

quote:

Are the eating and exercise habits of successful weight losers changing?
Obesity (Silver Spring), Volume 14, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 710-716
Phelan, Suzanne; Wyatt, Holly R; Hill, James O; Wing, Rena R

which states "Still, only a minority consumes a low-carbohydrate diet." suggesting that people simply aren't bothering to eat the right stuff. Not much effort required in changing there.


I could go on and on, but you get my point.

Sadly no doubt you are the same as TheAM and MartinGBUK, and when given the evidence you demand you simply won't read it.

Malkie

quote:

So she isn't a single mother because the father exists and should be paying money - your example is useless.

Indeed - I agree the father should be held accountable. But there is no law stopping him walking away and ignoring his responsibility. Yes, he may be forced to pay child maintenence - but for the first 10-12 years of the afforementioned childs life he refused. It was up to the authorities to get the money off him, but they took their sweet time doing so. In the mean time that woman needed financial help - once she got money from the father, she no longer needed it.

quote:

I'm also slightly amused by your collection of dramatic situations where she doesn't know she's pregnant, and doesn't know her partner is already married.

I'm glad you find it amusing. The woman in question did not know she was pregnant till fairly late - she continued to have periods initially, had no morning sickness etc.
Laugh all you like but this situation is genuine - the woman in the story is my mother.

Oh and one more thing - have you considered what would happen to a single mother raising a child alone because the father had died?

Looking at this paper,

quote:

Genetics of obesity
Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Volume 361, Issue 1471, July 29, 2006, Pages 1095-1105
O'rahilly, Stephen; Farooqi, I Sadaf

They concluded that obesity is a neuro-behavioural disease. So how does that answer my question?

quote:

That certainly puts your metabolism nonsense into place

What metabolism nonsense? I've been talking more about social medicine. That was a pointless paper to cite apart from the fact that it mentions that obesity is a neuro-behavioural disease even though you've repeatedly stated that its a decision. 1 for me, 0 for you.

Looking at this one:

quote:

Obesity, weight loss, and physician's advice
Social Science & Medicine (1982), Volume 62, Issue 10, May 2006, Pages 2458-2468
Loureiro, Maria L; Nayga, Rodolfo M, Jr

"the results unequivocally suggest the statistically significant effect of physician's advice to lose weight to the likelihood that an individual will either eat fewer calories and fat or exercise to lose weight." So people listen to their doctors. Big deal. The paper says NOTHING about the patients' success at loosing weight hence, it doesn't answer my question. Fall all I know, these patients are all still overweight. Plus the authors also found that "the effect of advising to exercise remains significant for all but the obese sample". So some but not all overweight people listen to their doctors and eat less. Hardly nobel prize findings there since the paper says nothing about whether or not these people actually lost weight. Furthermore, the authors also conclude that "individuals who have not completed high school education are generally less likely to either eat fewer calories and fat or exercise to lose weight than higher educated individuals." Why is that? Lets not forget that this journal is called "social science and medicine". If I recall, you said there's no such thing as social medicine, now you're citing an article from this journal

Looking at this one: