Woman aims to become world's fattest

[Prosperity]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1027360/woman-aims-to-become-worlds-fattest


An obese mother in the US is trying to put on weight in order to become the world's fattest woman.

Donna Simpson, from New Jersey, weighs 273kg but told the Daily Mail newspaper she had her heart set on reaching her goal weight of 1000lb (450kg) in two years......

In order to pay for the enormous amounts of food she is eating — her weekly grocery bill is $815 — Ms Simpson makes money by running a website where men pay to watch her consume fast food.


http://images.ninemsn.com.au/resizer.aspx?url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/2010/world/1503_fat_sp.jpg&width=310



=====
two words:
death panels

[Botched]

told the Daily Mail newspaper she had her heart set on reaching her goal weight of 1000lb (450kg) in two years

Puns FTW

[NOLASKINSFAN]

How sad..........

['Skins_&_'Stons]

It's been done...sorta. :D

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19897/the-simpsons-homer-gains-weight

http://fatpeoplefail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/homer-simpson-muumuu.jpg

[GhostofSparta]

New rule, no healthcare for you if you plan is to become the fattest person alive. In fact, the police should just quarantine her house for about a year until she can fit out the door to get her own damn food and supplies again.

[zoony]

the real criminals here are the ones bringing her the food

[Xameil]

oh dear lord....seriously someone should institutionalize her. Her illness is just as bad as someone who is anorexic or bulimic. Or perhaps she has the other disease that a hospital can not help...Attention whore disorder or as we at ES know it as Mickalino syndrome ;)

(just joking Mick...no offense meant ;) )

[NOLASKINSFAN]

New rule, no healthcare for you if you plan is to become the fattest person alive. In fact, the police should just quarantine her house for about a year until she can fit out the door to get her own damn food and supplies again.


Is it any dumber than eating fats food several times a week and smoking or not exercising on a regular basis...aka the majority of Americans

[Chopper Dave]

the real criminals here are the ones bringing her the food

Wrong. That'd only be the case if she were a child. It's her body. It's horrible, it's disgusting, it's offensive by most normal social standards, but she has every right to do it, and if she can find someone (or an army of people, as it would it seem) to bring her enough food to reach her goal, well, they have every right to do that, too. I don't believe the government should be able to tell any adult what they can or can't do to their body; even if you disagree with that, you have to drawn the line somewhere, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the line should be drawn somewhere well, well before food, regardless of quantity.

[zoony]

Wrong. That'd only be the case if she were a child. It's her body. It's horrible, it's disgusting, it's offensive by most normal social standards, but she has every right to do it, .


She's also very obviously mentally ill. So no, I'm not.

....

[Teller]

It's her body until.........

[Prosperity]

but she has every right to do it,

easy to say that when you don't have to haul her ass to the morgue after she croaks. The deconstruction and labor alone will cost thousands.

[No_Pressure]

Who cares what she does? This just in: crazy ass woman decides to kill herself with food.

How many of you are deciding to kill yourself with cigarettes? Some people are kinda overweight, some people are fat, some people are obese and some people aim for god knows what reason to be the fattest person alive. Some smokers smoke a few cigarettes a day, some smoke a few packs a day, some smoke a freaking carton a day.

The fat person is more shocking because you can see her huge girth, and you can say "what kind of influence is she having on her kids" and all that crap, but going back to my smoking comparison, people don't call that mentally insane behavior, don't call it criminal, etc. when a person is clearly shortening their lifespan drastically. Perhaps they would if you could see someone's black tar covered lungs every day when they're walking around, but you can't and so we have a bunch of hypocrites.

With that said this woman is an idiot, smoking is idiotic, but if those people want to purposely shorten their lifespans doing something as stupid as they do, what business is it of mine? I don't care. Sucks for her kids, but you can't govern luck of the draw and those kids obviously drew one hell of a ****ty mother. Nothing you can do about it.

[Kosher Ham]

Slacky would hit it.

:silly:

[Chopper Dave]

She's also very obviously mentally ill. So no, I'm not.

....

Which is why she's been involuntarily institutionalized and.... oh wait.

As far as the really morbid matter of dealing with her eventual death goes, her estate should have to pay for any expenses incurred to the state that go above and beyond those of someone whose life goal wasn't being the fattest person ever. But once we draw that line, we have to start drawing a whole bunch of other lines. Where is the eventual line of demarcation between one's life and your business?

[Chopper Dave]

Who cares what she does? This just in: crazy ass woman decides to kill herself with food.

How many of you are deciding to kill yourself with cigarettes? Some people are kinda overweight, some people are fat, some people are obese and some people aim for god knows what reason to be the fattest person alive. Some smokers smoke a few cigarettes a day, some smoke a few packs a day, some smoke a freaking carton a day.

The fat person is more shocking because you can see her huge girth, and you can say "what kind of influence is she having on her kids" and all that crap, but going back to my smoking comparison, people don't call that mentally insane behavior, don't call it criminal, etc. when a person is clearly shortening their lifespan drastically. Perhaps they would if you could see someone's black tar covered lungs every day when they're walking around, but you can't and so we have a bunch of hypocrites.

With that said this woman is an idiot, smoking is idiotic, but if those people want to purposely shorten their lifespans doing something as stupid as they do, what business is it of mine? I don't care. Sucks for her kids, but you can't govern luck of the draw and those kids obviously drew one hell of a ****ty mother. Nothing you can do about it.

Bingo.

Though, the whole kids thing could be an issue. If she becomes so corpulent that she's unfit to parent her children, then I'm all for state involvement. In this case, fatty-loving Phillippe is there, so it's a non-issue.

[zoony]

Which is why she's been involuntarily institutionalized and.... oh wait.



do they institutionalize alcoholics and drug users? "oh wait" :doh1:


I guess it comes down to an individual opinion. Me, I tend to sympathize with the heroin junkie and take issue with the heroin dealer. You're also entitled to your own opinion of course.

But nice to know that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. :)

......

[Skin'Em84]

$5 says her kids play hide the cell phone in her rolls.

[RedskinsTime]

Ms Simpson makes money by running a website where men pay to watch her consume fast food.

This made me lol

So gross

[Alcoholic Zebra]

Dude, she's a mother right? Don't her kids have to go somewhere safe for them while she does this? This seems like gross negligence and a very very hideously poor environment to raise a kid in. ****, the kids will be raising her not the other way around, she won't even be able to move.

Child Services or whatever it is, they need to be called in ASAP.

[Destino]

the real criminals here are the ones bringing her the food

I don't know about criminals, because I'm not sure a crime has been committed, but clearly they hold a significant portion of the responsibility here. If a family member of mine got so fat they could barely move I'd take their phone away and feed them veggies until they were slim enough to fetch their own damn food.

[757SeanTaylor21]

easy to say that when you don't have to haul her ass to the morgue after she croaks. The deconstruction and labor alone will cost thousands.

lmaooooooooooooooooooooo thats mad weak. i busted out lahgin when i read that one. whewww

[zoony]

I don't know about criminals, because I'm not sure a crime has been committed, but clearly they hold a significant portion of the responsibility here. If a family member of mine got so fat they could barely move I'd take their phone away and feed them veggies until they were slim enough to fetch their own damn food.


well, yah- criminals was sort of meant in hyperbole. But I'm with you

We went out to eat yesterday afternoon and I saw what had to be a 400 lbs woman. She couldn't walk, she was in a scooter.

Who is bringing her the food? That's my question. Just awful

[NOLASKINSFAN]

She's also very obviously mentally ill. So no, I'm not.

....


Watch out Zoony, pointing out mental illness (as if that was a "bad word" ) doesn't go over well here :saber:

No, we must accept people's choices as "natural and normal" I believe was the coined phrase.

[ixcuincle]

Your Mamma's yappin' in the back seat
Tell her to push over and move them big feet
Every Monday morning I gotta drive her down to the unemployment agency
Well this morning I ain't fighting tell her I give up
Tell her she wins if she'll just shut up
But it's the last time that she's gonna be ridin' with me

[wysknz1]

eeh, she's got a long way to go to catch my mother in law

[Chopper Dave]

do they institutionalize alcoholics and drug users? "oh wait" :doh1:


I guess it comes down to an individual opinion. Me, I tend to sympathize with the heroin junkie and take issue with the heroin dealer. You're also entitled to your own opinion of course.

But nice to know that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. :)

......

Yes, they actually do institutionalize alcoholics and drug users. It's called the Marchman Act in the state of Florida, and if either of us were to do a cursory amount of research, I'm sure it would turn up various similar acts in other states.

And for the record, you're not wrong because you disagree with me. You're wrong because your premise is flawed. I too take umbrage with the dealer over the junkie, but then again, I'm pretty much parallelizing this whole thing with my views on drugs and drug abuse to begin with (at least in collecting my thoughts). You're saying punish the dealer; I'm saying punish no one. We're all adults here. You drink your beer that you buy from the guy around the corner at the gas station (the royal you, for all I know you personally could be a teetotaler or a crackhead), I'll smoke my joint rolled from the bud I bought from the hippy I know from high school, and that fat ***** in Jersey can eat her $815 worth of food a week until her diabetes-ravaged body seizes up in a heart attack so massive it registers on regional seismographs. We're all adults here. Let us do what we want and deal with the consequences.

[NOLASKINSFAN]

eeh, she's got a long way to go to catch my mother in law

winner :laugh:

[zoony]

Yes, they actually do institutionalize alcoholics and drug users. It's called the Marchman Act in the state of Florida, and if either of us were to do a cursory amount of research, I'm sure it would turn up various similar acts in other states.

And for the record, you're not wrong because you disagree with me. You're wrong because your premise is flawed. .



:ols:


you're right as always chopper dave.

[Chopper Dave]

:ols:


you're right as always chopper dave.

It tends to happen. It's usually easier to just bow to my omniscience and come to terms with my eventual world domination.

[stupidmorals]

Yo Momma is so fat..............

...she's from Jersey!

[Mongo2365]

I don't get the whole men wanting to pay to watch her eat. To each their own I guess but ugh.

[RichmondRedskin88]

I feel bad for her bed and floor.

[Chopper Dave]

I don't get the whole men wanting to pay to watch her eat. To each their own I guess but ugh.

Yeah, that's some weird ****, man. It's not even, like, sexual. There are things that appall me, and then there are things I just don't even understand.

[LaxBuddy21]

...she is Jersey!

There fixed it for you!

[Kosher Ham]

There fixed it for you!

That is far from true.

Lots of attractive women in Jersey.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

Slacky would hit it.

:silly:

I'll leave that duty to TBLTO.

[Prosperity]

I'll leave that duty to TBLTO.

isn't he the dude into chicks with eating disorders?

[Slacky McSlackAss]

isn't he the dude into chicks with eating disorders?

No, thats ACW. Then again, hes in to any chick that will talk to him. (and ones that wouldn't even in his dreams)

[GoSkins561]

Two words - Feral Cat

[Soup]

I wonder if she stores anything under her fat flaps like money or the car keys. I had a friend who would store a condom under his belly flap. He said on the rare chance he'd get a girl it would fall out and remind him to put it on. True story.

[Burgundy Burner]

Two words - Feral Cat

And the CIA mixed some LSD with her food.

[stupidmorals]

There fixed it for you!

:ols:


That is far from true.

Lots of attractive women in Jersey.

:silly:

[GibbsFactor]

That ***** jumped in the air and got stuck.

[Slacky McSlackAss]

As long as she doesn't see a cent of my tax money, she can eat whatever the **** she wants.

[ACW]

No, thats ACW. Then again, hes in to any chick that will talk to him. (and ones that wouldn't even in his dreams)Not quite. Not even I would hit this one.

[Burgold]

Not quite. Not even I would hit this one.

Of course not. Hitting burns calories. You're nothing if not supportive.

[Winning Season Please!]

Anyone who defends someone so stupid as to do something like this doesn't realize how much money people like this cost the rest of us in health care.

[Chopper Dave]

Anyone who defends someone so stupid as to do something like this doesn't realize how much money people like this cost the rest of us in health care.

Clearly they don't. Clearly they haven't explicitly addressed such things in their reasonably well-thought out arguments. :ols:

[zoony]

when she wears high heels, she strikes oil

she wore a malcolm x shirt but helicopters kept trying to land on her

she broke her leg and gravy poured out

:doh:

[LaxBuddy21]

That is far from true.

Lots of attractive women in Jersey.

Ha even though I disagree, I meant she is the size of the state :silly:

[GibbsFactor]

Someone needs to make this an "ambition" poster.

:ols:

[McD5]

We are going to need a website address.

This is much more entertaining than watching newborn dogs.

[Kosher Ham]

I'll leave that duty to TBLTO.

He would love Jersey. Lots of Indian and ME women up there for him.

[jnhay]

I thought this was going to be about Gabourey Sidibe.

[HighOnHendrix]

I don't get the whole men wanting to pay to watch her eat. To each their own I guess but ugh.


Yeah, that's some weird ****, man. It's not even, like, sexual. There are things that appall me, and then there are things I just don't even understand.

It's a fetish and those are hard to understand unless that particular one appeals to you. Think about all the weird stuff that turns up on niche porn sites. I came across one once where they were selling videos of chicks in heels/barefoot/etc. pushing down the gas pedal of a car. Not a naked chick, not in lingerie; they didn't even show her body, just her foot. I don't get it, but this fits into the same category. I think they call it "feeding". It's just odd.


We're all adults here. Let us do what we want and deal with the consequences.

Amen, brother.

[FedExFielder]

Now I don't mind a girl with a liiittle meat on her, but this is ridiculous lol

[Special K]

Sad. This lady has mental issues.


Yes, they actually do institutionalize alcoholics and drug users. It's called the Marchman Act in the state of Florida, and if either of us were to do a cursory amount of research, I'm sure it would turn up various similar acts in other states.

And for the record, you're not wrong because you disagree with me. You're wrong because your premise is flawed. I too take umbrage with the dealer over the junkie, but then again, I'm pretty much parallelizing this whole thing with my views on drugs and drug abuse to begin with (at least in collecting my thoughts). You're saying punish the dealer; I'm saying punish no one. We're all adults here. You drink your beer that you buy from the guy around the corner at the gas station (the royal you, for all I know you personally could be a teetotaler or a crackhead), I'll smoke my joint rolled from the bud I bought from the hippy I know from high school, and that fat ***** in Jersey can eat her $815 worth of food a week until her diabetes-ravaged body seizes up in a heart attack so massive it registers on regional seismographs. We're all adults here. Let us do what we want and deal with the consequences.

The state doesn't institutionalize people solely on the basis of alcoholism. There's not enough money in the world to foot that bill.
People are involuntarily institutionalized when there is an imminent threat that they will harm themselves.

Or maybe if they commit multiple crimes due to their substance abuse and are ordered to treatment by a judge..

P.S. To say lifestyle choices like these don't affect the cost of healthcare is simply ignorant. If we were able
to create a system where people's extravagantly absurd lifestyles didn't cost others time and money, you could have a point. But we don't, and therefore you don't either.

P.P.S. What the frig is 'parallelizing'?

[Chopper Dave]

Sad. This lady has mental issues.

The state doesn't institutionalize people solely on the basis of alcoholism. There's not enough money in the world to foot that bill.
People are involuntarily institutionalized when there is an imminent threat that they will harm themselves.

Or maybe if they commit multiple crimes due to their substance abuse and are ordered to treatment by a judge..

P.S. To say lifestyle choices like these don't affect the cost of healthcare is simply ignorant. If we were able
to create a system where people's extravagantly absurd lifestyles didn't cost others time and money, you could have a point. But we don't, and therefore you don't either.

P.P.S. What the frig is 'parallelizing'?

They're called outliers. The super-healthy balance out the super-unhealthy. It's simple statistics. As far as everything else you said preceding that, I don't disagree, and I haven't posted anything stating that I do. You're just stating facts, implying that I refute them, and acting as if you've proven me wrong. Of course the state doesn't just institutionalize people based solely on alcoholism or drug abuse, but, as you said, they do institutionalize people in extreme circumstances. Basically, they do it when the powers that be judge that the person in question is no longer mentally healthy enough to decide for themselves whether or not they need help. They haven't done that for this lady.

Moreover, it's a moot point. I don't necessarily agree with involuntary institutionalization for anything but the most severe mental illness; that includes drug abuse, alcoholism, and what this woman is doing.

You should probably hold off on judging whether or not I have a point until you understand the point I'm trying to make. Because based on your post, you haven't the faintest, foggiest idea of what my point is, despite how clear I've made it. Adults should be able to put whatever they want in their body. If it raises our healthcare costs, that's a problem with the healthcare system, but again, using this lady as an example is ridiculous, because she's such an outlier in the statistics. Again, for the third time; we are all adults here, let us do what we want and deal with the consequences.

And parallelizing is the act of drawing a parallel.

[Hubbs]

I think the much more perplexing point that CD would like to make is that there has to be some sort of line - likely arbitrary - between personal freedoms and healthcare costs. What should people be allowed to do with their own bodies if they could eventually pass the buck on some of their medical bills? Should poor people be allowed to smoke? What about eat certain foods? Go look at "People of Walmart" for half an hour - you can't tell me those folks won't be adding a lot of costs to the medical system. What about Riddick Bowe? He wants to fight again - he's lost his millions, and he's old as hell in fighting terms. Do you "let" him, or deem him too much of a threat to our collective medical costs?

At some point, a line has to be drawn, one that establishes just what exactly is a personal decision, and what kind of choice the government has the right to ignore for the "collective good." How much are your Big Macs or Jack with Cokes worth?

[Chopper Dave]

I think the much more perplexing point that CD would like to make is that there has to be some sort of line - likely arbitrary - between personal freedoms and healthcare costs. What should people be allowed to do with their own bodies if they could eventually pass the buck on some of their medical bills? Should poor people be allowed to smoke? What about eat certain foods? Go look at "People of Walmart" for half an hour - you can't tell me those folks won't be adding a lot of costs to the medical system. What about Riddick Bowe? He wants to fight again - he's lost his millions, and he's old as hell in fighting terms. Do you "let" him, or deem him too much of a threat to our collective medical costs?

At some point, a line has to be drawn, one that establishes just what exactly is a personal decision, and what kind of choice the government has the right to ignore for the "collective good." How much are your Big Macs or Jack with Cokes worth?

They're worth everything, because they're mine. And honestly, it's a dent. It's a dent in a dent in a dent. I'd rather have the rights to my own body than the rights to a few pennies in my pocket.

[tiger187126]

more importantly who is going to take care of that 3 year old when she croaks? i mean can you imagine being this kid. your mom dies of heart failure and you're stuck with some pervert (not a 100% on this, but life partner met on a website for big women doesn't sound like parent of the year) to raise you?

and how do you raise a kid while "moving as little as possible?"

[Chopper Dave]

more importantly who is going to take care of that 3 year old when she croaks? i mean can you imagine being this kid. your mom dies of heart failure and you're stuck with some pervert (not a 100% on this, but life partner met on a website for big women doesn't sound like parent of the year) to raise you?

and how do you raise a kid while "moving as little as possible?"

Therein does lie a problem. If this Philippe guy isn't a suitable parent, then it becomes a whole different bag of worms.

[Special K]

They're called outliers. The super-healthy balance out the super-unhealthy. It's simple statistics. As far as everything else you said preceding that, I don't disagree, and I haven't posted anything stating that I do. You're just stating facts, implying that I refute them, and acting as if you've proven me wrong. Of course the state doesn't just institutionalize people based solely on alcoholism or drug abuse, but, as you said, they do institutionalize people in extreme circumstances. Basically, they do it when the powers that be judge that the person in question is no longer mentally healthy enough to decide for themselves whether or not they need help. They haven't done that for this lady.

Moreover, it's a moot point. I don't necessarily agree with involuntary institutionalization for anything but the most severe mental illness; that includes drug abuse, alcoholism, and what this woman is doing.

You should probably hold off on judging whether or not I have a point until you understand the point I'm trying to make. Because based on your post, you haven't the faintest, foggiest idea of what my point is, despite how clear I've made it. Adults should be able to put whatever they want in their body. If it raises our healthcare costs, that's a problem with the healthcare system, but again, using this lady as an example is ridiculous, because she's such an outlier in the statistics. Again, for the third time; we are all adults here, let us do what we want and deal with the consequences.

And parallelizing is the act of drawing a parallel.
Yeah, I actually know what it means :D. Just never heard someone use that term on an internet message forum...reminds me of someone trying really hard to impress the audience with big words...

Regardless, your entire argument is moot as cases like these DO affect healthcare prices. And morbid obesity
is not an outlier condition in the United States. It is a serious health problem that actually does affect others. Its a shame, but it does.

[Special K]

They're worth everything, because they're mine. And honestly, it's a dent. It's a dent in a dent in a dent. I'd rather have the rights to my own body than the rights to a few pennies in my pocket.
Its not a "dent.". Look up obesity, smoking, alcohol and other lifestyle costs to our overall healthcare system. They are astronomical.

These cannot continue being ignored in for the utopian concept of personal freedom. Not when they are a detriment
to the collective good. I am all for personal freedom, but not at a cost to others.

[Chopper Dave]

Yeah, I actually know what it means :D. Just never heard someone use that term on an internet message forum...reminds me of someone trying really hard to impress the audience with big words...

Regardless, your entire argument is moot as cases like these DO affect healthcare prices. And morbid obesity
is not an outlier condition in the United States. It is a serious health problem that actually does affect others. Its a shame, but it does.

1000lb obesity is an outlier. And yes, obesity does affect healthcare costs. You're right. So do a million other behaviors that we don't scrutinize and criticize and rail against and try to regulate in spite of those regulations violating every sense of personal freedom we as free people are entitled to.

So, in regard to anything you're saying, my point is not moot. In actuality, you're not even responding to my point. You're grasping at straws. You're just trying to shift the argument from my point, which is about personal freedom, to your point, which I guess seems to be about healthcare costs. Which makes sense if you have no tangible response to my point about personal freedom.

Personally, I'd like to shift the argument to the sad state of affairs we're in when using vocabulary your average 12th grader should understand comes under fire for sounding like you're trying to impress an audience. Sometimes a word is just the right word. Sometimes it has more than three syllables. I'll try to keep it simpler from now on, I guess.

[Chopper Dave]

Its not a "dent.". Look up obesity, smoking, alcohol and other lifestyle costs to our overall healthcare system. They are astronomical.

These cannot continue being ignored in for the utopian concept of personal freedom. Not when they are a detriment
to the collective good. I am all for personal freedom, but not at a cost to others.

I'm pretty sure you can get a good deal on some land in Cuba, then.

I get what you're saying. And you're not wrong, per se. It's just that there isn't anyone qualified to draw the line, because everyone's view of the line is different. I'd rather just foot the bill. If you disagree, well, then you disagree. I would rather have my freedom.

[CallMeGreen]

Mam? Your cab is here.
http://www.hercules-equipment.com/grafix/tow2640.jpg (http://www.hercules-equipment.com/grafix/tow2640.jpg)

[Special K]

I'm pretty sure you can get a good deal on some land in Cuba, then.


Buddy, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Saying that hardly makes one a communist, lol.

[HighOnHendrix]

Buddy, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Saying that hardly makes one a communist, lol.

Maybe not a communist, but totalitarianism is what you're leaning toward. How about we just make this a police state, then? Stop letting people think for themselves and have the government decide what is best for them. That'll fix everything for sure. :rolleyes:

[China]

I thought about posting this yesterday, however I didn't want to earn the board's wrath. You see I was considering posting, in accordance with board rules of course, the following article title:

Hot Slut of the Day (http://www.dlisted.com/node/36449)

This would of course led people to click on the thread only to be assaulted by a photo of Fatty McFatterson.

[ixcuincle]

http://twitter.com/JimNorton


JimNorton

A 600 lb. NJ lady wants to hit 1,000 lb. to break the fattest woman record. Yuck. I hope she reaches 995 and gets hit by a meteor.

Anyway this reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer tried to hit a certain amount so he could go on disability and work from home. Lol

[HighOnHendrix]

http://twitter.com/JimNorton



Anyway this reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer tried to hit a certain amount so he could go on disability and work from home. Lol

Yeah, but see that was actually funny. This is perverse.

[Special K]

Maybe not a communist, but totalitarianism is what you're leaning toward. How about we just make this a police state, then? Stop letting people think for themselves and have the government decide what is best for them. That'll fix everything for sure. :rolleyes:

Wait, what? What is wrong with you people? I'm not advocating communism or totalitarianism.

I'm saying if people are placing a burden on others, they should have to sacrifice. Smokers pay high taxes on tobacco products, I would like to see something like this applied to
things like fast food or alcohol. I'm not saying people CAN'T do these things, I simply think they should pay a higher percentage of the healthcare burden since statistics show these individuals
place a larger burden on our system.

[ixcuincle]

Lmao at the tag "wash w rag on a stick", also from that noted episode.

http://download.lardlad.com/framegrabs/3F05/113.jpg

"I WASH MYSELF WITH A RAG ON A STICK."

Could probably make a lot more references from that episode ("Hey fatty, I got a movie for you, A Fridge Too Far!") but I'm too lazy

[budski]

Soooooo anybody that is putting a strain on the medical system with their overweight, smoking, drinking habits should pay more. What makes you think they don't already?

[LaxBuddy21]

Wait, what? What is wrong with you people? I'm not advocating communism or totalitarianism.

I'm saying if people are placing a burden on others, they should have to sacrifice. Smokers pay high taxes on tobacco products, I would like to see something like this applied to
things like fast food or alcohol. I'm not saying people CAN'T do these things, I simply think they should pay a higher percentage of the healthcare burden since statistics show these individuals
place a larger burden on our system.

Ok so every time you do something that is not considered the most healthy thing you can do, I want you to pay more. Every drink you have, Pay more. Every time you exercise less than you should, pay more. Everything you eat with over a certain amount of fat or calories, pay more. The list goes on. You cant decide that because someone makes unhealthy choices, they should pay more unless you are willing to pay more for every choice you make that is not optimizing your health. Otherwise, you are costing the healthcare system more money.

[Heidenreich]

That is far from true.

Lots of attractive women in Jersey.

Correct.

My homeland is taking a beating in this thread. This woman is worse than 10 Jersey Shores......

[Special K]

Ok so every time you do something that is not considered the most healthy thing you can do, I want you to pay more. Every drink you have, Pay more. Every time you exercise less than you should, pay more. Everything you eat with over a certain amount of fat or calories, pay more. The list goes on. You cant decide that because someone makes unhealthy choices, they should pay more unless you are willing to pay more for every choice you make that is not optimizing your health. Otherwise, you are costing the healthcare system more money.

Actually yeah, I would be fine with paying an extra sales tax on things like alcohol or junk food. I would be fine with those taxes going back into healthcare initiatives.

[SKOALSKIN]

Gonna be great when the state takes her kids from her and puts em in foster care. Hopefully she wont last long.

[LaxBuddy21]

Actually yeah, I would be fine with paying an extra sales tax on things like alcohol or junk food. I would be fine with those taxes going back into healthcare initiatives.

Clearly you can afford it. I can too. Hence why Im paying $7 a pack for cigarettes right now (until I quit that is :silly:) but what about people who cannot afford it? And healthier food is more expensive on the whole. I have been eating healthy for over a year now and my grocery bill is about $40 a week more to get the healthier foods. Poor people also tend to be drinkers and smokers. Is that fair to them? What about being taxed for lack of exercise during the day?

[CallMeGreen]

Actually yeah, I would be fine with paying an extra sales tax on things like alcohol or junk food. I would be fine with those taxes going back into healthcare initiatives.

But how would you draw the line to differentiate consumption levels? Would it be by body weight, or by using total volume?

Say you or I buying a single Big Mac, which in moderation isn't exactly lethal. But you being smaller than me should pay proportionately more since percentage-wise you're consuming less than me. Still, if neither of us are fast food abusers (not so in my case), why should we pay a penalty tax?

Then on the other side of that, Ms. Simpson won't pay anymore (proportionally) than me when someone brings her home a 24-pack of Big Macs.

[KDawg]

The real question is:

How much can this lady squat?!

[zoony]

But how would you draw the line to differentiate consumption levels? Would it be by body weight, or by using total volume?

Say you or I buying a single Big Mac, which in moderation isn't exactly lethal. But you being smaller than me should pay proportionately more since percentage-wise you're consuming less than me. Still, if neither of us are fast food abusers (not so in my case), why should we pay a penalty tax?

Then on the other side of that, Ms. Simpson won't pay anymore (proportionally) than me when someone brings her home a 24-pack of Big Macs.


I think it's a valid question.

What about the people with lightning fast metabolisms who eat the most unhealthy diet you can imagine but never gain weight? Do they get a free pass when they have a heart attack at 50 due to clogged arteries but were never overweight?


I do think though- to your Big Mac point- that a tax on really bad foods loaded with fat and calories and cholesterol and sodium and trans fats, etc. wouldn't be unfair at all. I mean, even if you are responsible about eating fast food, it's still bad for you.

Kind of like casual smoking

[pjfootballer]

She has her "heart" set on it, it remains to be seen if her "heart" will explode.

And how the hell much is 273 KG? Damn metric crap.

[KDawg]

She has her "heart" set on it, it remains to be seen if her "heart" will explode.

And how the hell much is 273 KG? Damn metric crap.

273 times 2.2 = 600.6 lbs

NICE! I bet with a little training she could squat a grand!!!

[Chachie]

easy to say that when you don't have to haul her ass to the morgue after she croaks. The deconstruction and labor alone will cost thousands.


I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from "What's Eating Gilbert Grape."

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Ok so every time you do something that is not considered the most healthy thing you can do, I want you to pay more. Every drink you have, Pay more. Every time you exercise less than you should, pay more. Everything you eat with over a certain amount of fat or calories, pay more. The list goes on. You cant decide that because someone makes unhealthy choices, they should pay more unless you are willing to pay more for every choice you make that is not optimizing your health. Otherwise, you are costing the healthcare system more money.

You're changing the argument around. Some governing body would come up with a list of things that carry risk (cigarettes, fast food, alcohol, etc.). Then, ANYONE who buys those goods at any time would pay the increased tax. So, if you eat fast food every day, you pay more. If you eat it once a month, you won't even notice the higher tax on it.

It's a pretty simple concept.

[LaxBuddy21]

You're changing the argument around. Some governing body would come up with a list of things that carry risk (cigarettes, fast food, alcohol, etc.). Then, ANYONE who buys those goods at any time would pay the increased tax. So, if you eat fast food every day, you pay more. If you eat it once a month, you won't even notice the higher tax on it.

It's a pretty simple concept.

Why is risk limited to products you buy and not things you do in your daily life? We are talking about increased cost of healthcare right? Whats to stop them from monitoring your daily activities and deciding based on your lifestyle, you are more or less at risk for poor health down the line? Anyone who does anything risky pays more. The government or the insurance companies get to define what is risky. We can make gay people pay more because of the increased risk of HIV (its a choice right? /sarcasm). Your BMI has to be at a certain level. You have to be at a certain level of cardio fitness. The list goes on. For everything you do that is deemed unhealthy, you should pay more right?

I think you let people make their own choices and live their own lives. We as a society take on the burden for our freedom as a collective. I get tired of people whining about paying for other peoples choices. That is what freedom is about! We live in this country because we value our freedom and freedom comes at a price and we should all be willing to do our part to make sure we have those freedoms. Because what if its your choice that becomes looked down upon next? What if you have to pay more because you like to do something that is not deemed good for you? When you create an imbalance in the risk to benefit ration by making people pay more for choices you dont agree with, you ultimately force people to do what you want and take away their choice.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Why is risk limited to products you buy and not things you do in your daily life? We are talking about increased cost of healthcare right? Whats to stop them from monitoring your daily activities and deciding based on your lifestyle, you are more or less at risk for poor health down the line? Anyone who does anything risky pays more. The government or the insurance companies get to define what is risky. We can make gay people pay more because of the increased risk of HIV (its a choice right? /sarcasm). Your BMI has to be at a certain level. You have to be at a certain level of cardio fitness. The list goes on. For everything you do that is deemed unhealthy, you should pay more right?

I think you let people make their own choices and live their own lives. We as a society take on the burden for our freedom as a collective. I get tired of people whining about paying for other peoples choices. That is what freedom is about! We live in this country because we value our freedom and freedom comes at a price and we should all be willing to do our part to make sure we have those freedoms. Because what if its your choice that becomes looked down upon next? What if you have to pay more because you like to do something that is not deemed good for you? When you create an imbalance in the risk to benefit ration by making people pay more for choices you dont agree with, you ultimately force people to do what you want and take away their choice.

One thing is easy to monitor (goods you buy that present a health risk) while the other is much, much more difficult (behaviors).

You still have the freedom to do whatever you want, you just have to pay more to do so. I don't think it's all that crazy an idea.

[zoony]

Why is risk limited to products you buy and not things you do in your daily life? We are talking about increased cost of healthcare right? Whats to stop them from monitoring your daily activities and deciding based on your lifestyle, you are more or less at risk for poor health down the line? Anyone who does anything risky pays more. The government or the insurance companies get to define what is risky. We can make gay people pay more because of the increased risk of HIV (its a choice right? /sarcasm). Your BMI has to be at a certain level. You have to be at a certain level of cardio fitness. The list goes on. For everything you do that is deemed unhealthy, you should pay more right?


Like most judgement calls, the solution tends to waver left and right of center a bit. Folks tend to use extremes to try to point out a flaw in the concept- but I think it gets to the point of ridiculousness fairly quickly.

For instance- the gov'ts definition of obscenity has a lot of gray area too. And while there is always debate over any ruling, rarely do you see the supreme court deciding that Michaelangelo is pornographic, etc. The definition "I know it when I see it" works here, too.


And the pendulum swings the opposite direction as well. I mean, should cigarettes not be taxed? Is it fair to me that my tax dollars go to pay out for people who are ****ing slobs and can't control their addictions?


I think that a compromise on a food tax could be reached rather easily. I don't think the gov't is going to start following folks around to see if they're exercising, that's a bit silly.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think that a compromise on a food tax could be reached rather easily. I don't think the gov't is going to start following folks around to see if they're exercising, that's a bit silly.

Thanks...that's the point I was trying to make. I get sick of the "slippery slope" argument you always read in these threads. It's almost like people don't want anyone to use common sense in these types of decisions anymore.

[LaxBuddy21]

One thing is easy to monitor (goods you buy that present a health risk) while the other is much, much more difficult (behaviors).

You still have the freedom to do whatever you want, you just have to pay more to do so. I don't think it's all that crazy an idea.

How is it freedom when the risk balance has been intentionally shifted? What is taking away your freedom then? I can go out and murder someone but I can go to jail if I do. That doesnt mean I do not have the freedom to do so. Your definition of freedom and mine are clearly different.

[LaxBuddy21]

Like most judgement calls, the solution tends to waver left and right of center a bit. Folks tend to use extremes to try to point out a flaw in the concept- but I think it gets to the point of ridiculousness fairly quickly.

For instance- the gov'ts definition of obscenity has a lot of gray area too. And while there is always debate over any ruling, rarely do you see the supreme court deciding that Michaelangelo is pornographic, etc. The definition "I know it when I see it" works here, too.

I think the government should provide the tools to restrict what kids see (ie ratings systems, only allowing certain channels to show it etc...) but I dont see the government making you pay more because a channel shows more violence or sexual situations nor should they. They are not affecting the balance in choice though. I still have the same risk ratio with or without the governments intervention.



And the pendulum swings the opposite direction as well. I mean, should cigarettes not be taxed? Is it fair to me that my tax dollars go to pay out for people who are ****ing slobs and can't control their addictions?

Cigarettes should be taxed the same as any other good or service is taxed. I am 100% in favor of a national sales tax for all goods and services. Choices should not be influenced by how the government taxes. And like I said before, we as a society take on the burden for our freedom. Is it fair that people have to go to other countries and die in war so you can have your freedom? You are not taking equal responsibility for what you get in return. Sometimes people give more, sometimes people give less but we all get the same freedom as a result. Its not about fair. Its about freedom.



I think that a compromise on a food tax could be reached rather easily. I don't think the gov't is going to start following folks around to see if they're exercising, that's a bit silly.

It would be easy to require people to get an annual physical and if they do not meet appropriate standards, they get taxed more. They used to test our fitness in school all the time.

[zoony]

I think the government should provide the tools to restrict what kids see (ie ratings systems, only allowing certain channels to show it etc...) but I dont see the government making you pay more because a channel shows more violence or sexual situations nor should they. They are not affecting the balance in choice though. I still have the same risk ratio with or without the governments intervention.



I'm with you to an extent- but my pragmatism wins out in the end. People know how unhealthy little debbie snack cakes and potato chips and fast food is.

Now, go to Wal Mart. Be prepared to see several dozen land whales loading their carts with oreos.

WE (you and I) get to pay for their **** habit and lack of self-control. Yay.

(however- I will say that full disclosure about what's in our food mandated by the gov't would be a great start at restaurants. Like the Outback Bloomin' Onion- 3000 calories. Something tells me sales would go down if they were required to put that info on the menu)




Cigarettes should be taxed the same as any other good or service is taxed. I am 100% in favor of a national sales tax for all goods and services. Choices should not be influenced by how the government taxes.

We just fundamentally disagree on this one.


And like I said before, we as a society take on the burden for our freedom. Is it fair that people have to go to other countries and die in war so you can have your freedom? You are not taking equal responsibility for what you get in return. Sometimes people give more, sometimes people give less but we all get the same freedom as a result. Its not about fair. Its about freedom.

I kind of get where you're going- but then I come back around to "is he really equating dying for your country to the 400 lbs fatass on the motorized cart at Wal Mart? I think he is" :)





It would be easy to require people to get an annual physical and if they do not meet appropriate standards, they get taxed more. They used to test our fitness in school all the time.


I might not be against this. I'd have to think about it

[Corcaigh]

One of the reasons unhealthy foods are so cheap is because of certain subsidies. Hand in hand with talk of taxes for unhealthy food we should look at eliminating subsidies and tariffs that drive over production of certain unhealthy food "stuffs" and push producers of healthy foods out of the market.

[zoony]

One of the reasons unhealthy foods are so cheap is because of certain subsidies. Hand in hand with talk of taxes for unhealthy food we should look at eliminating subsidies and tariffs that drive over production of certain unhealthy food "stuffs" and push producers of healthy foods out of the market.

now there's a good point.

But, I guess it depends on where the food goes. Corn subsidies for animal feed and ethanol is a great thing- corn syrup, not so much

[Winning Season Please!]

Clearly they don't. Clearly they haven't explicitly addressed such things in their reasonably well-thought out arguments. :ols:

Saying people can do what they want isn't a well-thought out argument. It is just stating "I can be an idiot if I want" and you can, but don't ask me to pay for it.


They're worth everything, because they're mine. And honestly, it's a dent. It's a dent in a dent in a dent. I'd rather have the rights to my own body than the rights to a few pennies in my pocket.

You should have the rights to your own body when it has no burden on anyone else.


more importantly who is going to take care of that 3 year old when she croaks? i mean can you imagine being this kid. your mom dies of heart failure and you're stuck with some pervert (not a 100% on this, but life partner met on a website for big women doesn't sound like parent of the year) to raise you?

and how do you raise a kid while "moving as little as possible?"

QFT, but remember, she has the right to do whatever she wants. :doh:


1000lb obesity is an outlier. And yes, obesity does affect healthcare costs. You're right. So do a million other behaviors that we don't scrutinize and criticize and rail against and try to regulate in spite of those regulations violating every sense of personal freedom we as free people are entitled to.



Yes their are many other things that we do that cause a burden on healthcare etc. and the question is if you draw a line, where do you draw it. I don't know, but I do know being fat and "trying to become the worlds fattest person" are 2 differnt things and the line is in there somewhere.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

How is it freedom when the risk balance has been intentionally shifted? What is taking away your freedom then? I can go out and murder someone but I can go to jail if I do. That doesnt mean I do not have the freedom to do so. Your definition of freedom and mine are clearly different.

I don't understand. On one hand, you're saying one is not free to buy cigarettes if they have to pay more money for them. On the other hand, you're saying someone is free to murder even if the consequence is going to prison.

To me, I see them as the same. You're free to spend more money on bad food or cigarettes just as you're "free" to kill someone and go to prison (I have a little issue with that analogy since, by definition, murder is NOT a freedom we have in this country).

[Special K]

Clearly you can afford it. I can too. Hence why Im paying $7 a pack for cigarettes right now (until I quit that is :silly:) but what about people who cannot afford it? And healthier food is more expensive on the whole. I have been eating healthy for over a year now and my grocery bill is about $40 a week more to get the healthier foods. Poor people also tend to be drinkers and smokers. Is that fair to them? What about being taxed for lack of exercise during the day?

I used to think that too. Then my first year in my grad. program we did a nutrition and exercise intervention program with HIV+ homeless patients.
Interestingly, with basically very little budget, we were able to design and implement a nutrition program using staple foods.
We were able have a variety of quite healthy, moderate meals. Interestingly, you don't have to buy from Whole Foods for your food to be healthy.

I don't 'buy' the junk food is cheaper shtick. The real problem is that there are many people who don't know exactly how to shop, preserve, and properly prepare food.


But how would you draw the line to differentiate consumption levels? Would it be by body weight, or by using total volume?

Say you or I buying a single Big Mac, which in moderation isn't exactly lethal. But you being smaller than me should pay proportionately more since percentage-wise you're consuming less than me. Still, if neither of us are fast food abusers (not so in my case), why should we pay a penalty tax?

Then on the other side of that, Ms. Simpson won't pay anymore (proportionally) than me when someone brings her home a 24-pack of Big Macs.

I would just put a flat sales tax on food items with a certain, predetermined nutritional content.

[Renegade7]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257850/Super-sized-mother-determined-worlds-fattest-woman-years.html

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLife/Reallifestories/eating-my-way-to-72st.aspx


By all accounts, this family is "normal", Donna grew up differently then the rest of us, and this doesn't need the government to come in to blow the whole thing up. The son is 18 (can leave), and the daughter, 3, isn't morbidly obese like her mother, nor being forced to or trying to be grossly overweight. I don't like that Phillipe (her fiance's and father of the daughter) is supporting her in this, mainly because this is going to kill Donna. 42 is around the age where everyone that reached close to her goal croaked, so even if he is a good parent, he's going to end up being a single father with the daughter caught in the middle.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/14/article-1257850-08B61DB7000005DC-25_634x498.jpg

This is such a rare-case of insanity, that'd I'd actually support legal protection for her health care provider to try and drop her, even if Obama's health care bill gets passed. Phillipe is a human resources executive, so between him and Donna's website, I'd like to see if they change their tune when the full-price medical bills start rolling through (which a lot of people are going through against their will). We can't just go around dropping people left and right souly because we don't agree with his or her lifestyle or it "cost me money"; while at the same time you can't tell me as a business that I'm forced to cover this woman going for a record like this.

[Special K]

Why is risk limited to products you buy and not things you do in your daily life? We are talking about increased cost of healthcare right? Whats to stop them from monitoring your daily activities and deciding based on your lifestyle, you are more or less at risk for poor health down the line? Anyone who does anything risky pays more. The government or the insurance companies get to define what is risky. We can make gay people pay more because of the increased risk of HIV (its a choice right? /sarcasm). Your BMI has to be at a certain level. You have to be at a certain level of cardio fitness. The list goes on. For everything you do that is deemed unhealthy, you should pay more right?

I think you let people make their own choices and live their own lives. We as a society take on the burden for our freedom as a collective. I get tired of people whining about paying for other peoples choices. That is what freedom is about! We live in this country because we value our freedom and freedom comes at a price and we should all be willing to do our part to make sure we have those freedoms. Because what if its your choice that becomes looked down upon next? What if you have to pay more because you like to do something that is not deemed good for you? When you create an imbalance in the risk to benefit ration by making people pay more for choices you dont agree with, you ultimately force people to do what you want and take away their choice.

You're making this an all-or-nothing argument and being unreasonable here. Those of us who may advocate junk food and/or alcohol taxes are not advocating that the government take over our lives. But it is easy to monitor and tax scientifically-proven unhealthy commodities. You want to indulge in crap, fine, you get to pay for it.

[LaxBuddy21]

I'm with you to an extent- but my pragmatism wins out in the end. People know how unhealthy little debbie snack cakes and potato chips and fast food is.

Now, go to Wal Mart. Be prepared to see several dozen land whales loading their carts with oreos.

WE (you and I) get to pay for their **** habit and lack of self-control. Yay.

(however- I will say that full disclosure about what's in our food mandated by the gov't would be a great start at restaurants. Like the Outback Bloomin' Onion- 3000 calories. Something tells me sales would go down if they were required to put that info on the menu)


And see I think that is their choice. I think we should educate them on healthy eating and the effects of the junk they eat but I dont think they should be taxed extra for eating it. They should have a choice not influenced by the government. Guess we just disagree on that one

[LaxBuddy21]

One of the reasons unhealthy foods are so cheap is because of certain subsidies. Hand in hand with talk of taxes for unhealthy food we should look at eliminating subsidies and tariffs that drive over production of certain unhealthy food "stuffs" and push producers of healthy foods out of the market.

I would love it if they made healthy choices as inexpensive as unhealthy ones. Then you truly do have a choice. Many people forgo healthy choices because of the budget they are on. I have no problem with fixing this issue at all.

[LaxBuddy21]

I don't understand. On one hand, you're saying one is not free to buy cigarettes if they have to pay more money for them. On the other hand, you're saying someone is free to murder even if the consequence is going to prison.

To me, I see them as the same. You're free to spend more money on bad food or cigarettes just as you're "free" to kill someone and go to prison (I have a little issue with that analogy since, by definition, murder is NOT a freedom we have in this country).

I am pointing out the hypocrisy in the argument. If you are saying I have freedom to buy cigarettes just because I can regardless of consequences (inflated price) then I have the freedom to murder regardless of consequences (jail time). Then what is not free? What am I honestly not free to do and why is America the land of the free? Freedom to me is having the choice to do whatever you want without being coerced. Raising prices on things is coercion. It takes away your free choice by causing a risk imbalance that the government has imposed.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I would love it if they made healthy choices as inexpensive as unhealthy ones. Then you truly do have a choice. Many people forgo healthy choices because of the budget they are on. I have no problem with fixing this issue at all.

Is that true though?

I buy Healthy Choice meals for less than $5 and bring them to work. I can't imagine too many value meals at McDonald's or Wendy's are any cheaper than that? Also, you can go and make a salad at many places for $6 per pound.

I think it's mostly a myth that fast food is considerably cheaper than good food.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I am pointing out the hypocrisy in the argument. If you are saying I have freedom to buy cigarettes just because I can regardless of consequences (inflated price) then I have the freedom to murder regardless of consequences (jail time). Then what is not free? What am I honestly not free to do and why is America the land of the free? Freedom to me is having the choice to do whatever you want without being coerced. Raising prices on things is coercion. It takes away your free choice by causing a risk imbalance that the government has imposed.

I think you're looking at it in too simplistic a way. Because we've been labeled the Land of the Free doesn't mean that the government has to sit back in every case and let this country go into the crapper.

[LaxBuddy21]

I used to think that too. Then my first year in my grad. program we did a nutrition and exercise intervention program with HIV+ homeless patients.
Interestingly, with basically very little budget, we were able to design and implement a nutrition program using staple foods.
We were able have a variety of quite healthy, moderate meals. Interestingly, you don't have to buy from Whole Foods for your food to be healthy.

I don't 'buy' the junk food is cheaper shtick. The real problem is that there are many people who don't know exactly how to shop, preserve, and properly prepare food.


So bread with no high fructose corn syrup does not cost more than regular bread? Mine sure does. Buying low fat foods as opposed to regular foods do not cost more? They sure do for me. Fresh fruits and veggies are affordable....sometimes. Have you seen the prices on some fruits? Clementines are our favorite but they are insanely priced at Giant and Bloom (the two stores close to my house). Plus, fresh fruits and veggies do not last that long. You can buy things cheaper in bulk but for only two of us, I cannot get perishable foods at Sams because they will spoil. Lean chicken breast cost more than thighs. Low fat ground beef is much more expensive than regular ground beef. The leaner the cut of meat, the more you pay. It goes on and on. I shop sales all the time. I dont buy overpriced things. I am an ok cook so you have me on the how to prepare things but thats because my cooking skills are limited...lol I grill a lot because its healthier. I eat steam fresh veggies because they do not go bad. I stay away from starch more than a couple times a week. I buy whole wheat everything. We have no junk food in our house. My grocery bill is still a lot more than it was before I started eating healthy. I really dont care if you buy the schtick or not because its a fact. Those foods are more expensive.

[LaxBuddy21]

You're making this an all-or-nothing argument and being unreasonable here. Those of us who may advocate junk food and/or alcohol taxes are not advocating that the government take over our lives. But it is easy to monitor and tax scientifically-proven unhealthy commodities. You want to indulge in crap, fine, you get to pay for it.

You are doing the same thing that others do. As long as it doesnt affect you much, who cares right? What if they start taxing what you like to do? What if they start thinking your choices are wrong? Would you be ok with it? Just because you dont agree with someones choice doesnt give you or the government the right to try and take it away from them or make them pay more otherwise you are missing the point of freedom and what it means.

[LaxBuddy21]

Is that true though?

I buy Healthy Choice meals for less than $5 and bring them to work. I can't imagine too many value meals at McDonald's or Wendy's are any cheaper than that? Also, you can go and make a salad at many places for $6 per pound.

I think it's mostly a myth that fast food is considerably cheaper than good food.

Considering I can get two double cheeseburgers for 2 bucks, I dont think you can beat that. Plus, you can get a can of Chef Boyardee for less thank a buck. I know because I used to eat them a lot when I was poor and in college lol. Ramen noodles are really really cheap. Tell me how you are going to eat healthy for cheaper than what those things cost? Its not a myth. What do you think a lean meal would cost you at McDonalds? If they served a lean ground beef hamburger on whole wheat with no high fructose corn syrup, what do you think that would cost?

[Special K]

So bread with no high fructose corn syrup does not cost more than regular bread? Mine sure does. Buying low fat foods as opposed to regular foods do not cost more? They sure do for me. Fresh fruits and veggies are affordable....sometimes. Have you seen the prices on some fruits? Clementines are our favorite but they are insanely priced at Giant and Bloom (the two stores close to my house). Plus, fresh fruits and veggies do not last that long. You can buy things cheaper in bulk but for only two of us, I cannot get perishable foods at Sams because they will spoil. Lean chicken breast cost more than thighs. Low fat ground beef is much more expensive than regular ground beef. The leaner the cut of meat, the more you pay. It goes on and on. I shop sales all the time. I dont buy overpriced things. I am an ok cook so you have me on the how to prepare things but thats because my cooking skills are limited...lol I grill a lot because its healthier. I eat steam fresh veggies because they do not go bad. I stay away from starch more than a couple times a week. I buy whole wheat everything. We have no junk food in our house. My grocery bill is still a lot more than it was before I started eating healthy. I really dont care if you buy the schtick or not because its a fact. Those foods are more expensive.
Well, first, you don't have to buy "low-fat" to be healthy. You can buy regular cheese and eat moderately. Sometimes some fruits and veggies are cheaper than others...usually we would buy the fruits and veggies on weekly specials and they were decent. Maybe we didn't get the exact fruits or veggies we were always looking for, but we were able to always incorporate them into healthy meals.
We would also buy meats on special. Also, if we saw specials on veggies, we'd buy them in bulk and freeze them. Basically, if you are open to going outside your regular rut meals, there are a ton of things someone can do to eat moderate proportions and fairly decently. Once you figure out how to shop, prepare, and save foods, its not too difficult to lead a moderate lifestyle that reduces risk of disease. Problem is is that in America people are generally too lazy...

[Special K]

You are doing the same thing that others do. As long as it doesnt affect you much, who cares right? What if they start taxing what you like to do? What if they start thinking your choices are wrong? Would you be ok with it? Just because you dont agree with someones choice doesnt give you or the government the right to try and take it away from them or make them pay more otherwise you are missing the point of freedom and what it means.

I think you must have missed my post about me being fine with junk food and alcohol taxes... Those most definitely would affect me...as I like to drink quite a bit of wine ;) and I love to have the occasional IN-N-OUT burger..fries...and chocolate milkshake. :)

[Mooka]

You're making this an all-or-nothing argument and being unreasonable here. Those of us who may advocate junk food and/or alcohol taxes are not advocating that the government take over our lives. But it is easy to monitor and tax scientifically-proven unhealthy commodities. You want to indulge in crap, fine, you get to pay for it. I understand your point but you are talking about a new federal regulation over the entire food industry. A line can't just be drawn at "crap" or junk food. Certainly not at fast food, which would only be targeted because its cheap.

You mention commodities for example. Soda is a proven unhealthy commodity; an onion is not, yet Outback can turn that onion into one of the unhealthiest dishes imaginable with some bread crumbs and oil.


Once you figure out how to shop, prepare, and save foods, its not too difficult to lead a moderate lifestyle that reduces risk of disease. Problem is is that in America people are generally too lazy... There are added costs you're not factoring in. Preparing and storing foods requires appliances, utensils, resources as in water/electricity/gas, etc.

[Skinz101]

800$ a week..How is that even possible....

[Special K]

I understand your point but you are talking about a new federal regulation over the entirei food industry. A line can't just be drawn at "crap" or junk food. Certainly not at fast food, which would only be targeted because its cheap.

You mention commodities for example. Soda is a proven unhealthy commodity; an onion is not, yet Outback can turn that onion into one of the unhealthiest dishes imaginable with some bread crumbs and oil.

There are added costs you're not factoring in. Preparing and storing foods requires appliances, utensils, resources as in water/electricity/gas, etc.

I mentioned in a previous post the parameters I would use to determine which food
commodities get taxed. I would set certain nutritional standards. Foods and drinks
that do not meet these standards receive a tax.

As far as the other part of your post, it takes gas and electricity and fridges and stoves to cook crap too...

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding this price "barrier" is use of food stamps. If someone falls into a certain income category, they can be eligible for food stamps. They
can use those stamps to buy staple foods.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that people are either too lazy, or are simply not informed as to how to make balanced
meals. Not everything HAS to be lowfat, skim, or organic to be considered healthy. For disease risk reduction, much has to do with moderation.

[LaxBuddy21]

I mentioned in a previous post the parameters I would use to determine which food
commodities get taxed. I would set certain nutritional standards. Foods and drinks
that do not meet these standards receive a tax.

As far as the other part of your post, it takes gas and electricity and fridges and stoves to cook crap too...

Also, one thing that hasn't been mentioned regarding this price "barrier" is use of food stamps. If someone falls into a certain income category, they can be eligible for food stamps. They
can use those stamps to buy staple foods.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that people are either too lazy, or are simply not informed as to how to make balanced
meals. Not everything HAS to be lowfat, skim, or organic to be considered healthy. For disease risk reduction, much has to do with moderation.

Do you know what its like to be a male working out trying to get your calories to a certain point while keeping your protein high enough, fat, carbs and sugars low enough for it to all be in the target range? If I didnt use low fat options, I would never be able to do it. I also happen to have a wife who is picky about what she will eat so that limits options as well. I have to make healthy things that she likes or its a waste.

[Special K]

Do you know what its like to be a male working out trying to get your calories to a certain point while keeping your protein high enough, fat, carbs and sugars low enough for it to all be in the target range? If I didnt use low fat options, I would never be able to do it. I also happen to have a wife who is picky about what she will eat so that limits options as well. I have to make healthy things that she likes or its a waste.
I'm talking about nutrition for disease risk reduction...not some perfect nutritional combination for maximal muscle growth. That is not the type of healthy eating being discussed.

And obviously I don't know what its like to be a male. My husband does however and he trains approx. 6 hours a day. And he is able to find good nutrition for cheap.


Like I said multiple times, it's not cost-prohibitive to eat decently and reduce risk of disease.

[Mooka]

I mentioned in a previous post the parameters I would use to determine which food
commodities get taxed. I would set certain nutritional standards. Foods and drinks
that do not meet these standards receive a tax. Again, you say commodities, but you're not trying to tax an onion until someone deep fries it.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to tax exactly. Food service? Retailers?

As far as nutritional standards, can you create a standard for a single meal? A snack? Aren't they based on a balance daily diet? (honest question, I have no idea)



As far as the other part of your post, it takes gas and electricity and fridges and stoves to cook crap too... Yes, but McDonalds already has those. All I need is a few bucks. I don't need utensils, napkins, condiments, a bathroom, etc.

[Hunter44]

800$ a week..How is that even possible....

Right?? I want to know what kind of loser pays to watch a fat person eat?? :ols: Just go to a food court at the mall and you can watch it for free. :silly:

[Special K]

Again, you say commodities, but you're not trying to tax an onion until someone deep fries it.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to tax exactly. Food service? Retailers?

As far as nutritional standards, can you create a standard for a single meal? A snack? Aren't they based on a balance daily diet? (honest question, I have no idea)


Yes, but McDonalds already has those. All I need is a few bucks. I don't need utensils, napkins, condiments, a bathroom, etc.

Your McDonald example displays the laziness I am talking about.

And the taxes would be on the consumers.

As far as the nutritional parameters used to decide what gets taxed...that would be something I would let the experts discuss.

[LaxBuddy21]

I'm talking about nutrition for disease risk reduction...not some perfect nutritional combination for maximal muscle growth. That is not the type of healthy eating being discussed.

And obviously I don't know what its like to be a male. My husband does however and he trains approx. 6 hours a day. And he is able to find good nutrition for cheap.


Like I said multiple times, it's not cost-prohibitive to eat decently and reduce risk of disease.

Weight loss is risk reduction for disease. Obesity is one of the biggest factors. Muscle growth is part of weight loss and overall fitness. Im not trying to be a body builder. Im trying to get a nice muscle build and lose excess fat. It is cost prohibitive for many people. Eating better foods overall costs more money than eating junk does. I can get so much more junk for what I spend on my healthy food.

[Heidenreich]

If you want to charge me a little more to eat at McDonalds or Burger king or Chipotle, so be it.

I draw the line at the soda tax. If I want a cold Pepsi on a hot day, it shouldn't cost me an extra quarter.

[Braxford]

She makes money by having a website where people pay to watch her eat fast food?? I am no saint but the sickness of some in society is almost unimaginable.

[Burgundy Burner]

There was some seismic activity in New Jersey today.

[Hunter44]

If you want to charge me a little more to eat at McDonalds or Burger king or Chipotle, so be it.

I draw the line at the soda tax. If I want a cold Pepsi on a hot day, it shouldn't cost me an extra quarter.

I think the soda tax is geared towards the person who drinks a few liters a day. Just like the alcohol tax. It doesn't hurt most people cause they may only drink a few beers a week but someone who drinks nothing but beer should pay for their eventual hospital care.

I'm all for a twinkie tax!! :silly: I don't eat twinkies...

[Hunter44]

She makes money by having a website where people pay to watch her eat fast food?? I am no saint but the sickness of some in society is almost unimaginable.

Who do you think is sicker? Her for being so disgusting or the people who get off watching that?? :ols:

[Heidenreich]

I think the soda tax is geared towards the person who drinks a few liters a day. Just like the alcohol tax. It doesn't hurt most people cause they may only drink a few beers a week but someone who drinks nothing but beer should pay for their eventual hospital care.

I'm all for a twinkie tax!! :silly: I don't eat twinkies...


Thats the rub. I cut out a lot of **** (chips, candy, fast food) to get to where I am today. I'm in very good shape, but Pepsi is my vice. I drink a 20 oz at work every day, then have another glass with dinner.

[Special K]

Weight loss is risk reduction for disease. Obesity is one of the biggest factors. Muscle growth is part of weight loss and overall fitness. Im not trying to be a body builder. Im trying to get a nice muscle build and lose excess fat. It is cost prohibitive for many people. Eating better foods overall costs more money than eating junk does. I can get so much more junk for what I spend on my healthy food.

You don't have to workout at a gym and drink protein shakes to lose weight.

In our study of the HIV+ patients, we educated them on how to cook and eat nutritious foods such as eating more salads, not deep frying everything, etc. We also showed
them different exercises they could do at home since they could not afford gym memberships and even exercising around their neighborhoods could be dangerous.

So, while I enjoy my gym membership and my husband likes to down protein shakes like they are going out of style, these
things aren't a requirement for leading a moderately healthy lifestyle that reduces one's risk for chronic disease.

[HighOnHendrix]

Wait, what? What is wrong with you people? I'm not advocating communism or totalitarianism.

I'm saying if people are placing a burden on others, they should have to sacrifice. Smokers pay high taxes on tobacco products, I would like to see something like this applied to
things like fast food or alcohol. I'm not saying people CAN'T do these things, I simply think they should pay a higher percentage of the healthcare burden since statistics show these individuals
place a larger burden on our system.

What is wrong with you? Don't you understand that placing a tax on something is the first step toward outlawing such behavior? Especially when it's something as basic as food, just because you disapprove of the type of food. I'm sure you would be fine with that because the ends justifies the means, but I see it as another step on the road to complete government control. Also, I think you are exaggerating the burden placed on healthcare by overweight persons. Since you love to point out the statistics involved with that, perhaps you could dig up numbers on how many people have heart attacks because they overexerted themselves jogging or biking. Or because they had an undiagnosed heart condition/defect. Ditto any other number of behaviors that may be "risky" and end up needing medical treatment thereby increasing healthcare costs. Should those people also be taxed/restricted from "risky" behaviors? Where does it end? Your attitude is contributing to the erosion of our personal freedoms, albeit in a minor piddly way - but still.

My wife is an RN who has worked ER at various times in her career. In her experience most of the people coming in with heart attacks were not obese. They were often average sized and were running or working out (things that are supposedly healthy for you) when they started feeling pain. So fat does not = heart attack. Fat contributes to things like that, but is rarely the root cause.

[Special K]

What is wrong with you? Don't you understand that placing a tax on something is the first step toward outlawing such behavior? Especially when it's something as basic as food, just because you disapprove of the type of food. I'm sure you would be fine with that because the ends justifies the means, but I see it as another step on the road to complete government control. Also, I think you are exaggerating the burden placed on healthcare by overweight persons. Since you love to point out the statistics involved with that, perhaps you could dig up numbers on how many people have heart attacks because they overexerted themselves jogging or biking. Or because they had an undiagnosed heart condition/defect. Ditto any other number of behaviors that may be "risky" and end up needing medical treatment thereby increasing healthcare costs. Should those people also be taxed/restricted from "risky" behaviors? Where does it end? Your attitude is contributing to the erosion of our personal freedoms, albeit in a minor piddly way - but still.

My wife is an RN who has worked ER at various times in her career. In her experience most of the people coming in with heart attacks were not obese. They were often average sized and were running or working out (things that are supposedly healthy for you) when they started feeling pain. So fat does not = heart attack. Fat contributes to things like that, but is rarely the root cause.
When I am able to get Internet on something besides my stupid phone, I'd be more than happy to provide you with research proving the burden obesity-RELATED diseases place on our healthcare system.

Since your wife is an RN, I'm sure she can explain to you that obesity is actually tied to a number of diseases, not just cardiovascular disease, which heart attacks are one of the problems caused by CAD. Obesity is also related to other health issues like...diabetes, strokes, and many other issues.

Bottom line, I'm not just talking about heart attacks. And I'm not advocating government control :rolleyes:
I'm advocating something like what we currently do with cigarettes, which ALSO place a significant burden on our healthcare system.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You don't have to workout at a gym and drink protein shakes to lose weight.



Exactly. I've recently dropped 15 pounds in 3-4 months simply by eating less, doing pushups/situps, and doing jumping jacks while I watch TV. No gyms, no shakes, no expensive diet foods.

Some points in this thread are getting skewed because people want to have their cake and eat it too. I applaud anyone who has the luxury, time, etc. to belong to a gym, go every day, prepare meals geared toward optimizing caloric intake, etc. However, that is not really the people we are discussing or the point of this thread.

The majority of people however are just trying to eat 3 meals a day. And the fact is, you can eat healthy just as inexpensively as you can eat unhealthy. And, if you want to eat unhealthy sometimes (we all do), eat less of it. No one is making you buy 2 Big Macs...buy 1. Then, on the next day, go to Taco Bell and eat a bean burrito or two (cheaper AND much healthier).

[LaxBuddy21]

When I am able to get Internet on something besides my stupid phone, I'd be more than happy to provide you with research proving the burden obesity-RELATED diseases place on our healthcare system.

Since your wife is an RN, I'm sure she can explain to you that obesity is actually tied to a number of diseases, not just cardiovascular disease, which heart attacks are one of the problems caused by CAD. Obesity is also related to other health issues like...diabetes, strokes, and many other issues.

Bottom line, I'm not just talking about heart attacks. And I'm not advocating government control :rolleyes:
I'm advocating something like what we currently do with cigarettes, which ALSO place a significant burden on our healthcare system.

I really do not understand how you cannot see the slippery slope you are on. When the government starts controlling things that cost the system more or are unhealthy it leads to more and more government control over your daily life. Gays are at a higher risk for HIV. HIV cost the system a lot of money because of the long term use of HAART and the increased risk for other diseases such as luekemia and lymphoma. Should we tax gays more? But they are costing the health system more! Ever seen the movie Demolition Man? If not, you should. That is the direction we are going the more and more you let the government decide what is right and good for Americans. And dont try and say they are not taking away our choice because they certainly are. Technically, I can choose to do absolutely anything I want. There is no such thing as a lack of freedom under that argument. As long as I can do it, I am free right? Restriction of freedom is a result of consequences being added to a choice. Costing more money is a consequence just like going to jail is. If you raise the cost enough, you eliminate ones ability to choose because they simply cannot afford it. In this case, you take the choice away from poor people more so than anyone.

[LaxBuddy21]

Exactly. I've recently dropped 15 pounds in 3-4 months simply by eating less, doing pushups/situps, and doing jumping jacks while I watch TV. No gyms, no shakes, no expensive diet foods.

Some points in this thread are getting skewed because people want to have their cake and eat it too. I applaud anyone who has the luxury, time, etc. to belong to a gym, go every day, prepare meals geared toward optimizing caloric intake, etc. However, that is not really the people we are discussing or the point of this thread.

The majority of people however are just trying to eat 3 meals a day. And the fact is, you can eat healthy just as inexpensively as you can eat unhealthy. And, if you want to eat unhealthy sometimes (we all do), eat less of it. No one is making you buy 2 Big Macs...buy 1. Then, on the next day, go to Taco Bell and eat a bean burrito or two (cheaper AND much healthier).

First off, eating healthy is more expensive. Foods with preservatives cost less than fresh foods because they last longer. Foods with no high fructose corn syrup cost more because of the extra effort. Lean meats cost more because of the extra effort. Sure, I could eat tuna and frozen veggies every single day and eat pretty cheap. But to eat a diverse diet of healthy foods flat out costs more any way you look at it.

Now, of course you can lose some weight without going to the gym. Im not talking about that. I dont buy expensive diet foods. I buy regular foods but healthier versions. My bread costs twice what a normal loaf of bread costs because its whole wheat and has no high fructose corn syrup in it. Its not special diet food, its wheat bread. The only thing I buy special is my milk. I dont like regular skim milk. Organic skim milk taste richer and thicker (more like 2%) so I suck it up and pay the extra money for it because I can drink milk with no fat in it that way. I buy low fat cheese (cost more). Ever look at low fat hot dogs? They cost twice as much as regular hot dogs. Lean chicken breast? A lot more than some thighs and legs. Thats just how it is.

My consumption has to be at a certain level for me to lose weight. I have to eat enough calories to lose weight. I have cut my consumption back as far as I can. I actually had to start eating more to lose weight because I was too far below my maintenance level and my body goes into starvation mode and refuses to burn fat. The only fast food I really eat is subway once a week. Some people lose weight easier than others. I also work out 3-4 days a week. Its taken me a lot of time to lose weight. So, I would love to see you come in and adjust my diet so i just eat less and lose weight since thats your magical solution right?

[Heidenreich]

First off, eating healthy is more expensive. Foods with preservatives cost less than fresh foods because they last longer. Foods with no high fructose corn syrup cost more because of the extra effort. Lean meats cost more because of the extra effort. Sure, I could eat tuna and frozen veggies every single day and eat pretty cheap. But to eat a diverse diet of healthy foods flat out costs more any way you look at it.

Now, of course you can lose some weight without going to the gym. Im not talking about that. I dont buy expensive diet foods. I buy regular foods but healthier versions. My bread costs twice what a normal loaf of bread costs because its whole wheat and has no high fructose corn syrup in it. Its not special diet food, its wheat bread. The only thing I buy special is my milk. I dont like regular skim milk. Organic skim milk taste richer and thicker (more like 2%) so I suck it up and pay the extra money for it because I can drink milk with no fat in it that way. I buy low fat cheese (cost more). Ever look at low fat hot dogs? They cost twice as much as regular hot dogs. Lean chicken breast? A lot more than some thighs and legs. Thats just how it is.

My consumption has to be at a certain level for me to lose weight. I have to eat enough calories to lose weight. I have cut my consumption back as far as I can. I actually had to start eating more to lose weight because I was too far below my maintenance level and my body goes into starvation mode and refuses to burn fat. The only fast food I really eat is subway once a week. Some people lose weight easier than others. I also work out 3-4 days a week. Its taken me a lot of time to lose weight. So, I would love to see you come in and adjust my diet so i just eat less and lose weight since thats your magical solution right?


If you have to eat a certain amount of calories, why would you buy leaner meats or whole wheat bread in the first place? Have a normal steak/chicken breast. Or a sandwich on white bread. You're eating the same amount, and getting the extra calories you say you need.

[Special K]

I really do not understand how you cannot see the slippery slope you are on. When the government starts controlling things that cost the system more or are unhealthy it leads to more and more government control over your daily life. Gays are at a higher risk for HIV. HIV cost the system a lot of money because of the long term use of HAART and the increased risk for other diseases such as luekemia and lymphoma. Should we tax gays more? But they are costing the health system more! Ever seen the movie Demolition Man? If not, you should. That is the direction we are going the more and more you let the government decide what is right and good for Americans. And dont try and say they are not taking away our choice because they certainly are. Technically, I can choose to do absolutely anything I want. There is no such thing as a lack of freedom under that argument. As long as I can do it, I am free right? Restriction of freedom is a result of consequences being added to a choice. Costing more money is a consequence just like going to jail is. If you raise the cost enough, you eliminate ones ability to choose because they simply cannot afford it. In this case, you take the choice away from poor people more so than anyone.
You're right, I need to watch Demolition Man and really rethink my stance on consumption taxes. However, I think I need to watch "Philadelphia" first in order to bette understand your point regarding taxing GAYS.

Seriously, can you really not discern the difference between a sales tax on certain foods and TAXING HOMOSEXUALS???

[Spec138]

I hate hearing the whole "eating healthy is too expensive" argument. I'm a college student and I can afford to eat healthy. Bread, lunch meat, a few vegetables and fruit aren't that damn expensive. It's such a lazy excuse. Fast food is way more expensive than making your own meals.

[zoony]

okay, here's what I ate yesterday:

Breakfast:
Oatmeal, glass of OJ, coffee

Lunch:
Avocado, Cottage Cheese, Whole Wheat English Muffin (I know, random but good)

Dinner:
Chicken Breast, salad, baked potato w/ ketchup



Dessert:
Bowl of Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch (guilty pleasure)




How is that expensive? Fast food for those three meals would have been $15-20

[KDawg]

Eating healthy gets expensive when you pack in 150+g of protein a day. Protein is not cheap :)

But it's still not that bad.

[zoony]

Eating healthy gets expensive when you pack in 150+g of protein a day. Protein is not cheap :)

But it's still not that bad.

Jeeeesus- wtf would anyone need that kind of protein for? You training for the olympics? :)


That's like... 25 eggs a day

[LaxBuddy21]

You're right, I need to watch Demolition Man and really rethink my stance on consumption taxes. However, I think I need to watch "Philadelphia" first in order to bette understand your point regarding taxing GAYS.

Seriously, can you really not discern the difference between a sales tax on certain foods and TAXING HOMOSEXUALS???

I didnt say there was not a difference. Its a slippery slope that leads in that direction. You start taxing people for this then you start taxing them for anything else thats considered risky behavior in regards to your health. The government should not have any influence on your personal choices and your personal freedom. Its not up to the government to decide whats best for you.

[LaxBuddy21]

okay, here's what I ate yesterday:

Breakfast:
Oatmeal, glass of OJ, coffee

Lunch:
Avocado, Cottage Cheese, Whole Wheat English Muffin (I know, random but good)

Dinner:
Chicken Breast, salad, baked potato w/ ketchup



Dessert:
Bowl of Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch (guilty pleasure)

ETA: I eat a snack when i get home which is usually a turkey burger or some kind of veggie burger.


How is that expensive? Fast food for those three meals would have been $15-20

I dont eat anything extravagant either.

Breakfast:

Cereal w/fat free milk, egg whites, whole wheat toast (with no high fructose corn syrup)

Lunch

Sandwich w/ lean lunch meat, low fat cheese and whole wheat bread (with no high fructose corn syrup), unsweetened apple sauce and high protein granola bar

Dinner

Lean meat grilled, veggies or salad and an occasional starch

Dessert

Weight watchers ice cream thingy

All I buy is food for breakfast lunch and dinner plus like some chips and salsa for snacks. My wife gets whatever low fat frozen lunches are on sale. Other than that, she eats what I eat. I always buy a case of water and a bottle or two of diet soda and some juice. Thats my grocery shopping trip. When I switched to eating healthy food versus eating junk, my grocery bill went up almost $40 a week. The stuff is more expensive no matter how you look at it. I could eat Chef Boyardee and ramen noodles for a heck of a lot cheaper. Im not talking about fast food but you could also eat off the dollar menu at McDonalds for a lot cheaper as well.

[LaxBuddy21]

Jeeeesus- wtf would anyone need that kind of protein for? You training for the olympics? :)


That's like... 25 eggs a day

You are supposed to eat 1g of protein per pound of body weight when you are lifting although I never get close to that....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If you have to eat a certain amount of calories, why would you buy leaner meats or whole wheat bread in the first place? Have a normal steak/chicken breast. Or a sandwich on white bread. You're eating the same amount, and getting the extra calories you say you need.

Because then he couldn't claim that he needs to pay more for food. :ols:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You are supposed to eat 1g of protein per pound of body weight when you are lifting although I never get close to that....

That must be why Rocky used to drink raw eggs...wow, that's a lot of protein!

[CallMeGreen]

I've re-thought this whole subject, the original point, not all the subsequent taxation discussions.

Let's get this lady booked on Dr. Phil and call it a day. I'm convinced she's so overweight she probably feels it's easier to go for an all-time record than to try a weight reduction plan. She'd really like to be a more appropriate weight but thinks that it's unattainable, just my guess.

[alexnaini]

I am not sure if you are interested, but I am reaching out to local bloggers :-)

Come meet Jason Campbell, Lorenzo Alexander, Kedric Golston, and the Washington Redskins Thursday March 25 from 6-10pm. Tickets are sold online, $45 Open Bar, come take pics, bring your jerseys to get signed, tickets are going fast! https://secure.acceptiva.com/?cst=2381f9

Let me know if you'd like to see the facebook invite as well...would be great to have you and your followers!

Alex

[LaxBuddy21]

Because then he couldn't claim that he needs to pay more for food. :ols:

Or because I have to eat more calories without raising my fat intake. An effective diet should be within certain ranges for calories, protein, fat, sugars etc... Its not just about eating more. Its about eating more of the right foods.

[zoony]

something smells like day old spam.

I think I'll take the trash out :)

[Prosperity]

Dessert:
Bowl of Peanut Butter Cap'n Crunch (guilty pleasure)



that stuff is delicious, almost as good as Reeses cereal

[zoony]

that stuff is delicious, almost as good as Reeses cereal

I've tried the Reeses- didn't do it for me. I'll have to check it out again