Dying too young: Deaths among middle-aged adults reversing life expectancy trends

[weatMod]

So it seems the Liberal fantasies of stating that being obese is healthy and that we should legalize drug use is really paying off. NBC is reporting about how the life expectancy of Americans is dropping and that these "excess deaths" — that is, people who die years and even decades before they're expected to is a distinctly American phenomenon. They go about listing various causes, but they all fact back on lack of exercise, lack of proper nutrition and substance abuse. You know, the stuff CNN posts monthly about claiming stuff like obesity is the new normal and it's perfectly healthy and okay to be fat, or that a bad diet doesn't make you obese, or you can exercise as much as humanly possibly and you won't lose weight or that legalizing dangerous drugs in is a good thing (or that it's a bad thing that private schools are drug testing kids).

NBC then tries to dive into the psychological thought process of the people destroying their lives and the economic reasoning behind their thought patterns, but at the end of the day, regardless of why people are motivated to abuse drugs, drink a lot, not exercise and eat like shit thus ending up depressed and in turn killing themselves (pro-tip: they're miserable for choosing to do participate in these negative behaviors) all of these are the choices in the end that are killing off the general public. The solution is pretty simple when you think about it - stop choosing to participate in negative behaviors.

Hey, Liberal Americas. You're simply asking for it. Maybe you should "woke up" a bit?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ng-middle-aged-adults-reversing-life-n1091316

by no means liberal here
" Liberal fantasies of stating that being obese is healthy and that we should legalize drug use is really paying off."

no it is because of prohibition that people are dying
if opiates were legal people would not be dying from them

opiates are the main reason for the drop in the life expectancy average
in some European countries they distribute heroin to addicts and they don't have these problems

 

[cots]

depressino can cause ppl to be obese too I'm one of them and i don't do drugs on the contrary i want to experiment with CBD to try to combat my bi polar type 2 (yes bi polar has 2 classifications type 2 has mania depression and agression type one has no agression)

Yes, depression by nature makes people inactive (they don't want to exercise) and some resort to eating lots of bad food as a ways to deal with those bad feelings. So if you're depressed and not active then you're probably going to gain weight. I've dealt with depression and still do, but I've made enough of those psychological changes I mentioned thus forcing my brain to not make the "feel bad" chemicals. So it's easier to be active when you change your behavior and stop doing things that make you feel bad. If you can overlook the entire "faith" aspect out of the origin of "sins" you'll realize that this stuff was figured out 2,000 years ago. Certain behaviors and thought patterns will end up making you feel bad. Maybe having 3 different sexual partners, cheating on your wife of smoking a few joints a day doesn't make you feel like shit in the short term, but all of the "sins" will end you up in a situation where you're going to be feeling "bad" in the long term. Seeings at eating too much is a sin and we see the results of overeating you can see where I'm coming from.

So if you change the way you think and stop participating in behaviors that produce negative outcomes then you're going to feel better. It's hard to "get going" because it requires you to make a lot of changes (like stop sinning, exercising, eating better, quit doing substances), but every little positive change you make will bring you closer to feeling better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

by no means liberal here
" Liberal fantasies of stating that being obese is healthy and that we should legalize drug use is really paying off."

no it is because of prohibition that people are dying
if opiates were legal people would not be dying from them

opiates are the main reason for the drop in the life expectancy average
in some European countries they distribute heroin to addicts and they don't have these problems

Deadly drugs are the reason. When you die from a heroin overdose the Doctor doesn't state your cause of death as "Failed Prohibition" or "They purchased it legally from the store". Some drugs just kill people. Do you know the average life expectancy of a heroin addict? How about someone that does meth? People who chose to become addicted to deadly substances are more than likely going to die from doing them regardless of how or where they obtain them from. So you can buy gasoline legally. What happens to persons brain that huffs gas on a daily basis? Do you know the ingredients in meth? Do you know what heroin does to the internal organs in your body? It's not like legalizing marijuana is going to stop or cut down on people becoming addicted to it. On the contrary, you're going to have more people that experiment with addictive drugs thus the result will end up you're going to have more drug addicts. Luckily, the LD level of marijuana is extremely high. You'll die from lung cancer caused by the drug long before you overdose from it (fun fact - marijuana contains more cancer causing substances than tobacco in it when smoked).

 

[weatMod]

Yes, depression by nature makes people inactive (they don't want to exercise) and some resort to eating lots of bad food as a ways to deal with those bad feelings. So if you're depressed and not active then you're probably going to gain weight. I've dealt with depression and still do, but I've made enough of those psychological changes I mentioned thus forcing my brain to not make the "feel bad" chemicals. So it's easier to be active when you change your behavior and stop doing things that make you feel bad. If you can overlook the entire "faith" aspect out of the origin of "sins" you'll realize that this stuff was figured out 2,000 years ago. Certain behaviors and thought patterns will end up making you feel bad. Maybe having 3 different sexual partners, cheating on your wife of smoking a few joints a day doesn't make you feel like shit in the short term, but all of the "sins" will end you up in a situation where you're going to be feeling "bad" in the long term. Seeings at eating too much is a sin and we see the results of overeating you can see where I'm coming from.

So if you change the way you think and stop participating in behaviors that produce negative outcomes then you're going to feel better. It's hard to "get going" because it requires you to make a lot of changes (like stop sinning, exercising, eating better, quit doing substances), but every little positive change you make will bring you closer to feeling better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Deadly drugs are the reason. When you die from a heroin overdose the Doctor doesn't state your cause of death as "Failed Prohibition" or "They purchased it legally from the store". Some drugs just kill people. Do you know the average life expectancy of a heroin addict? How about someone that does meth? People who chose to become addicted to deadly substances are more than likely going to die from doing them regardless of how or where they obtain them from. It's not like legalizing marijuana is going to stop or cut down on people becoming addicted to it. On the contrary, you're going to have more people that experiment with addictive drugs thus the result will end up you're going to have more drug addicts.

meth will kill you yes
but you can use opiates and live into old age , they are not deadly
Dr.s prescribe opiates and they are safe
they only become deadly when the black market is involved and there is no way to measure the dose
and because of the lifestyle the black market promotes
people can live to their 90's who are prescribed oxycontin ,
the main cause of death is opiate overdose, if opiates were legal full stop , and users got unadulterated properly measure doses overdoses and deaths would drop by 90% ,

 

[cots]

meth will kill you yes
but you can use opiates and live into old age , they are not deadly
Dr.s prescribe opiates and they are safe
they only become deadly when the black market is involved and there is no way to measure the dose
and because of the lifestyle the black market promotes
people can live to their 90's who are prescribed oxycontin ,
the main cause of death is opiate overdose, if opiates were legal full stop , and users got unadulterated properly measure doses overdoses and deaths would drop by 90% ,

A controlled pharmaceutical grade dose given to someone who is responsible and not addicted to a drug that is taking it because they are in physical pain may not kill them in the short term, but opiates do have a negative impact on the internal body organs. What you're forgetting to realize that people who shoot up heroin are addicted to the drug and the drug itself is highly addictive (both physical and psychological). It's not a safe substance and it's not something that should be available for anyone to simply pick up in a pharmacy to use for recreational purposes. You do realize that most people that inject heroin once become addicted to it and that addictions destroy lives? I also understand your point of how drug dealers "cut" heroin with other substances. You could be a first time heroin user, buy it off the street and it ends up having been cut with something that causes you to have a heart attack and you die. I aware of these things, but I'm talking about 100% pure heroin that was created from the opiate poppy. Btw - Synthetic heroin is also much worse for the human body than the real stuff is.

Let me ask you this. How much time have you spent around heroin addicts? If you've have extensive experience with them then answering the next two questions should be really easy - (1) How many times have they robbed you? (2) How many times have they almost died to to (a) lack of being able to afford their daily dose (b) purposely taking too much to get "higher than the last time"?

Was sending people to prison for their addictions, even though they chose to become addicted the wrong thing to do? Yes.

Would the solution to the deadly drug epidemic just be "hand out deadly drugs to anyone that wants them". Hell no.

 

[Deleted User]

So it seems the Liberal fantasies of stating that being obese is healthy and that we should legalize drug use is really paying off. NBC is reporting about how the life expectancy of Americans is dropping and that these "excess deaths" — that is, people who die years and even decades before they're expected to is a distinctly American phenomenon. They go about listing various causes, but they all fact back on lack of exercise, lack of proper nutrition and substance abuse. You know, the stuff CNN posts monthly about claiming stuff like obesity is the new normal and it's perfectly healthy and okay to be fat, or that a bad diet doesn't make you obese, or you can exercise as much as humanly possibly and you won't lose weight or that legalizing dangerous drugs in is a good thing (or that it's a bad thing that private schools are drug testing kids).

NBC then tries to dive into the psychological thought process of the people destroying their lives and the economic reasoning behind their thought patterns, but at the end of the day, regardless of why people are motivated to abuse drugs, drink a lot, not exercise and eat like shit thus ending up depressed and in turn killing themselves (pro-tip: they're miserable for choosing to do participate in these negative behaviors) all of these are the choices in the end that are killing off the general public. The solution is pretty simple when you think about it - stop choosing to participate in negative behaviors.

Hey, Liberal Americas. You're simply asking for it. Maybe you should "woke up" a bit?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ng-middle-aged-adults-reversing-life-n1091316

First formost, hasty generalization. Making it sound like it's all.
second off. NOT A SINGLE SOUL, no one, no REASONABLE, that's your keyword, REASONABLE PERSON(reasonable having education), Believe that we can eat without consequences. (drugs included) This isn't (it being "fat is okay" which I have so many issues with that statement) something "taught in schools" as I know was a narrative you pushed previously that liberals taken over schools. It's (it being "okay to be fat") the complete opposite. Literately my school is one of the most liberal one's and we have fucking education in how to eat better/healthier. Avoid High-fructose corn syrup, what to eat and what not to eat. Tl;Dr stay away from the processed shit.
We grow our own food, at the school, and then use said food in the kitchen for the lunches.
And there's misconception that I've noticed between conservatives. and that it's either people are fat because of drugs, or because they don't exercise enough and eat too much.
billpong made a post about weight and shit as well. And I brought up to him that there's more than just calories in and calories burned, genetics can play a large role in it, and onto of that other things that make it easier to gain weight. Intense stress for long periods of time is known to cause weight gain. Bad sleeping habits also cause weight gain. More specifically related to the circadian rhythm. Which I also must add everyone's circadian rhythm is slightly to greatly different. Depending on that alone, could shape how weight is influenced. Because we live in a society that does not favor nightowls, or people who's circadian rhythm is built to stay up late. It causes hormones and other things to get released at the wrong time for those who are practically experiencing jet lag. Inducing again, weight gain. Calories is part of the picture (and definitely drugs, but again, most reasonable people wouldn't dare touch them), but I'm assuming given that billpong greatly underestimated, that your equally underestimating that you will as well.

 

[cots]

First formost, hasty generalization. Making it sound like it's all.
second off. NOT A SINGLE SOUL, no one, no REASONABLE, that's your keyword, REASONABLE PERSON(reasonable having education), Believe that we can eat without consequences. This isn't (it being "fat is okay" which I have so many issues with that statement) something "taught in schools" as I know was a narrative you pushed previously that liberals taken over schools. It's (it being "okay to be fat") the complete opposite. Literately my school is one of the most liberal one's and we have fucking education in how to eat better/healthier. Avoid High-fructose corn syrup, what to eat and what not to eat. Tl;Dr stay away from the processed shit.
We grow our own food, at the school, and then said food in the kitchen for the lunches.
And there's misconception that I've noticed between conservatives. and that it's either people are fat because of drugs, or because they don't exercise enough and eat too much.
billpong made a post about weight and shit as well. And I brought up to him that there's more than just calories in and calories burned, genetics can play a large role in it, and onto of that other things that make it easier to gain weight. Intense stress for long periods of time is known to cause weight gain. Bad sleeping habits also cause weight gain. More specifically related to the circadian rhythm. Which I also must add everyone's circadian rhythm is slightly to greatly different. Depending on that alone, could shape how weight is influenced. Because we live in a society that does not favor nightowls, or people who's circadian rhythm is built to stay up late. It causes hormones and other things to get released at the wrong time for those who are practically experiencing jet lag. Inducing again, weight gain. Calories is part of the picture, but I'm assuming given that billpong greatly underestimated, that your equally underestimating that as you will as well.

I never said Liberals had sunken their teeth into the education system when related to nutrition. Luckily, CNN reporters (more like self labeled tabloid editors) don't work for the FDA nor would ever make it through the front door.

As for the rest of your "bad habits". Sure, minor things like genetics play a small part in how much exercise and dieting it takes to control your weight. Luckily, all you have to do is just find a good balance between what you eat and how much you exercise and all of your excuses can be mitigated. Example, your genetic makeup gave you a slower metabolism. So the solution is you have to exercise more then other people. Problem solved. You're also right that always doesn't have to do with calories in and calories burned - if you look at the Keto diet calories play a very small role in gaining or losing weight. Under Keto calories simply don't matter. However, if you're on a carbohydrate based diet (which most of the world is on) then the formula is calories intake vrs burned in basically how it works. If you go more in-depth then yes, minor stuff like genetics might make it harder (or easier) for your body to deal with the calorie intake or make it harder (or easier) to burn them, but at the end of the day if you simply eat healthy and exercise as much as is required you will lose weight (or at least keep your current weight, if that's your goal).

Regardless, if you're using science, genetics and "bad habits" to justify just sitting on your ass and eating bad and then saying "There's no use I can't lose weight" then you're dead wrong (and will die much sooner then the rest of the population who stays thin).

People ask me why I keep good control over my weight and I a simply ask them "How many obese 90 year old's do you know"?

 

[notimp]

Dr.s prescribe opiates and they are safe

Hellsno.

Opioid crisis in the US was caused by pharma companies, lobbying doctors to prescribe more, despite addiction risks, because they reframed, that dealing with those issues, and even withdrawal issues by redosing as "simpler to deal with, than with the underlying ailment."

They became pushers.

And before that got widely socially recognized (today even Johnson and Johnson had to pay a measly fee for it (what you do as a company instead of going to jail)), even doctors became pushers in their own right. Because of financial incentives and pharma designing down the risk profiles with PR (and sponsored studies).

Today we have awareness about the entire complex and are trying to get it under control again.

(Also there is a whole subsection about adicts, that were kicked off of legal supply by ensurance changes, or even legal changes, and hilarity ensued. (As in not at all...).)

Legal or not, doing that class of drugs is not a riskless, controlled, or an easy endeavor.

See also:

Findings In this cohort study, more than 70% of surgical patients in the United States and Canada filled opioid prescriptions after 4 surgical procedures compared with only 11% in Sweden. Of the 3 countries examined, the United States had the highest average dose of opioid prescriptions for most surgical procedures.

src: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749239
That difference is marketing spending.

 

[cots]

Hellsno.

Opioid crisis in the US was caused by pharma companies, lobbying doctors to prescribe more, despite addiction risks, because they reframed, that dealing with those issues, and even withdrawal issues by redosing as "simpler to deal with, than with the underlying ailment."

They became pushers.

And before that got widely socially recognized (today even Johnson and Johnson had to pay a measly fee for it (what you do as a company instead of going to jail)), even doctors became pushers in their own right. Because of financial incentives and pharma designing down the risk profiles with PR.

Today we have awareness about the entire complex and are trying to get it under control again.

(Also there is a whole subsection about adicts, that were kicked of legal supply by ensurance changes, or even legal changes, and hilarity ensued. (As in not at all...).)

Legal or not, doing that class of drugs is not a riskless, controlled, or an easy endeavor.

See also:
src: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2749239
That difference is marketing spending.

Heroin should just no exist in any form. You shouldn't be able to buy it from a street dealer or in a store. It's a highly addictive and deadly substance. The only benefit people get from it are "short term" highs. These people simply don't mind if they kill themselves to feel good. There's no long term benefits to the user or society. Various cities in California hand out heroin needles and have simply started ignoring people using them; if you've been paying attention to the condition of the heroin addicts in the cities in California you'll see the direct impact legalizing the drug would have on the rest of the world. Do you think someone addicted to heroin would have the capability and mental capacity to keep a job, raise kids, mange the checkbook? Well, maybe at first, until the deadly effects of the drug start to take its toll. I'm thinking that none of these people who are pro-drug legalization have any extensive experience with being around drug addicts, are drug addicts themselves or are in the business of selling drugs.

Case in point: I've had random rather ugly decrepit looking heroin addicted guys offer to suck my dick, people I've never met before, for $10 so they can get their next "fix". You can usually smell these people coming before you can see them. These same people sleep in tents covered in garbage next to their own feces. Now, is that something you wish to aspire for?

 

[notimp]

Humans will demand it, so it will exist in some form. Put heavy social taboo on the use of it. Make trade illegal as best as you can (But maybe not use - because prison population issue). Tell everyone about the risks involved.

And just in concept. A freaking drug that gives you that cosy feeling of warm embrace and shutting down the rest of the world, but then kicks you back to reality feeling worse? Hellsno.

(For stories about what being a heroin addict is like, resort to Russell Brand if you must. Or far less glamorous personalities. Also Brand is kind of coo-coo, so be aware.)

 

[cots]

Humans will demand it, so it will exist in some form. Put heavy social taboo on the use of it. Make trade illegal as best as you can (But maybe not use - because prison population issue). Tell everyone about the risks involved.

And just in concept. A freaking drug that gives you that cosy feeling of warm embrace and shutting down the rest of the world, but then kicks you back to reality feeling worse? Hellsno.

(For stories about what being a heroin addict is like, resort to Russell Brand if you must. Or far less glamorous personalities. Also Brand is kind of coo-coo, so be aware.)

Sadly, I'm pretty sure there's some minor population of the human race that would willingly inject triuranium octoxide into their veins if they heard it gives them a minor sense of euphoria.

 

[WeedZ]

Your alt has already posted a "liberals want to destroy the us by making obesity the norm" thread.

 

[cots]

And just in concept. A freaking drug that gives you that cosy feeling of warm embrace and shutting down the rest of the world, but then kicks you back to reality feeling worse? Hellsno.

It also physically destroys your body from the inside out and then you become addicted (after 1-3 doses) and require it to feel normal. After a few months of use if you don't have it on a daily basis you'll likely die from withdrawal. It's one way ticket to an early death. Yet, leave it up to a certain group of people that say it should be legal - the same group of people attacking private schools for drug testing their students to make sure they aren't using it. So much for "what about the children".

 

[Ryccardo]

Great, the planet doesn't need 8 billion Homo "sapiens" with the current inability of them to provide reasonably uniform distribution of resources (or at all)

 

[cots]

Great, the planet doesn't need 8 billion Homo "sapiens" with the current inability of them to provide reasonably uniform distribution of resources (or at all)

Which is why it's their choice. We are living in a free society and if you want to die young by making bad choices that should be up to you. However, since we have the media trying to convey messages to young kids that deadly drug use is okay, that being obese is just fine, that exercising won't make you lose weight or that living a self destructive life style is just peachy I think a line should be drawn. I know it's human nature to want to not follow the rules and simply indulge in excess (which is what the Liberals value and teach is okay to their kids), but I want people to just be informed of the actual truth. If they then chose to kill themselves after they've been exposed to the truth then that's not much you can do about it. As per the cause of this article; the abolishment of the middle class is also a Liberal goal. I can see why these rust belters are depressed, but that's still not a good reason to give up and die. Possibly coming together to fight Liberal oppression would be a better choice?

 

[Deleted User]

I never said Liberals had sunken their teeth into the education system when related to nutrition. Luckily, CNN editors don't work for the FDA nor would ever make it through the front door.

As for the rest of your "bad habits". Sure, minor things like genetic play a small part in how much exercise and dieting it takes to control your weight. Luckily, all you have to do is just find a good balance between what you eat and how much you exercise and all of your excuses can be mitigated. Example, your genetic makeup gave you a slower metabolism. So the solution is you have to exercise more then other people. Problem solved. You're also right that always doesn't have to do with calories in and calories burned - if you look at the Keto diet calories play a very small role in gaining or losing weight. Under Keto calories simply don't matter. However, if you're on a carbohydrate based diet (which most of the world is on) then the formula is calories intake vrs burned in basically how it works. If you go more in-depth then yes, minor stuff like genetics might make it harder (or easier) for your body to deal with the calorie intake or make it harder (or easier) to burn them, but at the end of the day if you simply eat healthy and exercise as much as is required you will lose weight (or at least keep your current weight, if that's your goal).

Regardless, if you're using science, genetics and "bad habits" to justify just sitting on your ass and eating bad and then saying "There's no use I can't lose weight" then you're dead wrong (and will die much sooner then the rest of the population who stays thin). People ask me how why I keep good control over my weight and I a simply ask them "How many 90 year old obese people do you know"?

ad hominem as you just end up attacking me not the argument. (claiming bad habits or trying to imply that)
As for what you want to imply. I'm on the opposite end and relatively healthy and drug free (Not going to explain my back story as I now know your billpong. So good to know that blocked me I must add and lied to people's faces. Both by when you left, and by when people asked if you were billpong ) My metabolism forces me to underweight. I've literately been underweight for nearly as long as I can remember.
Moving on.
Let me ask this, what in demand jobs easily give or provide exercise, hint a lot of office jobs don't (and is the shifting direction people are ending up in) Second question, how long do people work? 5-7 hours? Now let me ask this. How much actual free time does a parent or just a single person have? Keep mind you have to factor driving, general maintenance such as cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming the house, trash, paying bills and so on, this is exuding if your a single parent who has to handle a child. And that's assuming the company or job you have isn't forcing you into working extra hours. And when I say force, I mean gamble loosing your job. and excluding general body handling and hygiene
As for genetics
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-people-become-overweight
"The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%"
So for metabolism example, that breaks. (and for myself, because I'm on the opposite end of the issue I can relate and understand this. As I literately have the opposite problem, I'm extremely resistant to weight gain, and extremely prone to weight loss.)
Now let's talk diets, Keto is recent. Previous years, all of them. Have had fad diets been used, which either made the person worse/gain weight. Or the hunger pains got to the person/made them regain weight. Keto which I'm assuming your referencing the Ketogenic diet is relatively new in research and popularity. (and thank god looks like it's actually rooted in science) However, this is a bit of a theory but just listen here. Corporations, health related ones, get more money if a person is fat, because that means they are first off less healthy, and second they are likely overweight, which guess what, when you sell shit diets that don't work as a living you get profit.

 

[cots]

ad hominem as you just end up attacking me not the argument. (claiming bad habits or trying to imply that)
As for what you want to imply. I'm on the opposite end and relatively healthy and drug free (Not going to explain my back story as I now know your billpong. So good to know that blocked me I must add and lied to people's faces. Both by when you left, and by when people asked if you were billpong )

Well, I'm not that other person and I'm not going to block you (unless you really piss me off).

My metabolism forces me to underweight. I've literately been underweight for nearly as long as I can remember.

You're young. It will slow down. If you eat poorly now things like cholesterol will still build up in your arteries. There' still going to be a negative impact to your body if you eat poorly. Just wait until your metabolism slows down. If you're still alive when that happens you'll see how these things mostly turn out for people like you.

Moving on.
Let me ask this, what in demand jobs easily give or provide exercise, hint a lot of office jobs don't (and is the shifting direction people are ending up in) Second question, how long do people work? 5-7 hours? Now let me ask this. How much actual free time does a parent or just a single person have? Keep mind you have to factor driving, general maintenance such as cleaning the bathroom, vacuuming the house, trash, paying bills and so on, this is exuding if your a single parent who has to handle a child. And that's assuming the company or job you have isn't forcing you into working extra hours. And when I say force, I mean gamble loosing your job. and excluding general body handling and hygiene

How long does it take to walk a mile? What about a 15 minute game of basketball? Now think - how long did it take you login to your device and reply? How long does it take to check and reply to emails? How long each day do you spend staring at your phone? How long does a video gaming session last? How long does it take to walk a mile while you drag your kids along with you? Sure, you can make excuses on why you don't have time or you can make excuses to make the time.

My mother was dying from illness while my Dad worked two jobs and somehow they managed to find time for all us to exercise and we ate healthy and I wasn't an only child.

It's all about priorities. Clearly, parents who refuse to learn how to cook and rather sit their kids down in front of a device for hours on end every day have misplaced priorities.

As for genetics
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/why-people-become-overweight
"The strength of the genetic influence on weight disorders varies quite a bit from person to person. Research suggests that for some people, genes account for just 25% of the predisposition to be overweight, while for others the genetic influence is as high as 70% to 80%"
So for metabolism example, that breaks. (and for myself, because I'm on the opposite end of the issue I can relate and understand this. As I literately have the opposite problem, I'm extremely resistant to weight gain, and extremely prone to weight loss.)

I already gave you the fix. If your body requires more effort to lose weight you put in more effort. There's very few people who would not be able to lose weight by eating healthy or exercising. So many few that you're probably never going to ever run into a single one of them in your life time. Like I keep repeating - you're using science to justify being obese. That's using at as an excuse. There's also shit tons of science surrounding "how to lose weight". Why aren't you focusing on that?

Seeings as Liberals put great faith into their favorite Hollywood actors maybe paying attention to the ones that gain 100 lbs or drop 80 lbs for movie roles and then choose to go back to their normal weight afterwards would benefit their viewpoints. Managing weight isn't rocket science. Trying to justify people being obese using science is just wrong.

Look, I understand that you've spent your entire life around obese people, but I've spent the majority of my life watching the obesity epidemic take place. In my youth being obese was very rare. I also understand that you put great value in Liberal leaning news. Well, your viewpoint is skewed and your faith in the media is misplaced.

Now let's talk diets, Keto is recent. Previous years, all of them. Have had fad diets been used, which either made the person worse/gain weight. Or the hunger pains got to the person/made them regain weight. Keto which I'm assuming your referencing the Ketogenic diet is relatively new in research and popularity. (and thank god looks like it's actually rooted in science) However, this is a bit of a theory but just listen here. Corporations, health related ones, get more money if a person is fat, because that means they are first off less healthy, and second they are likely overweight, which guess what, when you sell shit diets that don't work as a living you get profit.

I lost 70 lbs in half a year under Keto and I've kept it off following a low carb diet. People with cancer go into remission based on this diet. It's a scientific backed diet. You can test your ketones to make sure your in ketoisis with a blood meter. It's also the only diet I know of that you can eat huge ass portions of bacon, steaks, fish and all sorts of fatty delicious foods (without the negative effects of calories) and lose weight. It's also the only diet I've ever tried. I don't care if it's trendy or a fad - it simply works. That's all I care about.

What about the other causes of American's dying. You already stated that you believe that eating badly is bad for you. How do you feel about drugs or the mental health factors? What about the problems the middle class are facing?

Edit: I also noticed how you've been replying to me and forgetting to add quotes or are using weirdly formatted sentences/paragraphs. Are you okay? Did you start a new med? Are you stoned? Maybe you just got a new portable device (hoping it's the latter).

Oh by the way - Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you were able to spend time with loved ones and eat poorly

 

[notimp]

Great, the planet doesn't need 8 billion Homo "sapiens" with the current inability of them to provide reasonably uniform distribution of resources (or at all)

Issue:

If we reduce growth expectation, social fluidity suffers and internal revolts are far more likely (amongst the ones that cant be religiously convinced, that we do this for the greater good in 200 years, without the US of course - and without australia, and without third world, and developing world economies (if we dont pay off their growth disparity)).

So essentially uniform distribution of resources is a f*ck off and suffer a little more program for western societies, where you will produce lost generations during the transition into meaninglessness. (How about we dont produce technological progess anymore? As a freaking societal goal.)

And is a f*cking boon to globalized interests that grow more better in developing economies, with bribe money from western ones (uuuuh, we so much want for our industries to develop your public transportation infrastructure in Deli, uhhh... please have our bribes), who would much rather grow using already developed business models in countries with lower economic standards - than to invest anything in to development in the already developed world.

Also funily enough in Europe we had an R&D deficit the size of a supernova. Thanks boomers.

And thanks to a childs innitiative - we call that progress, the next higher form of human existence, and necessary to save the world in 200 years.

If you dont see the massive potential to fuck over existing population in the west, good for you.

If a more equal distribution of resources is your goal - congratulations, you are a globalist. You've probably made it.


Also, on the national level in the developed western world, you have a massive guilt complex amongst boomers having taken all the benefits, without facing any structural growth issues in their entire lifetime. Still not wanting to distribute their savings better, much less close to equally. Being f*cking nudged by EU directives to divest into renewable investments, so their payout in 20 years when their savings get exchanged for monetary benefits gets reduced, taking off some of the pressure - while their main goal is - to hoodwink their own childrens generation into the religious doctrine, that real happyness comes from abandonment of perspectives and wishes. Because their investment capital goes into sustainable initiatives in the developing world - to safe the climate.

Equal distribution of resources my ass.


Then you have the f*cking tech elite (excuse my spanish), that is invested in virtual economies - pronouncing - if we sell people virtual goods - we can still scale.

Virtual goods, of course is another word - for f*cking fantasies. Dehumanizing the human progress drive, until cows wear headsets.


And of course, you have the developing world (China), that already is on track to deliver technological progress at a scale the entire western world can only dream of - sharing nothing of an egalitarian goal, without pushing their social model onto others, moving into the next dominant position.

So who are you kidding?


Oh but - unequal distribution of ressources is the *woke* problem of our time.
Yeah, and selling that to populations is the mitigation strategy for structural integrity for societies under degrowth.

Truth be told, the planet doesnt need equal distribution of resources at all. Also - it is almost entirely unlikely that we are traversing to that scenario ever - much less in your lifespan. Climate change - still real, though.

 

[Deleted User]

mod edited my post. removes the important parts

 

[notimp]

What a beautiful mess. Hope it was cathartic.

Dont call people names just to hurt them, dont string them up, don't try to win arguments purely ad hominem.

Also yes, you can destroy debates by using emotionally charged language, like in the OP. If you do that - we actually need more political correctness. In here, and in general. This should not turn out to become a playground for self-enlargement through the process of demeaning others.

Dont hurt yourself in the process of trying to teach others a maybe valuable lesson either. They might not care. (Thats what you call the 'pull' in abusive interactions/relationships. You end that by stopping to care that much.)

Winning an argument online - ultimately isn't worth it.

So good for finding an actually societally important piece of news for once - but then thats not the way to explore it thematically.

Mods were right. The entire first posting was laced in framing, and there never was the intent to make this anything other than a showpiece for preexiting prejudices. Ignoring it didn't do it any good.

 

[cots]

Mods were right. The entire first posting was laced in framing, and there never was the intent to make this anything other than a showpiece for preexiting prejudices. Ignoring it didn't do it any good.

I don't think it's prejudice to point out there's elements in the media that are reporting on what's killing American's and there's elements trying to justify the same things that are being report on that's killing them. This is why I like NBC more than others. They at least have some proper grounding in reality and haven't completely fallen off the left side of the road into a gutter. Seeings as a majority of posts are rallying against Conservatives or Trump in these forums I think a little of "the other side" could help restore balance. Although, unless some major elements in the elite left weren't trying to justify these deadly behaviors I wouldn't have brought it up. Drugs and obesity don't care who you voted for.

Maybe I should tone down my wording? I'm just emulating what the left are saying and doing regarding issues they don't agree with. My goal was to meet other forum members "on their own level". I thought that would almost be fair.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

mod edited my post. removes the important parts

Well, I'm still interested in what you had to say. If it's too much for the mods then a PM could work. I'm not the type to hit the "report" button. If not it's cool.

Both by when you left

Sorry, I actually missed this is your last post. If you're referring to how I lied saying that I'm leaving and would never come back, then yes, I did lie, because, well I'm back. So I failed to keep my promise. I apologize for that. We all peachy now?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What a beautiful mess. Hope it was cathartic.

Dont call people names just to hurt them, dont string them up, don't try to win arguments purely ad hominem.

Cathartic - It is possible for a substance to be both a laxative and a cathartic. I did not know this ...

ad hominem aka the Southern way of debating. Seeings as I grew up in the deep South it's totally acceptable to joke around and I would expect and encourage personal insults. I actually would enjoy a more colorful debate then dry "these are the facts as I interpret them" Lacuis kind of boring dribble. I guess you've never watched a heated debate in the US Congress? You realize we're not in court battling copyright law, right?

Winning an argument online - ultimately isn't worth it.

This only takes place in the mind of the person who thinks they've won.

--- posts manually merged, please don't double toke ---

So I came across this: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2756187 - It's the report NBC used from the Journal of the American Medical Association for their news article.

I also guess we should be discussing nicotine. Though, it would already fall under "substances" I suppose.

https://thenewstalkers.com/communit...-adults-reversing-life-expectancy-trends?g=45

One of the authors of the editorial, Dr. Howard Koh of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, told NBC News the 2,290 vaping-related illnesses reported nationwide should serve as a "call to action" for strict regulation of electronic cigarettes. At least 48 people have died from EVALI, short for e-cigarette or vaping associated lung injury.

I wonder if these vaping deaths are different from the tainted THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) vapes being illegally sold on the streets on various cities in the USA? They've killed a lot of people recently.

https://www.youredm.com/2019/09/12/vaping-deaths-most-commonly-linked-with-tainted-thc-not-nicotine/

I've yet to read the Liberal response to Trump's decision to possibly make vaping illegal on the national level (or at least ban flavored vaping products). Seeings as they attacked him for donating his entire quarterly income to veterans I'm sure they'll find some reason why every single doctor including those at the FDA are wrong and saving lives is a bad choice. I'm just waiting for an article to drop on ABC so I can read their hate filled replies.