Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:


  • Please log in to reply
687 replies to this topic

#681 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 06:45 AM

The virus premise is quite smart, if the goal is a new market share. What this hopes to do is create the demand for new goods and services, while not interfering with the food industries, who are also capitalizing on fat people. If you look how it adds up this all makes sense and the path is to success is clear. 

 

Here is my analysis of the situation. The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty. 

 

What it did do was help create the demographics with the highest rates of obesity in the country. One might conclude this new virus appears to impact the poor in a greater proportion, than the general population in America.

 

This is useful since the government has the deepest pockets and has shown a willingness to spend plenty of money, even when there are no statistical results in terms of change. It is smart business plan. The only thing they may need to show is how their plan will create spin off problems so they can spend even more, sort of like the template of the original war on poverty. 


Edited by HydrogenBond, 23 September 2014 - 06:47 AM.

  • InfinityLoopz likes this

#682 InfinityLoopz

InfinityLoopz

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

Posted 23 September 2014 - 11:32 AM

The virus premise is quite smart, if the goal is a new market share. What this hopes to do is create the demand for new goods and services, while not interfering with the food industries, who are also capitalizing on fat people. If you look how it adds up this all makes sense and the path is to success is clear. 

 

Here is my analysis of the situation. The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty. 

 

What it did do was help create the demographics with the highest rates of obesity in the country. One might conclude this new virus appears to impact the poor in a greater proportion, than the general population in America.

 

This is useful since the government has the deepest pockets and has shown a willingness to spend plenty of money, even when there are no statistical results in terms of change. It is smart business plan. The only thing they may need to show is how their plan will create spin off problems so they can spend even more, sort of like the template of the original war on poverty. 


Willing to bet that the virus has a US patent on it too right? Made in a lab just to help cull the population or make it more "manageable" eh?



#683 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 09 January 2015 - 05:37 AM

My next door neighbour's children are all obese (not grossly - that I think has to be some kind of reaction to the food that is being eaten).  Of the grandparents and siblings on both sides, only one grandparent is overweight - the rest are thin in comparison.  He has two dogs that don't get exercised but the dogs don't get fed treats and are in a pen outside all day.  The children seem to be kept indoors and tell forced to go out into the world because of school requirements at about five years old. If they are penned up, bored and don't get any exercise then logically this would indicate that this is probably nurture rather than nature.



#684 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 09 January 2015 - 12:41 PM

The government run, war against poverty, controlled by the democrats, spent trillions of dollars over 50 years, but did not change the rate of people living in poverty.


Sidenote: that's not true. Well, it's sort of true. The issue is that the official "poverty rate" is defined by excluding government assistance. In other words, the number of people who require government assistance has not changed. However, the people who are earning less now have better homes, better food, better education, and better lives. So while it didn't change the legal "poverty rate", it did change the number of people who are cold in the winter, hungry year round, under educated, and living in impoverished conditions.
  • pagetheoracle likes this

#685 pagetheoracle

pagetheoracle

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 10 January 2015 - 07:53 AM

Sidenote: that's not true. Well, it's sort of true. The issue is that the official "poverty rate" is defined by excluding government assistance. In other words, the number of people who require government assistance has not changed. However, the people who are earning less now have better homes, better food, better education, and better lives. So while it didn't change the legal "poverty rate", it did change the number of people who are cold in the winter, hungry year round, under educated, and living in impoverished conditions.

Lying with statistics, to make things seem different from what they are.  I like it!



#686 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 12 January 2015 - 09:52 AM

Lying with statistics, to make things seem different from what they are.  I like it!


It's not so much lying with statistics, as people misreading and misunderstanding the statistics because they use very specifically defined terms rather than more nebulous vernacular.

#687 BrettNortje

BrettNortje

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

Posted 16 January 2015 - 02:35 AM

Maybe it is because the body is storing more, seeing as how it is so exposed to the excess sugar, it will give up processing it? people that play sports from a young age use up all their sugars and then they keep the body going. it is like diabetes, i reckon.



#688 OverUnityDeviceUAP

OverUnityDeviceUAP

    Hiatus for misbehaving.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 28 December 2019 - 12:35 AM

Has to do with when we eat more than what we eat, and the blood.

Atlean blood (O-) types are more common now post-melting pot. + blood types, especially A+, are extremely sensitive to insulin. O- is the polar opposite of A+ when it comes to the regulation of blood sugar levels.