If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The woman who sparked a debate on beauty after Facebook picture in her underwear. Warning: Picture might be considered obscene because subject is not thin. And we all know that only skinny people can show their stomachs and celebrate themselves   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 439
    More: Asinine, Stella Boonshoft, Facebook  
•       •       •

23858 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2012 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



439 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-23 01:03:56 PM
Those are some sexy stretchmarks.
 
2012-10-23 01:05:33 PM

Beta Tested: The Only Jeff: Healthy weight is attained by eating less and reasonable exercise. It may take years, but it is attainable. And skinniness isn't even necessarily the goal, not being obese like the woman from the article is.

Except this is wrong, healthy weight is achieved by eating the RIGHT foods, ones that don't mess up your hormone signaling. You can "eat less" and still gain weight, this is poor advice.

You CAN gain weight by force-feeding yourself healthy food, but that is as difficult as losing weight by starving yourself on the wrong foods. Organisms are amazingly homeostatic, they WANT to be their "correct weight", and will fight to stay that way... that is unless you interrupt, damage or destroy the mechanisms used to do this.


Eating less...of the wrong foods.
 
2012-10-23 01:08:20 PM
What idiot is calling her a hero? This shouldn't even be "news".

She is no better than any other idiot in a 2 piece trying to get as much attention as possible. Just another attention whore begging for her 15 minutes of fame.
 
2012-10-23 01:09:14 PM

Girion47: Oh_Enough_Already: Almost invariably, whenever some story like this breaks, scores of women - both thin and fat - decry the fact that women are judged on their appearance, and declare "women of ALL sizes are beautiful" etc, ad nauseum.

They are, of course, rank hypocrites of the highest order, and the best way to stop them dead in their tracks is to ask them, if they really believe that "all sizes are beautiful" why they never have dated a fat man.

It's one kind of hypocrisy coming from thin women, who (and this is perfectly acceptable) date and fark men similarly physically fit, yet it's another one entirely when these same plus-sized women haven't and won't, themselves, date a plus size man.

Offsetting penalties, replay the down.

My wife dated a fat guy, and hated it. He was disgusting. I've hooked up with fat chicks and had a roommate that had a fetish for them, they were nasty as well.

Not sure why it's a bad thing to not enjoy human beings that look unnatural.


It's not a bad thing.

I was just raising the hypocrisy of those women who argue that "all women are beautiful" yet don't hold themselves to the same standards (or lack of them) they demand or expect from men.

Then again, double standards are nothing new with that half of the population, really.
 
2012-10-23 01:13:32 PM

machoprogrammer: Sleeping Monkey: Normalizing obesity in our society does far more harm than good. It should never be seen as acceptable to be fat. You aren't born fat, you become fat through sloth and poor dietary choices. It's good to have self-esteem, but put down the soda and go for a walk.

This

serial_crusher: MOST OF ALL, this picture is for me. For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it.

What kind of "extreme measures" did she take exactly, and why did she jump to the extreme measures instead of just maybe not eating so much, and going to the gym once in a while.

And this.

Just think, if we can convince heart disease and diabetes that being fat is now normal, we will be in great shape! I have no sympathy for fat people, as anyone can lose weight. Calories in - Calories out. If that is negative, weight loss. Instead of fries, eat vegetables. Instead of soda, drink water. You will lose weight.


Shut up you cock.

At least she can lose weight - you won't be able to lose being an ahole.
 
2012-10-23 01:13:46 PM

peachfish: But wait, according to "the laws of thermodynamics" the idea of "starvation mode" doesn't exist. You can't say it's "calories in versus calories out" and then start adding exceptions, unless you acknowledge it's a lot more complicated.
Incidentally, I eat about 1600 calories a day (keep in mind I'm also nursing a baby).
Likely the big difference for me is that I once weighed 70 lbs more than I do now. My metabolism has been permanently altered and to lose more weight I would likely need to drop my calories even lower. Tell me how long you would last or how good you would feel on say, 1400 calories a day plus exercise and (in my case) lactating? And we wonder why people "fail" at diets.
My ultimate point here is, when you look st someone who is fat you THINK you know a lot about them, but you really know nothing.


No, it is calories in - calories out. However, in "starvation mode", calories out goes down. It is still calories in - calories out. I have no idea how lactation effects calories, as I am a single male.

If you are exercising and lactating (assuming lactating means more calories and you are truly exercising), you need more than 1400 calories. Assuming you are 140 lbs, that alone means a TDEE of roughly 1400.

The reason people "fail" at diets is not because of hormones or anything. It is because diets are temporary. You need to make lifestyle changes. People lose weight on a diet, then go back to eating like a pig then complain it didn't work. Well no shiat.
 
2012-10-23 01:18:18 PM

Overfiend: At least she can lose weight - you won't be able to lose being an ahole.


Rates of diabetes have increased markedly over the last 50 years in parallel with obesity. As of 2010 there are approximately 285 million people with the disease compared to around 30 million in 1985.

Ms. Fatty McSelfesteem can "deal" with paying for her own insulin shots.
 
2012-10-23 01:21:41 PM

halfof33: steppenwolf: Fat people are ugly because it's unhealthy.
Isn't it a little unhealthy to vehemently berate women on the Internet just because they don't arouse you?

No actually studies have shown that berating fat attention whores on the internet is very good for you.

Fark alone has saved 100's of lives.

Pity that you are wasting yours, Shamu..... (Oh yeah, feel the burn! now I can skip my run tonight. I feel like a 100 dollars!)


0/10

Those 100s of lives saved by Fark are easily offset by the number of kittens the Boobies tab has destroyed.
 
2012-10-23 01:24:03 PM
I guess the cake isn't a lie after all...


seeingbones.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-23 01:26:45 PM

The Only Jeff: Eating less...of the wrong foods.


As long as you make up the difference with the right foods, JUST eating less might cause more harm than good, once again I will quote the relevant part of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

"What's more, as Greenwood reported, these semi-starved Zucker rats had 50 percent less muscle mass than genetically lean rats, and 30 percent less muscle mass than the Zucker rats that ate as much as they wanted. They, too, were sacrificing their muscles and organs to make fat."
 
2012-10-23 01:27:06 PM

Overfiend: Shut up you cock.

At least she can lose weight - you won't be able to lose being an ahole.



You sound fat.

Growing up, I was always the skinniest, scrawniest kid on the playground. I always heard "You are so skinny!" and crap like that. As a boy growing up, that was about the worst thing you can hear. I ate and ate and never gained a pound. In high school, I'd eat fast food several times a day and didn't gain weight.

So I really don't give a fark if people told her she was fat. People say shiat like that all the time and either get used to it or work to change it.
 
2012-10-23 01:27:57 PM
I blame the media for making 'anorexia' a bad word. Several studies have shown that starvation diets actually increase lifespan.

Obese people should just not eat.. at all. I guarantee they will lose weight.

The problem is everyone derives comfort from eating, they hate suffering through hunger pains and headaches. Sounds to me they just don't want it bad enough. And if thats the case, they can deal with the emotional pain of humiliation.

If we weren't so industrialized these fatties would have been eaten by tigers along time ago. Survival of the fittest is no more.
 
2012-10-23 01:30:10 PM
Fat is fat, skinny is skinny, but healthy is healthy.... Love what you like and always love yourself. If you don't love yourself in what ever state you are in, change it!!!! If you do, fark everyone else that has a problem with you and your 'weight'.
 
2012-10-23 01:32:30 PM

Beta Tested: Except this is wrong, healthy weight is achieved by eating the RIGHT foods, ones that don't mess up your hormone signaling.


On an out-of-town work contract where the only local restaurant was a Wendy's, even running around all day and taking the stairs to my 30th floor temp suite - including grocery shopping - didn't prevent me gaining 25 lbs in two months. Fast food is the devil. After that experience I avoid it whenever possible, ignore their published calorie counts, quartered my wheat intake for other grains and found outdoor activities I enjoyed. Who cares if it takes time to get healthier?
 
2012-10-23 01:33:21 PM

machoprogrammer: Overfiend: Shut up you cock.

At least she can lose weight - you won't be able to lose being an ahole.


You sound fat.

Growing up, I was always the skinniest, scrawniest kid on the playground. I always heard "You are so skinny!" and crap like that. As a boy growing up, that was about the worst thing you can hear. I ate and ate and never gained a pound. In high school, I'd eat fast food several times a day and didn't gain weight.

So I really don't give a fark if people told her she was fat. People say shiat like that all the time and either get used to it or work to change it.


people saying shiat like that made me overweight. I always heard "too skinny" and "eat more" So I did. Now I'm 30 lbs over what I want to be.(165 is the goal) Being borderline obese(I'm 5'10") farking sucks, it's disgusting, there's nothing to be proud of. Being fat is gross, it's unhealthy, and it isn't acceptable.
 
2012-10-23 01:33:29 PM
I feel sympathy, but then I remember that I'm fat too, and don't find it the least bit unreasonable for people to ask me not to wear a Speedo on the beach.

/Maybe next summer, if I can keep the gym-going up.
 
2012-10-23 01:34:20 PM

Beta Tested: The Only Jeff: Eating less...of the wrong foods.

As long as you make up the difference with the right foods, JUST eating less might cause more harm than good, once again I will quote the relevant part of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

"What's more, as Greenwood reported, these semi-starved Zucker rats had 50 percent less muscle mass than genetically lean rats, and 30 percent less muscle mass than the Zucker rats that ate as much as they wanted. They, too, were sacrificing their muscles and organs to make fat."


You can definitely eat too much of "good" foods (ask any bodybuilder), and studies on humans (not genetically modified Zucker rats) have shown a macro is a macro and doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad". In fact, there is a new diet that is called "If it fits your macros", where you eat whatever the fark you want as long as you get the right amount of carbs/fats/protein. And people get results on it.
 
2012-10-23 01:35:09 PM
To quote the comedian Katt Williams: "We [men] don't have no time to worry 'bout no shiat like stretch marks. They came from either one of two things. Either you was big and got small, or you was small and got big! Either way we farkin'!"
 
2012-10-23 01:36:46 PM
Those fat people that do marathons and stuff are still eating too much. get over it. They have not adjusted their calorie intake to account for their higher efficiency. When you are in great shape you don't burn as many calories with your amazing exercise regimen.

See it all the time. really fat person gets exercising and eating better, drops some weight, then stalls. Eventually they up their exercise too much and injure themselves (knees usually, or back). When what they needed to do was leave the exercise where it was and tighten up the food intake again. Look, without steroids you just aren't going to get any more muscle at your age. You don't *need* all that protein. You just need to start making your meals smaller. What *was* dieting for you two months ago is no longer dieting.


as for this girl, the signs are bad. She can't be more than 25 and she has the body of a woman in her mid forties. Her tits are small, which means her natural waist size is quite a bit smaller than this size.
She could get to her healthy size in a year if she did it right. One year for about 25 lbs. Entirely manageable for someone with a plan. That's less than a pound a week. She can't try something to improve her entire life with just one year of effort ?
 
2012-10-23 01:37:33 PM

machoprogrammer: No, it is calories in - calories out. However, in "starvation mode", calories out goes down. It is still calories in - calories out. I have no idea how lactation effects calories, as I am a single male."

If you are exercising and lactating (assuming lactating means more calories and you are truly exercising), you need more than 1400 calories. Assuming you are 140 lbs, that alone means a TDEE of roughly 1400.

The reason people "fail" at diets is not because of hormones or anything. It is because diets are temporary. You need to make lifestyle changes. People lose weight on a diet, then go back to eating like a pig then complain it didn't work. Well no shiat.


Did you just start ignoring my earlier posts? This isn't true, from my earlier link:

"They will consume the protein in their muscles and organs rather than surrender the fat in their adipose tissue. Indeed, when these fat mice are starved, they do not become lean mice; rather, as William Sheldon might have put it, they become emaciated versions of fat mice"

Weight (fat) gain is a symptom of metabolic disorder, being fat doesn't cause the health issues you see (like Type II diabetes), but accompanies them. As in nearly all diseases not all of the symptoms for the disease manifest in all cases and that has almost everything to do with hormone signaling. That is why some people can eat lots of crap and stay skinny, they can also still get metabolic syndrome and have Type II diabetes. Conversely some people can be quite fit and healthy but overweight (generally not VERY overweight though).

You can also get metabolic disorder (and the weight related issues) from non-consumption diseases, including brain tumors, genetic diseases and so on. It is NOT just Calories In/Calories Out.

/If I remember correctly, lactating women should consume at least an extra 400-500 calories. This, of course, varies.
 
2012-10-23 01:41:39 PM
i2.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 01:45:38 PM

machoprogrammer: Overfiend: Shut up you cock.

At least she can lose weight - you won't be able to lose being an ahole.


You sound fat.

Growing up, I was always the skinniest, scrawniest kid on the playground. I always heard "You are so skinny!" and crap like that. As a boy growing up, that was about the worst thing you can hear. I ate and ate and never gained a pound. In high school, I'd eat fast food several times a day and didn't gain weight.

So I really don't give a fark if people told her she was fat. People say shiat like that all the time and either get used to it or work to change it.


Poor baby...

Is that the reason you are a tool?
 
2012-10-23 01:46:46 PM

Beta Tested: Did you just start ignoring my earlier posts? This isn't true, from my earlier link:

"They will consume the protein in their muscles and organs rather than surrender the fat in their adipose tissue. Indeed, when these fat mice are starved, they do not become lean mice; rather, as William Sheldon might have put it, they become emaciated versions of fat mice"

Weight (fat) gain is a symptom of metabolic disorder, being fat doesn't cause the health issues you see (like Type II diabetes), but accompanies them. As in nearly all diseases not all of the symptoms for the disease manifest in all cases and that has almost everything to do with hormone signaling. That is why some people can eat lots of crap and stay skinny, they can also still get metabolic syndrome and have Type II diabetes. Conversely some people can be quite fit and healthy but overweight (generally not VERY overweight though).

You can also get metabolic disorder (and the weight related issues) from non-consumption diseases, including brain tumors, genetic diseases and so on. It is NOT just Calories In/Calories Out.

/If I remember correctly, lactating women should consume at least an extra 400-500 calories. This, of course, varies.



Humans are not Zucker rats. Zucker rats were genetically modified.

Fat is 9 calories per gram. Calories are a measurement of energy. Body fat, also, contains 9 calories per gram (roughly, its a bit off because of water and such of course). You cannot add fat if you aren't eating calories. That would mean creating energy.

If it was truly hormones like you say, no one would be able to lose weight. Even the 1000 lb people confined to a bed can lose weight (and they do when they get admitted).

Stop trying to justify it. Anyone can lose weight.
 
2012-10-23 01:48:57 PM
remember losers, fat girls give it up easier than the skinny biatches.
 
2012-10-23 01:49:13 PM

Beta Tested: The Only Jeff: Eating less...of the wrong foods.

As long as you make up the difference with the right foods, JUST eating less might cause more harm than good, once again I will quote the relevant part of Good Calories, Bad Calories.

"What's more, as Greenwood reported, these semi-starved Zucker rats had 50 percent less muscle mass than genetically lean rats, and 30 percent less muscle mass than the Zucker rats that ate as much as they wanted. They, too, were sacrificing their muscles and organs to make fat."


Jesus Christ you're flailing. I already said in my original statement "and reasonable exercise." Obviously, when I say eat less, I don't mean eat less grains but more Twinkies. I shouldn't have to qualify everything I say, use some reading comprehension.
 
2012-10-23 01:49:54 PM
The problem with "calories in - calories out" is that the "2nd law of thermodynamics" brings about all the wrong analogies. Second, I don't know if anyone who uses the term "starvation mode" has a clue what that means, or even if it has basis in reality -- the human metabolism is still being actively researched; a lot of what we put in authoritative texts 20, 30, 50 years ago have been blown up. All that said, the human body burns energy more like a household than some simple energy-load system. Imagine a house being run by a single generator that's periodically re-fueled. If you turn on all the lights, HVAC, oven, vacuum cleaner, what have you, you will burn a lot of energy, sure. But you're not the only person in the house. Others will compete for the same energy, to the point where even if the generator's running out of fuel, that bratty sister will insist on running her 2kW hair dryer while you get hypothermia because there's no juice left to run the heaters. The human body has a LOT of systems, the energy management system isn't perfect, and you have direct control over very few of them. The skeletal muscles, frontal lobe and. . . that's about it, really. And if all else fails, the body will hit you with lethargy to rob you of both, which makes doing things like exercising or working for a paycheck very difficult.

So if you DO want to lose weight, you have to focus on what you can control. Yes, that means eating less food, but here's where your "calories in - calories out" fundies go full derp. This is BIOCHEMISTRY you're oversimplifying here. If "a calorie is a calorie", why can't we metabolize cellulose? There's a lot of energy in that. Why is methanol toxic while glucose is not? If you're willing to admit that there's a difference between glucose and methanol, then you need to STFU about "a calorie is a calorie". We're only just now un-doing about forty years' worth of outdated science and public policy by finally understanding the biological mechanisms of the various compounds we utilize for energy and thus refer to as "calories". FYI, there are some energy sources that provide calories that aren't counted by the government's rules, and others that don't provide energy that are. We are counting calories based on science that's at least forty years out-of-date. Actually, the very notion of counting calories is arguably outdated.

OK, so, the reason why obesity is on the rise is because we've gotten too good at refining and processing foods. Then the "calorie is a calorie" derpheads took over the food industry and convinced the world that there's no difference between, say, a hydrogenated vegetable oil and a naturally saturated fatty acid, and if it affects you negatively it's your fault. This is stupid. The latter is a compound evolution has dealt with for tens of millions of years; the former may look similar but results in a completely different set of by-products, and it's those by-products your body uses as signals to interpret as "enough" or "MOAR". But to top it off, they have the gall to claim a synthetic your body goes "WTF" over is healthier than compounds your body evolved to digest. Also, your body is adapted to various combinations of compounds found in nature. In some cases, the effect is tied to one chemical while the biofeedback signal is tied to another. Glucose is benign, but the body never expects it to be separated from fiber and water. There isn't a whole lot of point to eating fiber just for the sake of eating fiber. What fiber does is aid in water absorption and attenuate sugar absorption. Your body deals better with the trifecta than the individual compounds. Fiber without water is bad (it can cause intestinal problems), sugar without fiber is bad (causes hyperglycemia), and water without sugar is. . . well, not bad, but not a very efficient way to hydrate. The food industry has gotten to the point where people are paying money to buy these ingredients separately when just eating a damned carrot gets you all three at once.
 
2012-10-23 01:52:28 PM

liam76: For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it. Who cried for hours over the fact she would never be thin.

Too bad she didn't try the "extreme measure" of a healthy diet and moderate exercise program.


Actually, that was probably step 1. There's this interesting thing called 'the latest scientific research...from ten years ago' that you might want to catch up with. Some people honestly can't lose weight. Some people can.

But that said, even if she could...why the fark do you care?
 
2012-10-23 01:52:59 PM

theoutlaw: fat kids can't do a bunch about it


Their parents can, though. Whether a kid is fat or not is not a lottery.
 
2012-10-23 01:54:51 PM

machoprogrammer: You can definitely eat too much of "good" foods (ask any bodybuilder), and studies on humans (not genetically modified Zucker rats) have shown a macro is a macro and doesn't matter if it is "good" or "bad". In fact, there is a new diet that is called "If it fits your macros", where you eat whatever the fark you want as long as you get the right amount of carbs/fats/protein. And people get results on it.


People get results on all sorts of diets, some work better/faster than others, but the universal overriding factor in all of these diets is that people stop eating crappy food. Crappy food makes you sick, and being sick makes you fatter than you otherwise should be.

Did you ever ask yourself WHAT is different about the Zucker Rats? Do you just see "genetically modified" and for no reason dismiss everything else? They are genetically modified in such a way that they have a modified leptin receptor, "Leptin is a 16 kDa protein hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite/hunger and metabolism."

Furthermore, "It is one of the most important adipose derived hormones." Did you get all that? Adipose is fat, your fat cells make leptin, then they use it to signal your brain to store more in them. A small change to the gene that controls the receptor can make a rat very, very fat for no other reason. This knowledge and line of investigation is DIRECTLY relevant to humans who have leptin, leptin receptors, and fat cells. And they demonstrate, unarguably, that there is more to fat gain/loss than your simplistic and incorrect "Calories in/Calories out".

And I have done the get bigger by force feeding myself healthy food. It isn't easy, at all, and no person would do it without a specific goal in mind. You don't just naturally overeat on healthy food the way you do on junk food. And, as I said before it is as difficult, if not more difficult, than losing weight by starving yourself.
 
2012-10-23 01:56:36 PM

Beta Tested: To the people making the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument, you need to just stop. You sound like a creationist that doesn't understand either the law or how/where it is actually applicable to physical systems. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is NOT directly applicable to an active organism that is governed by complex biochemical processes, especially when the goal is something as highly SPECIFIC as health and adipose tissue reduction.


Spot on. It's the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics which matters here.
 
2012-10-23 01:59:07 PM

machoprogrammer: No, the second law of thermodynamics does apply to obesity. If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.


That's not the second law. The second law says you can't turn the energy in food directly into mechanical work with 100% efficiency. The first law explains why fatties are fat while the second explains why they sweat when reaching for the burger.
 
2012-10-23 02:00:49 PM

Overfiend: Poor baby...

Is that the reason you are a tool?



Aww, is fatty sad? Would a slice of cheese cake make you feel better?


PsiChick: liam76: For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it. Who cried for hours over the fact she would never be thin.

Too bad she didn't try the "extreme measure" of a healthy diet and moderate exercise program.

Actually, that was probably step 1. There's this interesting thing called 'the latest scientific research...from ten years ago' that you might want to catch up with. Some people honestly can't lose weight. Some people can.

But that said, even if she could...why the fark do you care?


Umm, no. That isn't "extreme". That is called "eating right and exercise". And anyone can lose weight.


Beta Tested: People get results on all sorts of diets, some work better/faster than others, but the universal overriding factor in all of these diets is that people stop eating crappy food. Crappy food makes you sick, and being sick makes you fatter than you otherwise should be.

Did you ever ask yourself WHAT is different about the Zucker Rats? Do you just see "genetically modified" and for no reason dismiss everything else? They are genetically modified in such a way that they have a modified leptin receptor, "Leptin is a 16 kDa protein hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite/hunger and metabolism."

Furthermore, "It is one of the most important adipose derived hormones." Did you get all that? Adipose is fat, your fat cells make leptin, then they use it to signal your brain to store more in them. A small change to the gene that controls the receptor can make a rat very, very fat for no other reason. This knowledge and line of investigation is DIRECTLY relevant to humans who have leptin, leptin receptors, and fat cells. And they demonstrate, unarguably, that there is more to fat gain/loss than your simplistic and incorrect "Calories in/Calories out".

And I have done the get bigger by force feeding myself healthy food. It isn't easy, at all, and no person would do it without a specific goal in mind. You don't just naturally overeat on healthy food the way you do on junk food. And, as I said before it is as difficult, if not more difficult, than losing weight by starving yourself.



Right, but the body cannot make fat out of nothing. It has to have energy to store in the fat. I don't argue some people naturally get fatter than others; that is obvious. The best and easiest way to lose weight is to eat healthier and exercise; it is that easy. Instead of fries, eat carrots. Instead of soda, drink water. etc
 
2012-10-23 02:02:12 PM

dragonchild: The problem with "calories in - calories out" is that the "2nd law of thermodynamics" brings about all the wrong analogies. Second, I don't know if anyone who uses the term "starvation mode" has a clue what that means, or even if it has basis in reality...


THANK YOU.

Finally someone that knows what the heck they are talking about. The house metaphor is fantastic btw, and I am going to unashamedly steal it.
 
2012-10-23 02:07:31 PM

orbister: machoprogrammer: No, the second law of thermodynamics does apply to obesity. If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight.

That's not the second law. The second law says you can't turn the energy in food directly into mechanical work with 100% efficiency. The first law explains why fatties are fat while the second explains why they sweat when reaching for the burger.


Oh, right. My bad :)
 
2012-10-23 02:11:13 PM

fireclown: Mid_mo_mad_man: Fark off. I like curves and a broad a$&. You can keep those stick girls. You slap one on the a$& and risk breaking their hip

I am here to verify that skinny chicks do not break in half.


Not unless your mood music is "John Henry Was A Steel Drivin' Man"
 
2012-10-23 02:11:42 PM

theflatline: astoreth: serial_crusher: astoreth: serial_crusher: MOST OF ALL, this picture is for me. For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it.

What kind of "extreme measures" did she take exactly, and why did she jump to the extreme measures instead of just maybe not eating so much, and going to the gym once in a while.

Because it doesn't work for everyone. I have overweight runner friends who have completed marathons and eat right, and they never lose the weight. Some people are going to be pudgy no matter what, just like some people can wolf down all the junk and pizza they like, never exercise, and still be skinny as rails.

It is worth questioning how fast they're finishing those marathons. I usually don't dwell on time or PRs, because the important part of running is that you're having fun; but if your goal is to lose weight, an 8 hour marathon isn't really going to do much in terms of achieving that goal.

Seriously? THEY HAVE RUN MARATHONS. Plural. Their goal is not to lose weight, it is to RUN MARATHONS. I'm pretty sure they've come in under 5 hours, but still. Jebus, how many skinny people do you know can do that? Hell, I know even more normal-sized folks who eat crap and can't muster a 5k, but no one would give them shiat for being "unhealthy."

I am skinny and can do a 5k fairly easy, even at 42 years old. Hell, I climbed to the top of a glacier and peaked down a live volcano last year. Do I consider them great feats, nooo.

And doing a marathon in 8 hours is nothing to brag about.


Don't you have somewhere to be in about 20min?
 
2012-10-23 02:12:49 PM

notmtwain:
Even the lowest Farkers must give her respect. 

// I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that no one here will make fun of this woman. We've come too far.


Bless. That's the funniest thing I've read today. Just because Fark has gone all liberal doesn't change a thing, it's just self-righteous biatching now.
 
2012-10-23 02:16:42 PM

machoprogrammer: Right, but the body cannot make fat out of nothing. It has to have energy to store in the fat. I don't argue some people naturally get fatter than others; that is obvious. The best and easiest way to lose weight is to eat healthier and exercise; it is that easy. Instead of fries, eat carrots. Instead of soda, drink water. etc


IF YOU JUST STARVE YOURSELF your body will cannibalize ITS OWN LEAN TISSUE. What about this bad situation do you not understand? If you are fat there is a reason for it, that reason could be a brain tumor, it could be a genetic disorder, or one of several other things, but most likely you've screwed up your hormone receptors by eating crappy food.

To fix the problem, you take corrective action. Brain surgery if it is a tumor and if it is eating crappy food you EAT GOOD FOOD INSTEAD. You don't "just eat less" because that can make the problem worse.

But I see you've changed your incorrect "eat less" to the correct "eat healthier and exercise" and are pretending that is what you were saying all along. I feel like I am in a presidential debate...
 
2012-10-23 02:20:10 PM

dbaggins: Those fat people that do marathons and stuff are still eating too much. get over it. They have not adjusted their calorie intake to account for their higher efficiency. When you are in great shape you don't burn as many calories with your amazing exercise regimen.

See it all the time. really fat person gets exercising and eating better, drops some weight, then stalls. Eventually they up their exercise too much and injure themselves (knees usually, or back). When what they needed to do was leave the exercise where it was and tighten up the food intake again. Look, without steroids you just aren't going to get any more muscle at your age. You don't *need* all that protein. You just need to start making your meals smaller. What *was* dieting for you two months ago is no longer dieting.


as for this girl, the signs are bad. She can't be more than 25 and she has the body of a woman in her mid forties. Her tits are small, which means her natural waist size is quite a bit smaller than this size.
She could get to her healthy size in a year if she did it right. One year for about 25 lbs. Entirely manageable for someone with a plan. That's less than a pound a week. She can't try something to improve her entire life with just one year of effort ?



I didn't start losing weight until I was 24. You're right that portion control and better nutrition play a huge part of it. But increasing exercise if you're eating habits wane a bit isn't a bad thing; you just have to change what training you're doing. In fact mine has changed drastically since I lost a considerable amount of weight. I went from mainly cardio to mainly strength training. However, if it's holiday season or vacation I cut back on the strength training and go into more cardio.

Keep your body guessing! :^)
 
2012-10-23 02:20:12 PM

machoprogrammer: Overfiend: Poor baby...

Is that the reason you are a tool?


Aww, is fatty sad? Would a slice of cheese cake make you feel better?


PsiChick: liam76: For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it. Who cried for hours over the fact she would never be thin.

Too bad she didn't try the "extreme measure" of a healthy diet and moderate exercise program.

Actually, that was probably step 1. There's this interesting thing called 'the latest scientific research...from ten years ago' that you might want to catch up with. Some people honestly can't lose weight. Some people can.

But that said, even if she could...why the fark do you care?

Umm, no. That isn't "extreme". That is called "eating right and exercise". And anyone can lose weight.


Beta Tested: People get results on all sorts of diets, some work better/faster than others, but the universal overriding factor in all of these diets is that people stop eating crappy food. Crappy food makes you sick, and being sick makes you fatter than you otherwise should be.

Did you ever ask yourself WHAT is different about the Zucker Rats? Do you just see "genetically modified" and for no reason dismiss everything else? They are genetically modified in such a way that they have a modified leptin receptor, "Leptin is a 16 kDa protein hormone that plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite/hunger and metabolism."

Furthermore, "It is one of the most important adipose derived hormones." Did you get all that? Adipose is fat, your fat cells make leptin, then they use it to signal your brain to store more in them. A small change to the gene that controls the receptor can make a rat very, very fat for no other reason. This knowledge and line of investigation is DIRECTLY relevant to humans who have leptin, leptin receptors, and fat cells. And they demonstrate, unarguably, that there is more to fat gain/loss than your simplistic and incorrect "Calories in ...


Nah - not hungry.

But you may want to put some Preperation H on that douchebag mouth of yours. With all the stupid shiat you're saying you may get a rash.
 
2012-10-23 02:21:09 PM
Not bad, but she would be smoking hot if she lost about 15 lbs.
 
2012-10-23 02:22:38 PM

PsiChick: liam76: For the girl who hated her body so much she took extreme measures to try to change it. Who cried for hours over the fact she would never be thin.

Too bad she didn't try the "extreme measure" of a healthy diet and moderate exercise program.

Actually, that was probably step 1. There's this interesting thing called 'the latest scientific research...from ten years ago' that you might want to catch up with. SomeA very tiny percentage of people honestly can't lose weight. Some people can.


FTFY.



But that said, even if she could...why the fark do you care?

Maybe for the same reason you care if I care?

Maybe because I am bored at work and I don't really "care" but I do find it amusing to mock someone who is crying about the attention her body gets when she is standing behind a picture of her body in a swimsuit on facebook, and garnering more attention.
 
2012-10-23 02:25:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: One of the downsides of cardio is that it does tend to tell your body to lock in at its current weight beyond a certain point, actually dropping a large amount frequently requires _not_ exercising and dropping your diet in a more dramatic fashion for a month or so, then going back to your routine at the lower weight.


Given my history, that makes a lot of sense. I had a torn calf muscle and had to lay off the running entirely for a month one time and to make sure I didn't put on any extra pounds I cut my diet dramatically. I didn't need the extra calories to fuel any runs, anyhow. I lost more weight during that period, I think, than I had otherwise. Maybe I spend this winter just cutting cals and laying off the workouts and then resume in the Spring.

machoprogrammer: Running actually doesn't burn that many calories (130 calories per mile). So if you ran 10 miles, that is 1300 calories


I doubt that's true. Actually, I know it isn't. It depends on a lot of factors: weight, speed, heart rate, etc. If I go out and run 3 miles at a 10:00 pace, you say I'll burn 390 calories... and if I do 3 miles at an 8:00 pace I'll burn the same? How about my wife who is 70 pounds less than me? She'll go run 3 miles at a 7:00 pace and also burn exactly 390 calories? What if she runs at a 9:00 pace? Still 130 per mile? It's amazing how you are able to assign constants to everything like that! Well, that settles it. No more sprint workouts at the track for me, I'm just gonna shuffle along at a 10:00 pace from now on and keep my heart rate really low!
 
2012-10-23 02:31:03 PM

WinoRhino: I doubt that's true. Actually, I know it isn't. It depends on a lot of factors: weight, speed, heart rate, etc. If I go out and run 3 miles at a 10:00 pace, you say I'll burn 390 calories... and if I do 3 miles at an 8:00 pace I'll burn the same? How about my wife who is 70 pounds less than me? She'll go run 3 miles at a 7:00 pace and also burn exactly 390 calories? What if she runs at a 9:00 pace? Still 130 per mile? It's amazing how you are able to assign constants to everything like that! Well, that settles it. No more sprint workouts at the track for me, I'm just gonna shuffle along at a 10:00 pace from now on and keep my heart rate really low!


Well, the faster you go the more you burn, but in general it is 130 per. Depends on body weight, too, but that is the average. There are calculators for it on the internets. The other thing about cardio is you get an "after burner" effect, which means your metabolism is increased for about 24 hours after. The longer you go, the more the after burner effect takes over. An hour of solid running creates something like 500 calories burned in the after burner effect. I forget the exact amount but it is quite a bit.
 
2012-10-23 02:34:23 PM

WinoRhino: I doubt that's true. Actually, I know it isn't. It depends on a lot of factors: weight, speed, heart rate, etc. If I go out and run 3 miles at a 10:00 pace, you say I'll burn 390 calories... and if I do 3 miles at an 8:00 pace I'll burn the same? How about my wife who is 70 pounds less than me? She'll go run 3 miles at a 7:00 pace and also burn exactly 390 calories? What if she runs at a 9:00 pace? Still 130 per mile? It's amazing how you are able to assign constants to everything like that! Well, that settles it. No more sprint workouts at the track for me, I'm just gonna shuffle along at a 10:00 pace from now on and keep my heart rate really low


Sprinting burns a few more calories, but not that much.

Weight and distance are the main drivers in running.

Sprint workouts are good for building muscle (which will burn more calories inthe long run by virtue of having more muscles, not through the actual workout).
 
2012-10-23 02:44:16 PM
I used to think I didn't mind chubby or "thick" chicks, but then my gf, who was overweight, lost 30 lbs. Holy shiat, I can't believe what I've been missing. Skinny chicks ftw
 
2012-10-23 02:46:00 PM

WinoRhino: I doubt that's true. Actually, I know it isn't. It depends on a lot of factors: weight, speed, heart rate, etc. If I go out and run 3 miles at a 10:00 pace, you say I'll burn 390 calories... and if I do 3 miles at an 8:00 pace I'll burn the same? How about my wife who is 70 pounds less than me? She'll go run 3 miles at a 7:00 pace and also burn exactly 390 calories? What if she runs at a 9:00 pace? Still 130 per mile? It's amazing how you are able to assign constants to everything like that! Well, that settles it. No more sprint workouts at the track for me, I'm just gonna shuffle along at a 10:00 pace from now on and keep my heart rate really low!


sadly, your timing is not a big factor for weight loss. In fact, shortening your time consistently will result in higher efficiency and less weight loss. Your wife is burning less. That is why treadmills and other cardio machines ask what your weight is. They are calibrated with actual lab studies that measure CO2 respiration (our most direct means of measuring calorie burn). What these machines don't have in them is the efficiency co-factor. They are calibrated for people in the early phase of exercise. Over time your treadmill will lie to you about how much you are burning.

but your pace is only a very small effect on caloric burn. ta da.

So, did you really want to learn anything today ?
 
2012-10-23 02:47:36 PM

liam76: WinoRhino: I doubt that's true. Actually, I know it isn't. It depends on a lot of factors: weight, speed, heart rate, etc. If I go out and run 3 miles at a 10:00 pace, you say I'll burn 390 calories... and if I do 3 miles at an 8:00 pace I'll burn the same? How about my wife who is 70 pounds less than me? She'll go run 3 miles at a 7:00 pace and also burn exactly 390 calories? What if she runs at a 9:00 pace? Still 130 per mile? It's amazing how you are able to assign constants to everything like that! Well, that settles it. No more sprint workouts at the track for me, I'm just gonna shuffle along at a 10:00 pace from now on and keep my heart rate really low

Sprinting burns a few more calories, but not that much.

Weight and distance are the main drivers in running.

Sprint workouts are good for building muscle (which will burn more calories inthe long run by virtue of having more muscles, not through the actual workout).


I think you're missing elevation gain, flat lander :)
 
2012-10-23 02:51:04 PM

karmachameleon: FilmBELOH20: karmachameleon: serial_crusher: Fear_and_Loathing: She is within the norm for women.  Horrors!

Just because being overweight has become the norm doesn't mean it should be celebrated.

It also shouldn't be condemned.

The problem with today's society is that too many people conflate their personal choices with morally righteous choices for everyone else. Fark off, in all seriousness. The world would be a much nicer place if people would just mind their own goddamned business.

OK, fair enough. Question for you though.... What are your thoughts on universal health care? I've got no problem whatsoever paying more in taxes so that those who can't help themselves can get help. But along your lines of me minding my own business, doesn't it become my business when I have to pay for bad behavior and habits? Why should my tax dollars go to help a Type II Diabetic who is only that way because they can't put down the donuts? Why should I be forced to help pay for lung cancer treatments for a smoker?

"Society" is defined as a relationship with one's fellows. It's our job as a society to take care of one another, not celebrate or encourage bad choices and behavior. Certainly people shouldn't be bullied for whatever issue they may have, but the line above is brilliant - it shouldn't be celebrated in the name of self-esteem. It's like the kids playing sports today in leagues where they don't keep score or declare winners and losers. Sooner or later that's going to come back and bite the kids in the ass when they get in to the real world.

Well, that's always the classic excuse that people use to stick their nose where it doesn't belong, isn't it? Again, conflating personal choice with moral righteousness. I guess, judging by your statement, add to that an air of entitlement.

Just because something affects you, what makes you think you're absolutely entitled to have a say in the matter? I'm not saying you necessarily don't, but you seem to be saying t ...


"You're entitled for wanting to have a say in how ambuloceuti are cared for. That is not your business. They are not equally bad if not worse with "entitlement" though for wanting you to subsidize care for the TOTALLY elective condition that will make them incredibly costly until they die at 45."

Also all the stories here about being told by your doctors you're obese or whatever and need to lose weight when you're super fit? Bull crap. I'm 6'2'' 202. At that weight I am theoretically overweight and need to lose at least ten pounds to be on the border of healthy. I'm big and muscular though and you can see the vertical lines running up my abdomen where my obliques start (no six pack, I like to eat). The point is I'm 10-15 pounds "overweight" and no doctor I've ever seen has even THOUGHT to advise me that I need to shed some pounds. Yours don't either. If your doctor says you need to lose weight its because you're an obvious doughboy. Maybe you can run like the wind for now, but your flab-stores are probably also annihilating your joints.
 
2012-10-23 02:54:32 PM

The Decider: Those stretch marks are just so sexy.

I thought they were claw marks. I assumed some guy got his head stuck.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thread.
Over.
 
Displayed 50 of 439 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report