Jeeper79 said:

---

Madman said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think it is the caloric density. A very small amount will contain a lot of calories the body will digest and add to body fat if they aren't metabolized. I think it is just that a little goes a long way, but food today contains a LOT of it.

---

It would seem something not metabolized would not end up as fat or anything else for that matter.

I saw a few meme type posts claiming seed oils were bad because they were originally made to be an industrial lubricant. Which might be true, but doesn't tell me much about the health impact.

Just because I might be able to lube a door hinge with a seed oil doesn't mean it's bad to also eat. Strange yes, but not necessarily bad.

---

Yeah I don't get those arguments either. It's an "appeal to nature" fallacy. If there are valid reasons not to ingest it, go with those.

When they use an argument like industrial lubricant, it suggests to me that they are either trying to scare people into not thinking critically or they themselves are not capable of critical thought (or both).

---

Or it's because the seed oils are used because they are cheap to produce and work well in processed foods.

It's also not about the calories entirely, it's about the chemical compounds within a lot of the foods we consume that are not beneficial at all, and many of which have significant adverse effects on the body.

But hey, that's not critical thinking. That's beind scared I guess.

The solution, for everybody everywhere all of the time, is to just do XYZ and if you don't, you are a lazy eff that just doesn't have discipline. Or something.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Buck Turgidson said:

---

So rather than un**** our food supply, we are going to keep feeding people crap that makes them sick and obese so that we can then sell them more poison to make them sick and thinner.

---

We can fix our food, but it'll take the one thing people here can't stand… More government.

---

A better way is more education, then let economics do the rest.

The education part is pretty hard though, this thread is great proof of it.

Until modern medicine finds a way to make money through prevention, we will be stuck on this hamster wheel. Money is made by the fistful through treatment, basically big pharma bandaids treating the symptoms but never truly offering long term health solutions. Our food is stripped of essential and natural occurring vitamins and minerals which are repackaged and sold to us in one form or another.

Big Pharma finds it inspiration in nature, then researches a way to chemically re-create nature so it can be patented and they make money by the **** ton from it. Since one can't patent what's naturally available, one can't make a ton of money from it, so it must be created to be claimed. By the same token, if our foods were simply left alone and we weren't fed, or made to depend on, chemicals we would be a much healthier nation. I do believe simply removing all additives, preservatives, and GMOs from our foods would solve most of our obesity epidemic.

schmellba99 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Madman said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think it is the caloric density. A very small amount will contain a lot of calories the body will digest and add to body fat if they aren't metabolized. I think it is just that a little goes a long way, but food today contains a LOT of it.

---

It would seem something not metabolized would not end up as fat or anything else for that matter.

I saw a few meme type posts claiming seed oils were bad because they were originally made to be an industrial lubricant. Which might be true, but doesn't tell me much about the health impact.

Just because I might be able to lube a door hinge with a seed oil doesn't mean it's bad to also eat. Strange yes, but not necessarily bad.

---

Yeah I don't get those arguments either. It's an "appeal to nature" fallacy. If there are valid reasons not to ingest it, go with those.

When they use an argument like industrial lubricant, it suggests to me that they are either trying to scare people into not thinking critically or they themselves are not capable of critical thought (or both).

---

Or it's because the seed oils are used because they are cheap to produce and work well in processed foods.

It's also not about the calories entirely, it's about the chemical compounds within a lot of the foods we consume that are not beneficial at all, and many of which have significant adverse effects on the body.

But hey, that's not critical thinking. That's beind scared I guess.

The solution, for everybody everywhere all of the time, is to just do XYZ and if you don't, you are a lazy eff that just doesn't have discipline. Or something.

---

Eat real food. 80% of the highly and minimally processed foods in the US is NOT good for us. Try to not eat it.

There are apps like Yuka that tell you what's in the box / can / package. Can be shocking what is approved to consume in the US.

PacoPicoPiedra said:

---

Until modern medicine finds a way to make money through prevention, we will be stuck on this hamster wheel. Money is made by the fistful through treatment, basically big pharma bandaids treating the symptoms but never truly offering long term health solutions. Our food is stripped of essential and natural occurring vitamins and minerals which are repackaged and sold to us in one form or another.

Big Pharma finds it inspiration in nature, then researches a way to chemically re-create nature so it can be patented and they make money by the **** ton from it. Since one can't patent what's naturally available, one can't make a ton of money from it, so it must be created to be claimed. By the same token, if our foods were simply left alone and we weren't fed, or made to depend on, chemicals we would be a much healthier nation. I do believe simply removing all additives, preservatives, and GMOs from our foods would solve most of our obesity epidemic.

---

GMO's have not been proven to cause any issues with obesity. They are an overall positive for the world. And "all" preservatives? We've been putting preservatives in food for over a thousand years.

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

AggielandPoultry said:

---

Honestly I have mentally been against people using these drugs to lose weight knowing just how hard I work to stay lean, etc. But the truth is, if i were overweight with issues I would take it as well. No different than bodybuilders I know taking huge amounts of steroids to get big. Either way we are all going to die at some point.

---

I disagree with that analogy. Bodybuilders take anabolic steroids to reach a point they genetically can't without them. Nearly everyone on ozempic would lose the weight if they improved their diet.

---

Not true.

(Long post)

I know the "just do what I do!" crowd doesn't believe this, and I didn't when I was young and had the ability and time to do a lot of physically active things for multiple hours a day as well, but the whole mentality that if you just do X or Y or Z like I do, you, too, can be Adonis! is just crap. I guess I could argue that anbody and everybody should be able to walk into the gym and within maybe 2 weeks of working out throw 275 or more on the bench press and push it with no problem. After all, I could do that - and I haven't seriously worked out in a long, long time.

Somebody on this thread made a post a few pages back that genetics has nothing to do with your body, which is one of the dumbest things typed.

Like bodybuilders and steroid use to get to a point that they could not get to genetically, the same is true and applicable for a whole lot of people with regard to fat storage and weight. Contrary to what one might deduce from reading this thread, a lot of people throughout history have different metabolisms, different fat storage ability, different ability to burn that fat, different muscle mass, etc. One size does not fit all by any stretch of the imagination.

I've done everythng mentioned in this thread at some point, with the exeption of the Rx shots. Keto, fasting, working out hours at a time both in weight training as well as aerobic, cutting carbs to almost nothing, etc, etc, etc. And I still had some pudge around my waist, because I am genetically pre-dispositioned to store fat and store it around my waist. When I was a kid burning thousands of calories a day outside riding bikes, playing sports, etc. - I still had that little pudge and love handles. In high school I was doing over 1k situps per day, running several miles per day, playing football, weight training, playing baseball, etc. - still had the pudge. In college I got up to a weight I couldn't tolerate, started working out religously. Dropped a mess of the fat...but still had the pudge and slight love handles.

None of the things I've tried are truly sustainable for me. Keto was probably the closest, but even then it just wasn't something I could do forever. I got burned out. Fasting didn't work well for me. Cutting carbs isn't sustainable either. No matter what I've tried, nothing is something I can do long term. Call me undisciplined I guess, but none of the fads ar something that are natural to me, and if it isn't a natural function, it isn't sustainable. And that goes for most of the people on this planet. I also adhere to the theory that I want to actually enjoy life, and constantly starving myself is opposite of enjoying life. I like food, it's meant to be enjoyed, not just used as something to continue my existence. I know some people that have the mentality that you eat just to live, I just can't get on board with that. And most of those people always seem to be in a bad mood.

I also don't have the time to work out 2-3 hours a day. I flat dislike meal prepping and won't do it. Same as some people don't eat food to enjoy it.

I used to have much of the same mentality that a lot of the folks here have - that if you just do XYZ like I do, you'll get the results. I've grown since then and also realize that everybody has unique traits that help or hinder their ability to gain or lose weight.

The other day I was at my brother's house and his future FIL saw us standing next to one another and made a comment about how different our physical builds were. My brother asked me how much I weighed and was shocked when I told him 235. Admittedly, that's with more chub-a-lub than I like to have, but it is what it is. He thought I was around 215 or so (probably where I need to be). He weighs maybe 175, maybe. We just have different physical builds and always have. I've always been more muscular than he was and weighed more than him at the same points in our lives. I've always been stronger than him, he has always been able to run faster and farther and longer than I ever could. He made the comment that if I got down to anything below about 210, he'd think I was sick because my build just wouldn't be right at that weight. I've gotten down to around 200 before, but my body just didn't like it. It isn't where my physical self wants to be, honestly I felt kind of sickly at that light of a weight. And it wasn't sustainable to stay at that weight, at least not if I wanted to not be hungry all of the time and enjoy some aspects of life. As soon as I quit being super anal and disciplined with food, weight came on quick. And I wasn't sitting around gorging on donuts and pizza - just wasn't eating the same as I had been.

I also have discovered as I have gotten older that your body absolutely does change as you age. Your metabolism slows down no matter what. I have RA, and after a solid work day or any real physical activitiy I am in physical pain. Not sore from physical activity, but actual physical pain that can absolutely put me down at times. Hell, I have physical pain all of the time, every day, 365 days a year. On a scale of 1-10, a low end for me is about a 3 on the scale. It's part of my genetics, as unfortunate as it is. I can't do some of the things I was once able to do.

Almost everybody is correct in some degree on this thread - but the absolutism of "you only need to do exactly what I do and anything else is just because you suck at life!" is a sht mentality. A lot of things are absolutely true -

• Most people eat too much
• Most of the food products we eat have ingredients that the human body isn't designed to consume
• We all should be more physically active, because the human body is designed that way
• Some form of lifestyle changes need to be made
• Taking a med that facilitates losing weight is not a bad thing at all
• A combination of changing lifestyle, eating better, eating less processed foods packed with bad calories, more physical activity and, if necessary, getting a boost from a Rx are all good things.

Gilligan said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Madman said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I think it is the caloric density. A very small amount will contain a lot of calories the body will digest and add to body fat if they aren't metabolized. I think it is just that a little goes a long way, but food today contains a LOT of it.

---

It would seem something not metabolized would not end up as fat or anything else for that matter.

I saw a few meme type posts claiming seed oils were bad because they were originally made to be an industrial lubricant. Which might be true, but doesn't tell me much about the health impact.

Just because I might be able to lube a door hinge with a seed oil doesn't mean it's bad to also eat. Strange yes, but not necessarily bad.

---

Yeah I don't get those arguments either. It's an "appeal to nature" fallacy. If there are valid reasons not to ingest it, go with those.

When they use an argument like industrial lubricant, it suggests to me that they are either trying to scare people into not thinking critically or they themselves are not capable of critical thought (or both).

---

Or it's because the seed oils are used because they are cheap to produce and work well in processed foods.

It's also not about the calories entirely, it's about the chemical compounds within a lot of the foods we consume that are not beneficial at all, and many of which have significant adverse effects on the body.

But hey, that's not critical thinking. That's beind scared I guess.

The solution, for everybody everywhere all of the time, is to just do XYZ and if you don't, you are a lazy eff that just doesn't have discipline. Or something.

---

Eat real food. 80% of the highly and minimally processed foods in the US is NOT good for us. Try to not eat it.

There are apps like Yuka that tell you what's in the box / can / package. Can be shocking what is approved to consume in the US.

---

I do eat real food, I've been there, done that on the tracking food, etc. Not for me. The US has all kinds of things approved for consumption that most other countries don't.

Understanding and learning that 70% of the calories consumed are through products developed within the last 100 years through industrial processes and that, generally speaking, have more negative effects than anything is absolutely critical thinking. Stating that using a factual terminology and not knowing what the basis of the statement you are disregarding is - well, that's not critical thinking.

anyone that believes genetics has nothing to do with body building is insane.

hmm.. why it looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents are pretty large humans as well!

what a coincidence!

Quote:

---

Somebody on this thread made a post a few pages back that genetics has nothing to do with your body, which is one of the dumbest things typed.

---

LOL, I'll go with THE dumbest.

Gentics is most of it.

Remember Jack Lalanne.. (look him up if you're too young). One of if not the first fitness gurus. Exercise show in TV in the 50s. As he got older he did nutty things on his birthdays, like swim towing the number of rowboats of his age. Something like his 90th birthday he was being interviewed. Went on and on extoling the value of exercise, proper diet, vitamins, etc. The interviewer then asked, "Don't you have an older brother still living. And hasn't he drank and smoked most of his life?". Lalanne, just nodded his head.

Obviously we can all do the best we can with what we got, but genetics is much of the equation.

Teslag said:

---

PacoPicoPiedra said:

---

Until modern medicine finds a way to make money through prevention, we will be stuck on this hamster wheel. Money is made by the fistful through treatment, basically big pharma bandaids treating the symptoms but never truly offering long term health solutions. Our food is stripped of essential and natural occurring vitamins and minerals which are repackaged and sold to us in one form or another.

Big Pharma finds it inspiration in nature, then researches a way to chemically re-create nature so it can be patented and they make money by the **** ton from it. Since one can't patent what's naturally available, one can't make a ton of money from it, so it must be created to be claimed. By the same token, if our foods were simply left alone and we weren't fed, or made to depend on, chemicals we would be a much healthier nation. I do believe simply removing all additives, preservatives, and GMOs from our foods would solve most of our obesity epidemic.

---

GMO's have not been proven to cause any issues with obesity. They are an overall positive for the world. And "all" preservatives? We've been putting preservatives in food for over a thousand years.

---

While I don't disagree with your comment on the use of preservatives, I'll cater to your literal sensibilities. Preservation of food has been practiced for thousands of years, sure. Pickling, salting, smoking, dehydrating, fermenting, chilling, freezing (if possible), canning, even adding tallow are all time tested ways to preserve foods. But, the FDA allows manufacturers to include over 2800 additives and preservatives to our foods, the overwhelming majority of which are artificial, this is my point. GMOs have been engineered, and are proven, to produce toxins that act as pesticides and/or gain immunities against herbicides or other poisons. When ingested, artificial preservatives, additives, and GMOs introduce toxins into the body that slow metabolism, gum up pathways for nutrient uptake, block or bind to normal hormone receptors, etc. and these issues can lead to obesity. The more fat on our bodies, the more toxins we store and the greater we ****** the body's normal functions. Add in the fact that processed foods are calorie dense, they are also nutrient depleted or deficient and this lends to people overeating because the body clamors for the nutrients not being provided and it gives off hunger signals. So, yes, GMOs, artificial preservatives, and additives have a hand in our obesity epidemic

Can you share this proven peer reviewed studies against GMO's? Are you also against things like glyphosate being used on our food?

Teslag said:

---

Can you share this proven peer reviewed studies against GMO's? Are you also against things like glyphosate being used on our food?

---

Ah, yes, the time tested "peer reviewed study" request to end all arguments. You have the internet, knock yourself out, please. Hmm, Round Up and its generic cousins, huh? Count me as mistrusting anything related to Monsanto. Yes, I'm against its use and try my best to avoid it, if possible, yet realize it's a monumental task to get away from glyphosate considering its widespread usage.

Why do you believe glyphosate is dangerous?

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Somebody on this thread made a post a few pages back that genetics has nothing to do with your body, which is one of the dumbest things typed.

---

LOL, I'll go with THE dumbest.

Gentics is most of it.

Remember Jack Lalanne.. (look him up if you're too young). One of if not the first fitness gurus. Exercise show in TV in the 50s. As he got older he did nutty things on his birthdays, like swim towing the number of rowboats of his age. Something like his 90th birthday he was being interviewed. Went on and on extoling the value of exercise, proper diet, vitamins, etc. The interviewer then asked, "Don't you have an older brother still living. And hasn't he drank and smoked most of his life?". Lalanne, just nodded his head.

Obviously we can all do the best we can with what we got, but genetics is much of the equation.

---

Grams lived well into her 90's smoking a pack a day, eating only beans, vanilla wafers, bananas, vanilla ice cream and an occasional "Rum Goodie..." She was about 90 lbs. Sharp as a tack until her body gave out.

Best domino partner ever!

Norman Boloug's wheat that (literally) saved the world is GMO.

Teslag said:

---

Why do you believe glyphosate is dangerous?

---

Why? Are you going to point me in the direction of the 2016 WHO/FAO study which concluded that the ingestion of glyphosate residue does not 'necessarily' constitute a health risk and spells out acceptable intake limits? Are the residue levels for every plant tested? How can we be certain the residue levels for each individual plant, fruit, vegetable, herb, root, etc. falls within these acceptable intake limits when purchased from the grocery store?

Or maybe the consensus of pesticide regulatory agencies that say glyphosate presents no known carcinogenicity? How about the IARC or EFSA studies showing glyphosate is 'unlikely' to be carcinogenic though certain formulations on the market may present a risk? Not exactly what I would call ringing endorsements considering these studies leave open the possibility that the chemical could be harmful or carcinogenic to humans.

he didn't ask what he believed, he asked what you believed.

Here's a JRSM article about credibility of peer reviewed articles I found on NIH.gov. Problem is I don't think it was peer reviewed when it was published.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

it doesn't help when the peers are idiots, too. if we learned anything from covid times...

RK said:

---

it doesn't help when the peers are idiots, too. if we learned anything from covid times...

---

If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it peer reviewed I will. Ive got spare time.

And, of course, you have to compare/contrast the preservatives against what they're protecting against. I like bacteria free food.

cecil77 said:

---

Norman Boloug's wheat that (literally) saved the world is GMO.

---

GMO's, herbicides and pesticides, and Monsanto have done more good for Man than most any government on earth.

I remember the first time I met a conspiracy theorist. His two biggest boogeymen were Monsanto and Bill Gates. He hoarded physical gold/silver in the case that an EMP took out the infrastructure (not a terrible idea either way). He also has pre-can bus vehicle for the same reason. He believed all the 9/11 stuff, too.

Never understood the GMO hate. Worked for an Ag manufacturing company my entire career. Ag pesticides/herbicides mostly, but company also into seeds/GMO. I can see these anti GMO people trying to convince 3rd world people that it is better to starve than use GMO seeds that have better yields (built in defenses for pests, drought).

My only problem with Ozempic/ Mounjaro weight reduction craze is i wish only those that are really obese would use it. My wife is diabetic and it is getting very difficult to get them. I have a feeling a large amount are going to those that just want to lose 10-20 pounds without the work.

I find it a little ironic that many of the folks that are anti-gmo are the ones that wanted the vaccine mandated and are probably triple boosted

Like most issues I'm not an absolutists. I did the initial 2 shots and even 2 boosters, but never believed it should be mandated or penalties. Once I got Covid in 2023 felt natural antibodies are better than any future boosters so don't plan to get anymore. What I think I did do wrong was take the Paxlovid that they say reduces the symptoms and length. A week after testing negative I got Covid again. Reading up on it and talking to doctor it seems rebound cases are more frequent when you take Paxlovid. In fact I had very few symptoms to start with so should have used over-the-counter.

It's just a little funny how people refuse to put something in their bodies that has been used for decades and proven to be safe and then don't ask questions when a vaccine is put out in months and put it into their bodies.

I don't care if you're vaccinated, I care if you cannot see the irony in that line of thinking.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

It's just a little funny how people refuse to put something in their bodies that has been used for decades and proven to be safe and then don't ask questions when a vaccine is put out in months and put it into their bodies.

I don't care if you're vaccinated, I care if you cannot see the irony in that line of thinking.

---

Imagine having to say those words to your wife!

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

It's just a little funny how people refuse to put something in their bodies that has been used for decades and proven to be safe and then don't ask questions when a vaccine is put out in months and put it into their bodies.

I don't care if you're vaccinated, I care if you cannot see the irony in that line of thinking.

---

I definitely see the irony and agree with you.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I find it a little ironic that many of the folks that are anti-gmo are the ones that wanted the vaccine mandated and are probably triple boosted

---

In my experience, the anyi-GMO folks fall into one of two categories:

1. Liberal hippies that tout "all natural" everything
2. Conservative conspiracy theorists that think Monsanto is Umbrella Corporation.

I can't recall ever meeting a politically moderate anti-GMO person.

Of course, irony can go in the other direction too. My DIL is big anti vaxer, but then has Botox shots every month into her forehead.

Clavell said:

---

Of course, irony can go in the other direction too. My DIL is big anti vaxer, but then has Botox shots every month into her forehead.

---

I don't follow this logic from a medical perspective. Please clarify.

Worried about Covid Vaccine, but not about injecting a botulinum toxin into your head.

If I really need to explain further, I'm afraid I can't.