--Kaiser-- wrote: » Fact. You can keep your stupid winky face
jan shyr wrote: » And how do you propose to do this? There are several methods to measure either fat or whether the person is within normal mass range (BMI). This would become excessively complicated even if you try to even consider to implement it into reality. First this is breach of privacy, secondly you will have to perform this measurement for millions of people and it will have to be done not just once but regularly (2 years, 5 years, pick a number). Then there are certain conditions that increase the fat mass in people, will they be exception.
Gummy Panda wrote: » Sounds scary so media use it.
Angeles wrote: » People blame food all the time, "too much sugar in this and that" The real problem is our level of activity.
Our General physical and mental activity is highly reduced because of advancements in entertainment and in the amount of ways we reduce the effort in simply getting from A to B. Compare that to 80 years ago, the food more or less is the same. Infact in many cases now, healthier, we just simple don't move as much. *typed while sitting motionless in a comfy chair in an office looking at a computer screen*
Sea Filly wrote: » In your opinion.
--Kaiser-- wrote: » Nope. All grains are unhealthy
Tax by inches on the waistband of clothing?
Rhyme wrote: » I don't get this usage of the term 'epidemic'. It's not like you can catch the fat.
Sea Filly wrote: » Oatey homemade muesli with little sugar added would be.
Dravokivich wrote: » Tax by inches on the waistband of clothing?
jan shyr wrote: » Obesity comes from high consumption of energy. Non-obese people shouldn't be paying any form of tax just because they like to enjoy the food that you are proposing to be taxed.
Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.
dirtyden wrote: » Sappa wrote: » They have hard data to prove this targeting secondary schools not primary schools,should have made that clear sorry. He couldn't believe the level of fitness when tested at a speed beep test. Kids were dropping out after 20 beeps where the analysis from 10 yrs previously showed 60 odd being the worst performance, Body fat bmi was taken consistently from 4 schools and the data is showing a huge jump in fat %. I think it is down to a number of factors,ready availability of fast food,junk,extra money,clever marketing,over indulgence and lack of exercise or encouragement by the parents. I should have read your post more thoroughly too, apologies! I guess it is hard to argue with numbers. Do you mind me asking where the school was? I would imagine depending on school or area large differences might also be seen. I am from a rural town where GAA is religion and every kid plays. I would imagine factors like that would also be key in the general fitness and activity levels of kids. I would imagine general fitness may have dropped in some areas as past times for kids have in some cases become more sedentary. We spent school holidays outside, but we did not have games consoles apart form the C64 (and you still had to go out and play 2 hrs football while the game was loading). And also junk food is everywhere now. Sad to say, i can remember when a bag of chips was a real treat (although our local italian chipper back then was legendary).
Sappa wrote: » They have hard data to prove this targeting secondary schools not primary schools,should have made that clear sorry. He couldn't believe the level of fitness when tested at a speed beep test. Kids were dropping out after 20 beeps where the analysis from 10 yrs previously showed 60 odd being the worst performance, Body fat bmi was taken consistently from 4 schools and the data is showing a huge jump in fat %. I think it is down to a number of factors,ready availability of fast food,junk,extra money,clever marketing,over indulgence and lack of exercise or encouragement by the parents.
--Kaiser-- wrote: » Muesli and most cereals are alos unhealthy
wilkie2006 wrote: » Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.
fishy fishy wrote: » and what about the likes of muesli and most cereals - they have more sugar in them than sweets half the time.
wilkie2006 wrote: » I absolutely agree that a tax should be levied on all fast-food, sweets, etc. However, the revenue it generates shouldn't go towards the national debt - it needs to be spent on subsidising healthier foods and teaching people how to cook properly.
Phoenix Park wrote: » Its bizarre that its completely normal for every newsagent you walk in to to have so many bars of chocolate and fizzy drinks at the counter...maybe a Fat Tax is needed? Junk food is just so accessible, it almost standard for people to buy a bar and a bottle of coke with their newspaper at this stage.
marshbaboon wrote: » To be honest it's not that hard a formula to work out. Consuming more energy than you use = weight gain. If you can't see your neck anymore, it's probably time to put the fork down.
LCD wrote: » Everything you read or see on TV these days tells us world is in the middle of an obesity epidemic, read somewhere 60% of Irish overweight. Then is all these programmes saying cause is not too much fat is too much sugar. Yet half the country seesm to be doing a 5km run or triathlon every weekend.
Sea Filly wrote: » No, believe me, sugar consumption has a HUGE amount to do with weight gain. Most of us eat far too much of it.
BraziliaNZ wrote: » Well you work in a lab, so probably educated middle class people you're surrounded by. They're the ones who eat healthy and exercise. Look at a typical pajama wearing type's grocery trolley, it's all coke and chicken nuggets, not roasted fennel and rocket salads etc! So it's the uneducated poor people who are getting fatter it seems.
