Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the new rule is that a serving is now defined as whatever someone could reasonably consume in a single sitting.

Do you (or anyone else) have a link to how this is calculated? I've always wondered how that's done.

I just asked my wife (again, a registered dietitian) and she says there is no actual method for determining what constitutes a serving size.

There is an established process for determining the nutritional content of some amount of a substance, and it generally adheres to the principle of conservation of matter/energy. If an egg is 80 calories and a slice of bacon is 40 calories (actual numbers), then a 3-egg, 2 bacon omelette is 320 calories. (Give or take if you add a little milk or butter). This works even on large-scale projects.

Realistically, if they provide the nutritional content for 20 oz of coke, and you drink 8 oz, it's not really rocket science to calculate 40%. If that amount of math is to blame for the obesity epidemic, then I'd say we've also got an educational crisis on our hands.

I don't mean to say that it was to hard to figure out the value of a 20oz bottle, just that there are probably people that want to do better but don't exactly know how the labels work. So they may look at the label and see the value and then think that the serving = a bottle instead of the actual serving. It's just one of those small things that can add up when people don't know how to do it right.

Well, given that bottles have been labeled like that for a long time there really is no excuse for not knowing.

Plenty of excuses, but it's stuff that can be easily fixed with education. "How to read nutrition labels" should be something that is taught in middle school and then again in High School and I would even support a "how to live on your own" class requirement for college freshmen that includes basic nutrition and teaching kids what a budget is.

But we are losing time for classes like that with school becoming a "we have to teach for the next standardized test" environment.

 d-usa wrote:
I would even support a "how to live on your own" class requirement for college freshmen that includes basic nutrition and teaching kids what a budget is.
.

This should be a HS class

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I would even support a "how to live on your own" class requirement for college freshmen that includes basic nutrition and teaching kids what a budget is.
.

This should be a HS class

Probably Middle School, HS and then a vocational or college entry level class. It wouldn't hurt to cover it a few times to get it hammered into their brains...

 d-usa wrote:
Plenty of excuses, but it's stuff that can be easily fixed with education. "How to read nutrition labels" should be something that is taught in middle school and then again in High School and I would even support a "how to live on your own" class requirement for college freshmen that includes basic nutrition and teaching kids what a budget is.

But we are losing time for classes like that with school becoming a "we have to teach for the next standardized test" environment.

I could start another thread about how bad the public education system is. What do you think?

learning to read,

should cover the "learning to read labels" bit.


they had plenty of home ec, CALM (career and life managment), and other similar classes when I went to school...

this stuff has already been taught, repeatedly,

and forgotten/ignored repeatedly.

when people forget/ignore/dont care about the first two or three times you tell them that eating bad food is bad for them,

what makes you think telling them the #'teenth time will make them choose the smart choice?

its like putting another sign that says "STOP" on top of the stop sign, because people are not stopping, and hoping that people pay attention to it now and stop ignoring it because they are in a hurry.

you ask why are people so fat?

I ask, why are people so stupid?

Why are they totally ignoring the education they have already recieved, and why do we assume they wont just ignore the additional education as well? Past behavior being the best indicator of future behavior, they will just ignore the education we pile on top of the already existing, and ignored, education they already recieved.

because one has a lot to do with the other it would seem as all the processes already in place to educate the public keep being ignored/forgotted/ect

There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

Sure you can blame them- IF they are given the tools to make good decisions. I'm not convinced they are being given those tools.

 Random Dude wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

Sure you can blame them- IF they are given the tools to make good decisions. I'm not convinced they are being given those tools.

so all the obese people are illiterate and didnt go to junior high and highschool?

because all the tools are there already...

if you can read, you can read labels and nutrition guidlines...
if you can do basic math, you can tell that your 4000+ calorie a day diet is more then the 2k calorie diet you need...

those classes that taught you exactly what you are calling "tools required to eat healthy" are already there, and already being ignored,

just as they ignore things like trig, calculus, and immediatly forget what state capitol goes where after the test, if they even remembered it for the test in the first place.

do we need a course to tell people "the stove is hot, do not touch it:101",

then have a HS course "the stove is hot, do not touch it 301"

followed by a university course "the stove is how, DO NOT TOUCH IT!!! 1050"

and a PHD course in "the stove is hot, seriously, DO NOT TOUCH IT"

before we expect such a simple bit of education to stick?

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

That's almost funny.
Cohen Syndrom : 1 person in 100,000,000.
Cushing's Syndrom : 1 person in 1,000,000.
Prader Willy Syndrom : 1 person in 30,000.
Hypothyroidism : 1 person in 3,000.

Still a long way from even reaching that 1%.

As I said, it could be almost funny if that wasn't utterly despicable. Obesity is only one of the many side effects of these diseases. If you're unfortunate enough to have a Prader-Willy, Carpenter or Bardet-Biedl syndrom, your waist size is probably the least of your concerns. Actually, you should consider yourself gifted if you're able to read that message.

Using that kind of excuses for one's laziness and lack of self-control is an insult to all the people who really suffer from these awful diseases.

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

Sure you can blame them- IF they are given the tools to make good decisions. I'm not convinced they are being given those tools.

so all the obese people are illiterate and didnt go to junior high and highschool?

because all the tools are there already...

if you can read, you can read labels and nutrition guidlines...
if you can do basic math, you can tell that your 4000+ calorie a day diet is more then the 2k calorie diet you need...

those classes that taught you exactly what you are calling "tools required to eat healthy" are already there, and already being ignored,

just as they ignore things like trig, calculus, and immediatly forget what state capitol goes where after the test, if they even remembered it for the test in the first place.

do we need a course to tell people "the stove is hot, do not touch it:101",

then have a HS course "the stove is hot, do not touch it 301"

followed by a university course "the stove is how, DO NOT TOUCH IT!!! 1050"

and a PHD course in "the stove is hot, seriously, DO NOT TOUCH IT"

before we expect such a simple bit of education to stick?

Well, the USA did have a literacy rate lower than Cuba a while ago...

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

Sure you can blame them- IF they are given the tools to make good decisions. I'm not convinced they are being given those tools.

so all the obese people are illiterate and didnt go to junior high and highschool?

because all the tools are there already...

if you can read, you can read labels and nutrition guidlines...
if you can do basic math, you can tell that your 4000+ calorie a day diet is more then the 2k calorie diet you need...

those classes that taught you exactly what you are calling "tools required to eat healthy" are already there, and already being ignored,

just as they ignore things like trig, calculus, and immediatly forget what state capitol goes where after the test, if they even remembered it for the test in the first place.

do we need a course to tell people "the stove is hot, do not touch it:101",

then have a HS course "the stove is hot, do not touch it 301"

followed by a university course "the stove is how, DO NOT TOUCH IT!!! 1050"

and a PHD course in "the stove is hot, seriously, DO NOT TOUCH IT"

before we expect such a simple bit of education to stick?

When you put it like that, I have no choice but to agree with you. Our challenge as a society is this: How do we convince people to use common sense and the tools given to them?

Update: My wife provided me the following link:
http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm064904.htm#ServingSize

So, there's your answer.

 Random Dude wrote:


When you put it like that, I have no choice but to agree with you. Our challenge as a society is this: How do we convince people to use common sense and the tools given to them?

that is the crux of the issue,

and one that deals with (unfortunatly) the somewhat "unchangable" nature of us humans,

most people take the easy route, ie junk food, because its easier

there are already health penalties for being unhealthy, or bonuses for being healthy,

so the whole reward/punishment method obviously isnt working, and I dont see it as feasable to impose punishments on fat people, or bonuses on healthy people.

Obesity is not the problem,

it is one symptom, one of MANY, of a sociaty that constantly props up failed ideals, be it our banks, entitlements, or the idea that everyone can eat/do whatever they want consequence free because its always someone else fault or responsability to fix the mess.

we need these institutions and people to fail/go extinct and let social evolution run its course instead of trying to prop up a well intentioned, but bad idea with more, well intentioned bad ideas.

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:


When you put it like that, I have no choice but to agree with you. Our challenge as a society is this: How do we convince people to use common sense and the tools given to them?

that is the crux of the issue,

and one that deals with (unfortunatly) the somewhat "unchangable" nature of us humans,

most people take the easy route, ie junk food, because its easier

there are already health penalties for being unhealthy, or bonuses for being healthy,

so the whole reward/punishment method obviously isnt working, and I dont see it as feasable to impose punishments on fat people, or bonuses on healthy people.

Obesity is not the problem,

it is one symptom, one of MANY, of a sociaty that constantly props up failed ideals, be it our banks, entitlements, or the idea that everyone can eat/do whatever they want consequence free because its always someone else fault or responsability to fix the mess.

we need these institutions and people to fail/go extinct and let social evolution run its course instead of trying to prop up a well intentioned, but bad idea with more, well intentioned bad ideas.

Which brings up another one of my convictions that our society is progressively becoming lazier. No one wants to work for what they get. Apparently, taking 15 minutes to prepare a healthy meal is too much work.

Litcheur wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

That's almost funny.
Cohen Syndrom : 1 person in 100,000,000.
Cushing's Syndrom : 1 person in 1,000,000.
Prader Willy Syndrom : 1 person in 30,000.
Hypothyroidism : 1 person in 3,000.

It isn't as funny if you suffer from one of those diseases but everyone treats you like your problem is you can't control your eating and are lazy. Your snark also ignores medications that can cause weight gain as well as the fact it is never stated that these somehow make up the majority of cases; got some weird straw-man/cherry picking issue going on there. Your list also left of clinical depression, which is a cause of weight gain and effects 1 in 10 people.

easysauce wrote:
that is the crux of the issue,

and one that deals with (unfortunatly) the somewhat "unchangable" nature of us humans,

most people take the easy route, ie junk food, because its easier

there are already health penalties for being unhealthy, or bonuses for being healthy,

so the whole reward/punishment method obviously isnt working, and I dont see it as feasable to impose punishments on fat people, or bonuses on healthy people.

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. People are changeable, and we don't take the easy route because it's easier, we take the easy route because it seems easier at the moment.

There are health penalties for being unhealthy, it's just that they're not obvious until it's too late. Our brains reward us for short-term gain, and we, as a species, don't have a great deal of long-term instincts. Sugar is a reward - and our brains give off little endorphins when we get sugar, because once upon a time, food wasn't plentiful, and we needed to be encouraged to eat up.

Meanwhile, the negatives are a long-time coming. You don't get emphysema on one cigarette, and one ice cream doesn't give you diabetes. So the part of our brain that reacts to reward/punishment motivations doesn't kick in to help you avoid these potentially harmful behaviors.

But, penalties and rewards for unhealthy/healthy activities are being shown to work. There are several apps out there that have gameified healthy behavior to some extent, and they're working. Tools like the fitbit or the Nike fuelband make 'earning points' a part of your exercise routine. There's another app that I can't recall the name of right now, that has you make a pledge (eat under 2000 calories, walk two miles/day, that sort of thing), and pays out real cash to those who make their goals. It's funded by charges applied to those who don't. Individual charges are minimal, but they've found that the threat of being fined even $1/day for not meeting a goal that you set yourself is enough to change behaviours and get more people to commit to their plans. Likewise, the extra reward of a very small amount of money is enough of a psychological motivator to be effective.

That's the key - rewards and punishments need to be equally obvious. Because "eat a donut today" or "get diabetes in 20 years" simply aren't equivalent.


EDIT: Found the app: http://www.gym-pact.com/

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
There is a distinct difference between intelligence and education. You cannot blame someone for being unintelligent because it is entirely outside their control. You can however blame the system for failing to give people the tools they need to make the most of the intelligence with which they are born.

so when people receive EDUCATION to not eat junk food, and IGNORE that education, can we now blame that person, who made that decision?

They have the tools, they are willfully not using them.

or do we still have to never, ever, hold people accountable people for their own actions?

Sure you can blame them- IF they are given the tools to make good decisions. I'm not convinced they are being given those tools.

so all the obese people are illiterate and didnt go to junior high and highschool?

because all the tools are there already...

if you can read, you can read labels and nutrition guidlines...
if you can do basic math, you can tell that your 4000+ calorie a day diet is more then the 2k calorie diet you need...

those classes that taught you exactly what you are calling "tools required to eat healthy" are already there, and already being ignored,

just as they ignore things like trig, calculus, and immediatly forget what state capitol goes where after the test, if they even remembered it for the test in the first place.

do we need a course to tell people "the stove is hot, do not touch it:101",

then have a HS course "the stove is hot, do not touch it 301"

followed by a university course "the stove is how, DO NOT TOUCH IT!!! 1050"

and a PHD course in "the stove is hot, seriously, DO NOT TOUCH IT"

before we expect such a simple bit of education to stick?

Well, the USA did have a literacy rate lower than Cuba a while ago...

Pretty sure that got debunked, not the least because Cuba wasn't above fabricating data to make themselves look good.

Cuba saying they have a literacy rate higher than the US is like North Korea claiming their glorious leader ride unicorns and always gets a hole in 1 while playing golf.

 Redbeard wrote:

easysauce wrote:
that is the crux of the issue,

and one that deals with (unfortunatly) the somewhat "unchangable" nature of us humans,

most people take the easy route, ie junk food, because its easier

there are already health penalties for being unhealthy, or bonuses for being healthy,

so the whole reward/punishment method obviously isnt working, and I dont see it as feasable to impose punishments on fat people, or bonuses on healthy people.

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. People are changeable, and we don't take the easy route because it's easier, we take the easy route because it seems easier at the moment.

There are health penalties for being unhealthy, it's just that they're not obvious until it's too late. Our brains reward us for short-term gain, and we, as a species, don't have a great deal of long-term instincts. Sugar is a reward - and our brains give off little endorphins when we get sugar, because once upon a time, food wasn't plentiful, and we needed to be encouraged to eat up.

Meanwhile, the negatives are a long-time coming. You don't get emphysema on one cigarette, and one ice cream doesn't give you diabetes. So the part of our brain that reacts to reward/punishment motivations doesn't kick in to help you avoid these potentially harmful behaviors.

But, penalties and rewards for unhealthy/healthy activities are being shown to work. There are several apps out there that have gameified healthy behavior to some extent, and they're working. Tools like the fitbit or the Nike fuelband make 'earning points' a part of your exercise routine. There's another app that I can't recall the name of right now, that has you make a pledge (eat under 2000 calories, walk two miles/day, that sort of thing), and pays out real cash to those who make their goals. It's funded by charges applied to those who don't. Individual charges are minimal, but they've found that the threat of being fined even $1/day for not meeting a goal that you set yourself is enough to change behaviours and get more people to commit to their plans. Likewise, the extra reward of a very small amount of money is enough of a psychological motivator to be effective.

That's the key - rewards and punishments need to be equally obvious. Because "eat a donut today" or "get diabetes in 20 years" simply aren't equivalent.

The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I dont think the problem of people having it so easy that the majority of them are obese is going to be solved by making things even easier on them still.

I would say thats just compounding the problem even further.

MrDwhitey wrote:I'm 252lbs at 5 foot 10 inches, I'm shockingly overweight.

The scary thing is, I see a lot of people who weigh more at that height who seem to think it's healthy, and make me look comparatively thin.

That terrifies me.

I was 6' 245ish at two different times. You can drop down to 180 in less than a year if you want to.

Ahtman wrote:The problem with the more expensive = unhealthy isn't choices between kale, the super food of manly men, and a frozen pizza, it is between 75/25 ground meat (cheap and unhealthy but lots of it) and 90/10 (expensive and healthier); between $3 a loaf whole grain and .89 white bread.

75/25 is pretty bleh, but it's actually fine for a ketogenic diet. You're honestly better dropping breads all together. The claims that whole wheats are better than white are iffy at best. I'm gluten intolerant and I can process white bread fine, but wheat or whole grain causes bloating and constipation.

Also, the notion that you can't eat ice cream, any sugars at all, any dairy, etc in order to be healthy or lose weight is ludicrous. Over the last ten days I've had two pints of ice cream, a six pack of beer (okay it was a light beer), pumpkin pie, massive quantities of sour cream, and even some cheese all while losing about 3-4 pounds and I'm not even heavy to begin with. All that matters is eat sufficient protein and be at a caloric deficit.

 easysauce wrote:
sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I dont think the problem of people having it so easy that the majority of them are obese is going to be solved by making things even easier on them still.

I would say thats just compounding the problem even further.

Ultimately, It does come down to the individual person. We can shout our asses off here on dakka, but that won't change anything. It's up to the individual to decide to change their life.

Random Dude wrote:
The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

Way to miss the point and pick on an example I threw out of no-where. Besides, you're also wrong. http://www.livestrong.com/article/428646-what-is-the-calorie-intake-to-lose-weight-after-40/

Maybe you're just not as old as me. If I want to lose weight, my target caloric intake is about 2000 calories.

 Random Dude wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
sorry, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I dont think the problem of people having it so easy that the majority of them are obese is going to be solved by making things even easier on them still.

I would say thats just compounding the problem even further.

Ultimately, It does come down to the individual person. We can shout our asses off here on dakka, but that won't change anything. It's up to the individual to decide to change their life.

100% true my friend,


if everyone just solved their own personal problems themselves, we wouldnt have to solve them for everyone else.

Live your life in a good way, and at least its good for you, if others cannot regulate themselves properly, well thats kind of sad, but really its their own fault, and the burden they place on sociaty is more of a problem that needs adressing then what sociaty can do about their problem.

 Ahtman wrote:

Litcheur wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

That's almost funny.
Cohen Syndrom : 1 person in 100,000,000.
Cushing's Syndrom : 1 person in 1,000,000.
Prader Willy Syndrom : 1 person in 30,000.
Hypothyroidism : 1 person in 3,000.

It isn't as funny if you suffer from one of those diseases but everyone treats you like your problem is you can't control your eating and are lazy. Your snark also ignores medications that can cause weight gain as well as the fact it is never stated that these somehow make up the majority of cases; got some weird straw-man/cherry picking issue going on there. Your list also left of clinical depression, which is a cause of weight gain and effects 1 in 10 people.

I liked the part where he marginalized a group of people of a size close to the population of the capital of Illinois.

I have a fun idea for a website. We need something that can crunch numbers and give real world estimates of how many people you're sweeping under a rug with generalizations. It could pull data from Wolfram Alpha or something.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

easysauce wrote:
that is the crux of the issue,

and one that deals with (unfortunatly) the somewhat "unchangable" nature of us humans,

most people take the easy route, ie junk food, because its easier

there are already health penalties for being unhealthy, or bonuses for being healthy,

so the whole reward/punishment method obviously isnt working, and I dont see it as feasable to impose punishments on fat people, or bonuses on healthy people.

Actually, you're somewhat wrong here. People are changeable, and we don't take the easy route because it's easier, we take the easy route because it seems easier at the moment.

There are health penalties for being unhealthy, it's just that they're not obvious until it's too late. Our brains reward us for short-term gain, and we, as a species, don't have a great deal of long-term instincts. Sugar is a reward - and our brains give off little endorphins when we get sugar, because once upon a time, food wasn't plentiful, and we needed to be encouraged to eat up.

Meanwhile, the negatives are a long-time coming. You don't get emphysema on one cigarette, and one ice cream doesn't give you diabetes. So the part of our brain that reacts to reward/punishment motivations doesn't kick in to help you avoid these potentially harmful behaviors.

But, penalties and rewards for unhealthy/healthy activities are being shown to work. There are several apps out there that have gameified healthy behavior to some extent, and they're working. Tools like the fitbit or the Nike fuelband make 'earning points' a part of your exercise routine. There's another app that I can't recall the name of right now, that has you make a pledge (eat under 2000 calories, walk two miles/day, that sort of thing), and pays out real cash to those who make their goals. It's funded by charges applied to those who don't. Individual charges are minimal, but they've found that the threat of being fined even $1/day for not meeting a goal that you set yourself is enough to change behaviours and get more people to commit to their plans. Likewise, the extra reward of a very small amount of money is enough of a psychological motivator to be effective.

That's the key - rewards and punishments need to be equally obvious. Because "eat a donut today" or "get diabetes in 20 years" simply aren't equivalent.

The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

I think the number I've seen thrown around for BMR is Lean Body Mass x 12 usually. That means for me, just sitting on my butt all day, I need a minimum of 2040 calories just to maintain and I might need more to be honest. Eating significantly less than that is just going to deprive you of all energy and leave you in addled state where you can't even think or focus.

 Redbeard wrote:

Random Dude wrote:
The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

Way to miss the point and pick on an example I threw out of no-where. Besides, you're also wrong. http://www.livestrong.com/article/428646-what-is-the-calorie-intake-to-lose-weight-after-40/

Maybe you're just not as old as me. If I want to lose weight, my target caloric intake is about 2000 calories.

I don't like the generalization of people's caloric needs shown in the link. Each person has a different activity level and needs a different amount of calories. If you place a more active person on an extremely low calorie diet, they will lose too much weight.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Pretty sure that got debunked, not the least because Cuba wasn't above fabricating data to make themselves look good.

Cuba saying they have a literacy rate higher than the US is like North Korea claiming their glorious leader ride unicorns and always gets a hole in 1 while playing golf.

Or it just shows that having free education to the university level for the whole population coupled with a massive drive in education from the very beginning of Revolutionary Cuba does wonders for making people literate

Currently listed at 99.8% literacy rate, according to Wikipedia which cites the "CIA World Factbook" as it's source. USA is at 99% according to same source. Don't see why the CIA would print false data if it showed the USA in a bad light compared to a third world, communist country...