But bringing up his weight? As a political liability? So why is weight-ism proper and racism isn’t?
Whether or not he lets himself be persuaded to run for president, Chris Christie needs to find some way to lose weight. Like everyone else, elected officials perform best when they are in optimal health. Christie obviously is not. You could argue that this is none of my business, but I disagree. Christie’s problem with weight ceased being a private matter when he stepped into the public arena — and it’s not something you can fail to notice. Obesity is a national epidemic whose costs are measured not just in dollars and cents but also in lives. Christie’s weight is as legitimate an issue as the smoking habit that President Obama says he has finally kicked.
That a black columnist would make weight an issue when he would rightly denounce anyone (or should) who made race an issue is gross hypocrisy of the lowest sort. Calling Christie a fattie (which is what Mr Robinson has done) is as despicable as using the N word would be to describe Mr Robinson. He should be ashamed.
Bob is watching you!
I like it anyway. Easy to use, all the essentials, and completely free. What could be better?
Anyone who has tried to lose weight knows that two things work: diet and exercise. Hiring a personal trainer might help motivate you to exercise, but studies show that keeping a journal actually helps dieters stick to the plan. That’s where Calorie Balance Diet comes in. It’s a free utility that makes it entirely too easy to figure out just how many calories you need to achieve your dietary goal, and what foods you should and shouldn’t eat to help you stay on track. It also helps you keep useful schedules and records.
Yup, very useful. That White Castle Stockbroker ought to use it too.
Sure it isn’t, but that doesn’t stop folk from trying to get others to pay for their own lack of self control and self discipline. Why should anyone push away from the table and cut back on all the blubber producing food when they can have taxpayers foot the bill for surgery? It’s a human right to make others pay for your mistakes. Isn’t it…
The Court of Appeal is to consider a diabetic man’s human right to have a potentially life-saving gastric bypass operation, refused by the NHS. … Tom Condliff, 62, claims that North Staffordshire NHS Primary Care Trust (PCT) breached the Human Rights Act by refusing to consider “social factors” when deciding whether to pay for the operation. His case is to be considered by the Court of Appeal on 11 July, where a landmark judgment could affect how PCTs across the country decide on entitlement to surgery and treatment. Mr Condliff is morbidly obese, a condition he says was caused by the cocktail of drugs he takes for his diabetes and other illnesses.
So he says. But life saving? Doubtful. If he can’t or won’t control himself before surgery he won’t after and before long he’ll be just as obese as now. And if he’s right and his obesity is caused by all the drugs he takes, are we to presume he’s going to stop taking them and be thin? And more importantly, if his obesity is caused by ‘medicine’ then just exactly HOW is gastric bypass supposed to help? It makes no sense.
But hey, taxpayers ought to bail him out. They do the banks, and every other beggar with an extended hand, why not the obese too? Why not everyone.
Heck, I have a human right to more books so I want taxpayers to buy them. Fork it over. You owe me.
U.S. nutrition experts who reviewed the diet for HealthDay expressed some health concerns, however. Karen Congro, a dietitian and director of the Wellness for Life Program at Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York City, called it ”a recipe for disaster.” People who follow the diet for a few days will probably be OK, Congro said, but long-term, it’s unhealthy. “It is a high-fat diet, it does not restrict salt,” she said, among other criticisms. And, she added, “It really has no evidence” of effectiveness. “Over the long term, it really isn’t good for your heart,” she said, citing the fat and salt content.
Look people, losing weight isn’t rocket science. Consume fewer calories than you need and you’ll lose weight. Consume more than you need and you’ll gain weight. Period. And determining caloric intake need is simple.
Fad diets don’t work. They just don’t.
[This announcement was brought to you as a public service of the ‘theology addresses every aspect of life’ department of our corporation].
A survey conducted by Columbia University Medical Center in New York revealed that moms and children in the US have a false sense of their weight and think they are slimmer than they actually are.
The study revealed that:
- 66% of the moms and 39% of kids were overweight or obese. Both numbers are close to the national trend.
- 82% of women underestimated their weight when looking at the silhouettes; 42.5% of overweight women did the same.
- 13% of normal-weight women thought of themselves as thinner than they were.
- 86% of kids underestimated their weight, compared with 15% of normal-weight kids.
- 47.5% of moms with overweight or obese children thought their kids were at a healthy weight.
- 41% of the children thought their moms should lose weight.
Something to ponder next time you look in the mirror, or at your little one.
Putting more calories in your body than it needs to operate makes you fat. Eating fewer calories than you burn makes you thin. The only contribution exercise makes is that it builds a little muscle and muscle burns calories while fat doesn’t. It’s a true yet simple formula. Which is becoming more and more apparent to people who pay attention to such matters. In fact, this essay in the Guardian is must reading.
From StairMasters to kettlebells, Rosemary Conley to Natalie Cassidy, we understand and expect that getting in shape is going to require serious effort on our part – and the reverse is true, too, that we expect exercise to pay back the hours of boring, sweaty graft with a leaner, lighter body. Since the days of the Green Goddess, we’ve known that the healthiest way to lose weight is through exercise. It’s science, isn’t it? Well, science has some bad news for you. More and more research in both the UK and the US is emerging to show that exercise has a negligible impact on weight loss. That tri-weekly commitment to aerobics class? Almost worthless, as far as fitting into your bikini is concerned. The Mayo Clinic, a not-for-profit medical research establishment in the US, reports that, in general, studies “have demonstrated no or modest weight loss with exercise alone” and that “an exercise regimen… is unlikely to result in short-term weight loss beyond what is achieved with dietary change.”
Science is finally right about something. Diet is everything. Exercising for hours a day, pointless really. Sorry. But if you’ll stop stuffing your face you’ll lose weight and if you eat like a pig and work out 2 hours a day you’ll still be fat. Look here-
Snack attack: how long it takes to burn off 10 favourite foods
One portion of Tesco lasagne (560 cal): 45 minutes of spinning
One slice of Domino’s pepperoni pizza (198 cal): 45 minutes of swimming
Morrisons’ chocolate-chip muffin (476 cal): 58 minutes of climbing
Packet of Walkers cheese and onion crisps (184 cal): 35 minutes of frisbee
Subway tuna wrap (310 cal): 1 hour and 10 minutes of body pump
Bacon sandwich on white bread (430 cal): 58 minutes of football
Coffee Republic ham and cheese toastie (436 cal): 1 hour and 30 minutes of netball
Granny Smith apple (62 cal): 15 minutes of weightlifting
M&S hot cross bun (159 cal): 20 minutes of skipping
Mars bar (280 cal): 50 minutes of aqua aerobics
So stop eating too much. And sure, go ahead and exercise, it’s good for stress reduction. It’s lousy for weight reduction though.