700lb Californian woman enters record books as the world's fattest

[AtreyuKun]

What's that thing between her legs? Cause I'm not sure how fantastic that kinda sex would be.

[devilock76]

First... bacon and avocado... mmmmmm

Second, that is true. Think about someone getting a Whopper, fries, and shake for lunch, that alone is over 4k, it's not hard to consume over 5k per day thanks to fast food, and most people, especially in these lean times (ironic) opt for fast food due to it's convenience and price. Also, I can tell you from experience, when you are dieting and watch TV and every other commercial is a fast food joint telling you they now stay open all night, it's very difficult to be good.

Not sure how you are getting 4K but using the bk nutrition info online for a whopper value meal with small chocolate shake:

http://www.bk.com/en/us/menu-nutriti...em1/index.html

Total comes to 1240. That is a stupid amount. Summary don't eat fast food. It still is not 4000 calories though.

Ken

[devilock76]

Well you can call Penn and Teller dipshits, they are two respected entertainers with strong opinions. However if you watch the video you will find the source of the information is from well regarded scientists. I think the big points made by these scientists, not the entertainers featuring them, is the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence that organic food has more nutrients.
2. Organic food does use pesticides just not synthetic pesticides and due to non synthetic pesticides being behind current synthetic pesticides organic foods actually have worse "toxins" in it.
3. Organic food is not sustainable as it will not feed the current population of the earth. 7 billion live on this planet and all estimates are that organic food sources at maximum (all crops and sources in the world were organic) could feed maybe 4 billion, so which 3 billion should die.
4. The source of most organic food is not some home town farmer but still major corporations who have found a way to make more money from less product by being able to call it organic.

Whether or not you like Penn and Teller does not change the validity of their source experts. Granted they do have a habit of finding the most egregious representatives of the counter point they are trying to tear down, but it is entertainment.

Ken

[lxskllr]

Well you can call Penn and Teller dipshits, they are two respected entertainers with strong opinions. However if you watch the video you will find the source of the information is from well regarded scientists. I think the big points made by these scientists, not the entertainers featuring them, is the following:

1. There is no scientific evidence that organic food has more nutrients.
2. Organic food does use pesticides just not synthetic pesticides and due to non synthetic pesticides being behind current synthetic pesticides organic foods actually have worse "toxins" in it.
3. Organic food is not sustainable as it will not feed the current population of the earth. 7 billion live on this planet and all estimates are that organic food sources at maximum (all crops and sources in the world were organic) could feed maybe 4 billion, so which 3 billion should die.
4. The source of most organic food is not some home town farmer but still major corporations who have found a way to make more money from less product by being able to call it organic.

Whether or not you like Penn and Teller does not change the validity of their source experts. Granted they do have a habit of finding the most egregious representatives of the counter point they are trying to tear down, but it is entertainment.

Ken

They cherry pick all their sources. That isn't science in any meaningful example of the word. They form a hypothesis, and then find every example that bolsters their hypothesis, while disregarding the rest. You might as well just say "god did it", and you'd be as scientific as they are.

[CoderGuy]

Not sure how you are getting 4K but using the bk nutrition info online for a whopper value meal with small chocolate shake:

http://www.bk.com/en/us/menu-nutriti...em1/index.html

Total comes to 1240. That is a stupid amount. Summary don't eat fast food. It still is not 4000 calories though.

Ken

Well I don't do small but you're right, only 2k for large. I was basing it on numbers for shake I saw from somewhere else that was 2100 for the shake alone. Still, 2k is a full day's cals.

[Premium Parrots]

thanks for that photo eric.....i really needed to throw up a bit in my mouth just now.

now I have to ask just one question. Is that her belly hanging down like that or does she have a massive vagina? I guess it doesn't matter its still....ewwww

[sirloot]

They cherry pick all their sources. That isn't science in any meaningful example of the word. They form a hypothesis, and then find every example that bolsters their hypothesis, while disregarding the rest. You might as well just say "god did it", and you'd be as scientific as they are.

lol show me one media group /paper/blog/or forum that doesnt cherry pick their resources and i'll be amazed .. Penn may be paid to be a baffoon but infact he seems to have his shit together on things that matter to him.

and organic or not its realy about buying local if you are truly green .. buying organic and having it flown halfway across the country realy helps the enviroment!!

[devilock76]

They cherry pick all their sources. That isn't science in any meaningful example of the word. They form a hypothesis, and then find every example that bolsters their hypothesis, while disregarding the rest. You might as well just say "god did it", and you'd be as scientific as they are.

They aren't scientists they are entertainers so how they pick their sources doesn't really apply to that analogy. However, if you are saying that any of those points suggested by the scientists they did interview are false do you care to cite your sources for that information?

Ken

[lxskllr]

They aren't scientists they are entertainers so how they pick their sources doesn't really apply to that analogy. However, if you are saying that any of those points suggested by the scientists they did interview are false do you care to cite your sources for that information?

Ken

They purport to be holding up scientific principles, but they violate them every step of the way. They're spin doctors pushing an agenda, but they pass themselves off as unbiased. If I were feeling especially cynical, I might suspect they were being subsidized by corporate interests.

I don't particularly feel like doing a research paper on organic vs conventional agriculture. That requires far too much time, with far too little pay. I don't necessarily have a problem with what the scientists said on air, but what about the stuff they left out? Why didn't they mention animal health when talking about hormone enhanced cows?

Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health.[11][12] Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Why didn't they mention antibiotic resistant bacteria? I don't have a peer reviewed paper handy, but I'd say it's HIGHLY likely preemptively dosing animals with antibiotics is encouraging their mutation.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nella-poultry/

and so on and so on...

[shikitohno]

I think about the worst thing I've seen against organic food is that current demand is outstripping local production capabilities of those small farms that it's supposed to be supporting. Add to that the fact the people don't want to have to deal with many fruits and vegetables only being available during certain seasons, and in a number of markets the costs of shipping organic food is outstripping the environmental benefits of using organic crops to begin with.

Source

This isn't to say people should write it off entirely, but if you're concerned about the environmental aspect, maybe it'd be a good idea to visit the farmers market rather than the chain grocery store's organic aisle, and come to terms with the fact that you can't have oranges in winter if you live in northern areas.

[lxskllr]

This isn't to say people should write it off entirely, but if you're concerned about the environmental aspect, maybe it'd be a good idea to visit the farmers market rather than the chain grocery store's organic aisle, and come to terms with the fact that you can't have oranges in winter if you live in northern areas.

That's an excellent point, and I try to support local farmers as much as possible. My preferred eggs come from a small local farm(free range), and they're better than anything I've had in a store. They don't really taste much different, but the shells are THICK. Why does that matter? That means the chickens are healthier, and likely happier. They /may/ be more nutritious also, but I never looked into that. Equally important to the chicken's health, is supporting small agriculture. I consider small agriculture to be farms of ~200ac or less. It's important for wildlife, and the surrounding ecosystem to have the buffers small farms provide for the local rivers ad streams. They need to mind runoff, and not all farmers do, but that's better than the alternative of macadam, and fertilized suburban lawns.

[devilock76]

They purport to be holding up scientific principles, but they violate them every step of the way. They're spin doctors pushing an agenda, but they pass themselves off as unbiased. If I were feeling especially cynical, I might suspect they were being subsidized by corporate interests.

I don't particularly feel like doing a research paper on organic vs conventional agriculture. That requires far too much time, with far too little pay. I don't necessarily have a problem with what the scientists said on air, but what about the stuff they left out? Why didn't they mention animal health when talking about hormone enhanced cows?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Why didn't they mention antibiotic resistant bacteria? I don't have a peer reviewed paper handy, but I'd say it's HIGHLY likely preemptively dosing animals with antibiotics is encouraging their mutation.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...nella-poultry/

and so on and so on...

Well I have been a fan of the show but I would never call it unbiased and don't ever recall them saying they are. Heck whenever they do their own "tests" they mock their poor science of what they do for a test, hence their use of experts.

The bottom line is they are attacking people that they view as nothing more than grifters. In that they see the organic food industry (which is what it is, and industry) as nothing more than that. My affinity to it has to do with the parallels (intentional I am sure, they say as much in the first episode ever of the show discussing talking to the dead) between what they are doing and what Houdini did exposing frauds. They and Houdini were appalled at the predatory natures of such business.

As for your two links, are you approaching the animal health from a animal rights standpoint?

As for the antibiotic issue. I agree, but I think the issue is bigger than just its use in commercial farming.

Ken

[devilock76]

That's an excellent point, and I try to support local farmers as much as possible. My preferred eggs come from a small local farm(free range), and they're better than anything I've had in a store. They don't really taste much different, but the shells are THICK. Why does that matter? That means the chickens are healthier, and likely happier. They /may/ be more nutritious also, but I never looked into that. Equally important to the chicken's health, is supporting small agriculture. I consider small agriculture to be farms of ~200ac or less. It's important for wildlife, and the surrounding ecosystem to have the buffers small farms provide for the local rivers ad streams. They need to mind runoff, and not all farmers do, but that's better than the alternative of macadam, and fertilized suburban lawns.

A friend of mine started raising his own chickens, built a hutch and has 8 hens. He did as he wanted his own egg supply at the house. They just started laying eggs finally and he has been very pleased with the results thus far. I will have to try them at some point.

How ever the most interesting story so far that has come out of his chicken raising story is just how smart raptors are, too bad he lost a chick over that discovery.

Ken

[Bigblue1]

Just watched this movie called forks over knives streaming on netflix. While it doesn't get into the whole gmo thing it does provide a rather compelling argument for switching to a whole food plant based diet. It's rather shocking. I strongly suggest you watch it. It has really got me thinking.

[truthwolf1]

Every other American obese by 2030

http://www.naturalnews.com/033568_obesity_America.html