Obesity is only a "problem" because...

[Anonymous]

The mental gymnastics people go through to justify the over consumption of yum yums is fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

[Anonymous]

I think with all the GLP1 drugs on the market and in the pipeline, having obesity in the future will be more unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

Yeah that’s what I was going to say. Obesity is a huge factor of most chronic health issues. WE as a society pay for that when their care drives up healthcare costs for all.

This is your complaint about healthcare costs? You think the outrageous premiums and ridiculous co-pays and inflated charges are... because fat people use healthcare? What a simple-minded fool.

Nowhere did I say this was the only issue with healthcare. But I did say it is a major issue with OBESITY and I am not wrong about that. Obese people all want to believe they’re just some victim of unique circumstances but mostly they’re not - and we all end up paying for their weight related health issues. That’s a problem.

Where did people get the idea that fat people don’t know why they’re fat and like to play the victim? I’ve never met a fat person who does this. I’m fat, and I know full well why I’m fat, and it’s none of your business. I also have normal blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, etc. so spare me the song and dance that all fat people are a drain on the medical system. It’s categorically not true and also not how it works. The truth is that you don’t like fat people because you find them unattractive. If you’re going to scream at fat people to “be honest” then you need to start doing the same.

People trying to say we were deceived by the government and food industry a few pages earlier.

There was a period when the government said fat was bad for you, and low-fat (high sugar) magically appeared. It was also cheaper because HFCS is subsidized indirectly by the government.

It's easy to overeat sugary foods.

Are you that gullible? That sounds like people who thought eating Snackwells were virtuous.

Are you telling me to question the advice of the CDC and the FDA and do my own research? That sounds a bit like an antivaxxer.

DP: I'm not an anti vaxxer. But if you thought eating "low fat cookies" was a good thing yes you are ridiculous. All the packaged crap is bad for you. Even cookies you make yourself with tons of sugar is bad for you. Your body does NOT need that sugar. Better to get used to Berries or apples for dessert and maybe once a week have a "real dessert". But if you eat it nightly, you are not taking care of your body

You can't deny that the government was proclaiming low fat as a healthy diet. Regardless of what it was, foods were suddenly advertised as low fat where all the fat had been replaced with sugar. And it was usually more calories to make it taste as good as the full fat product.

Dude, this dumb argument is so ancient. That was 30 years ago.

People don’t live under rocks and aren’t ill informed. They are just addicted to too much yum yums.

Does that explain why the fad diets are so popular and we get a new one every couple of months?

Are you dumb enough to believe every new dad diet you get every couple months? Because that’s what you are telling us when you post this stuff.

It's difficult to find the goal posts here. First, you claim people aren't ill-informed. Now, you claim I believe in fad diets. People are NOT well informed about food choices. That's pretty obvious. Your inability to accept any evidence contrary to your belief is not surprising though. Also, your personal attacks add tremendous weight to your arguments.

b

Lots of different people arguing here, including a self-reporting fat person who said that of course fat people understand why they are fat.

As for “personal attacks,” your arguments reduce you and fat people to children with no agency or knowledge. Those are the arguments you have chosen to make. Personally, I think people are much smarter than you give them credit for.

Think of how dumb the average person is. Half are dumber than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mental gymnastics people go through to justify the over consumption of yum yums is fascinating.

Because it tastes good, it isn't healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

+1000

You cannot prevent everything. But there are several things in life we know are simply not good for you: being overweight/obese, eating crap/not healthy, drinking too much, smoking at all, doing drugs, etc. All things you have control over.

So there's a huge difference between having 4-7 drinks a week versus having 3 drinks nightly.
Huge difference between eating dessert nightly at 400 calories and 100g of sugar versus having a dessert once a week and the rest of nights having fruit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

+1000

You cannot prevent everything. But there are several things in life we know are simply not good for you: being overweight/obese, eating crap/not healthy, drinking too much, smoking at all, doing drugs, etc. All things you have control over.

So there's a huge difference between having 4-7 drinks a week versus having 3 drinks nightly.
Huge difference between eating dessert nightly at 400 calories and 100g of sugar versus having a dessert once a week and the rest of nights having fruit

Where do you get your information from? If you ever actually done a deeper dive that Google's top AI summary, you'd get that especially if you are a woman this is absolutely not true. So much of the research is based on self reporting right, and you could easily pour 1/2 bottle into a large wine glass and call it one drink. Much like an obese person might eat 3 cookies but claim they only had one.

But that's the problem right. It's easy to point at an obese person, and say ugh, bad. Because they are physically obese. But a woman who drinks even a moderate amount puts herself at an increased risk. It's just like there is no safe amount to drink during pregnancy, all can cause lasting damage to the unborn, one drink can do the same damage at 10.

Well same thing for women and alcohol in general. Consume it if you will, but all the mental gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that women shouldn't drink alcohol period if they want to minimize their risks for any and all alcohol related disease. And unlike obesity, an obese person can lose weight especially with GLPs, and reduce their risk for many related illnesses, but you can't undo the damage done by alcohol period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

perhaps your time and energy would be better spent on getting up and moving. Rather than posting this drivel.

also, sweets and carbs---same thing. Bread is just as bad for you as a giant ass piece of cake. Both are unnatural and unnecessary carbs. Try some fruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

+1000

You cannot prevent everything. But there are several things in life we know are simply not good for you: being overweight/obese, eating crap/not healthy, drinking too much, smoking at all, doing drugs, etc. All things you have control over.

So there's a huge difference between having 4-7 drinks a week versus having 3 drinks nightly.
Huge difference between eating dessert nightly at 400 calories and 100g of sugar versus having a dessert once a week and the rest of nights having fruit

Where do you get your information from? If you ever actually done a deeper dive that Google's top AI summary, you'd get that especially if you are a woman this is absolutely not true. So much of the research is based on self reporting right, and you could easily pour 1/2 bottle into a large wine glass and call it one drink. Much like an obese person might eat 3 cookies but claim they only had one.

But that's the problem right. It's easy to point at an obese person, and say ugh, bad. Because they are physically obese. But a woman who drinks even a moderate amount puts herself at an increased risk. It's just like there is no safe amount to drink during pregnancy, all can cause lasting damage to the unborn, one drink can do the same damage at 10.

Well same thing for women and alcohol in general. Consume it if you will, but all the mental gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that women shouldn't drink alcohol period if they want to minimize their risks for any and all alcohol related disease. And unlike obesity, an obese person can lose weight especially with GLPs, and reduce their risk for many related illnesses, but you can't undo the damage done by alcohol period.

For alcohol, you cannot compare pregnant women and drinking to a non-pregnant woman having a glass of wine with dinner. And yeah most women can figure out that 5 oz is a "glass of wine" just like smart people can figure out that a 12" cookie is "not one cookie"

The damages from a glass of wine with dinner 3-4 nights per week is very different than being overweigh for 20+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

perhaps your time and energy would be better spent on getting up and moving. Rather than posting this drivel.

also, sweets and carbs---same thing. Bread is just as bad for you as a giant ass piece of cake. Both are unnatural and unnecessary carbs. Try some fruit.

Bread is a convenient way of eating grains. Carbs are a necessary part of your diet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

perhaps your time and energy would be better spent on getting up and moving. Rather than posting this drivel.

also, sweets and carbs---same thing. Bread is just as bad for you as a giant ass piece of cake. Both are unnatural and unnecessary carbs. Try some fruit.

Bread is a convenient way of eating grains. Carbs are a necessary part of your diet.

+1 agree

You can certainly survive on a very small amount of carbs but it really is very difficult to get enough fiber without any carbs at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

perhaps your time and energy would be better spent on getting up and moving. Rather than posting this drivel.

also, sweets and carbs---same thing. Bread is just as bad for you as a giant ass piece of cake. Both are unnatural and unnecessary carbs. Try some fruit.

Bread is a convenient way of eating grains. Carbs are a necessary part of your diet.

+1 agree

You can certainly survive on a very small amount of carbs but it really is very difficult to get enough fiber without any carbs at all.

you can get your carbs from fruits and veggies. Those have plenty of fiber, more nutrition and is much healthier for you overall. Then simply follow a diabetic diet for the amount of carbs you should have throughout the day. It's a healthy diet for everyone, It provides plenty of fiber and carbs if you choose wisely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem because inevitably non obese shell out billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain obese people are on our society.

And obese people fund on a daily basis, billions of dollars to compensate for the incredible drain that old people, smokers, children and adults with various disabilities, premies etc. are on the system. Especially so as they are less likely to live long enough to actually get to enjoy the benefits of their hard works.

But who am I to quibble it's easier to openly discriminate against old people than it is children and premies with lifelong disabilities.

The difference is "obese people" most likely can make a choice to not be obese. Just like a smoker can make the choice to not smoke. But old people and kids/people with many disabilities cannot do anything to change that. See the difference?

Go purchase life insurance---if you are older, have an illness, are overweight, etc, they charge you more or simply won't insure you. It's not discrimination, it's just how it works.
So while everyone should have access to healthcare, it's not unfair to expect some to pay more. I mean, if I purchase ACA plan now, at 50 I pay more than at 40, and it exponentially goes up until I turn 65 and can switch to medicare. They do charge me more because of my aging.

At the end of the day you might not like obese people, you may feel yourself morally superior to obese people, but the argument that they cost more to society than a premie, even if they manage to live independently, or an an old person who racks up millions of dollars (directly tax payer funded healthcare bills) in the last months of life.

Or the millions of people who make bad decisions every single day, and end up costing the system lots of and lots of money when a lifetime of bad decisions catches up with them.

That's life and the thing is maybe you get cancer and cost the system a lot of money and maybe it's because you chose to use pesticides on your lawn, combined with a bunch of other bad decisions you made over your life, like being a recreational drinker and being a woman, a few drinks a week, every week and in your youth you drank more than that, but you thought it was okay, because you maintained your weight and you worked out... but ooops now you have terminal breast cancer and... you want a few more months with the dogs and grands so you receive costly healthcare. Again argue you didn't cause your cancer all you want but if I follow your logic you did.

Do you judge cancer patients, the people who had herpes and it made them susceptible to lymphoma or HPV and now they have head and neck cancers? Do you judge the sober for 20 years mom who gets cirrhosis, you don't know she partied a little too hard in her youth, contracted Hep. They did something to cause their illnesses... they were participants in their eventual costly illnesses. No it's not so easy to judge them right, because they made bad decisions that one could argue had an element of immorality attached to them.

Like I said get back to me when you hit 55-65, and have outlived your genetic usefulness, or you get head/neck/oral cancer, breast, or lymphoma or something else. I'll send you some cyanide pills, if you care so much about tax dollars, and being a drain on society do us all a favor and off yourself.

Equating obesity with cancer is sole next level mental gymnastics.

No it's not at all. Both cost the system and that's the problem right, it's not that you don't like fat people because you think they are weaker to you, it's because they cost the system. Both cost the system and both can very much be self inflicted. That cancer is connected to lifestyle factors, many of which you can control isn't even up for debate. It's a fact. So now what? What is your problem with fat people? Do you not like to look at them, do you think they are lazy? They cost the system too much? Either your are a jerk with issues against obese people or you don't like the fiscal drain which at least has some logic to it.

But if your primary reason is the fiscal drain then you should take issue with people who have cancer, with premies and most certainly with the costliest group of all old people.

It's not mental gymnastics. I just don't have a moral objection to obese people, I don't see their medical condition as something that should be stigmatized anymore than the person who has throat or anal cancer because of sexual choices they made freely and with knowledge of the potential consequences.

It's kind of like smoking, once upon a time we didn't know it caused cancer but know we do, so no one should be smoking anything, same thing with sexually transmitted diseases many of which are endemic and carried by most of the population. Now we know they cause alter cells and cancer so shouldn't you be making different choices... abstinence is probably the safest choice. With modern reproductive tech no one needs to have sex do they, and if they must then certainly not with more than one partner over a lifetime? I mean I know sex is fun, and feels good, but you've got willpower and a hand don't you. Just like no one needs to eat cream puffs... or too many turkey sandwiches, I mean pick your poison right.

Not all obese people are into sweets some are into carbs. Just like not all sexually active people are into the same thing. But no matter what you are into there is a good chance your sexual partner is carrying something that given the right circumstances, hey maybe you are thin and in good shape but you like cold cuts or bacon, hey combine it with a case of the herps or warts and you too could land on a gurney at 35 with a chemo drip and colon cancer.

Just saying. If you are going to shame the obese why aren't you shaming all the 30-40 something young people coming down with head, neck, anal and colon cancer. No one needs bacon or intimate partner sex.

perhaps your time and energy would be better spent on getting up and moving. Rather than posting this drivel.

also, sweets and carbs---same thing. Bread is just as bad for you as a giant ass piece of cake. Both are unnatural and unnecessary carbs. Try some fruit.

Bread is a convenient way of eating grains. Carbs are a necessary part of your diet.

Biologically not true. Human body will make any carbs it needs. None are required to be ingested.

With adequate balance of fat/protein, fiber is not required either.

Fiber is for those who get inadequately balanced macro diets.