Should obese people be allowed to have or raise children?

[Sculptor]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

[seeds]

_______

All of this talk about diets and weight loss reminds me of a story Johnny Carson once told about a person he knew (or heard of) who gave up all fattening and unhealthy foods and all of his bad habits such as smoking and drinking.

And sure enough, he was the picture of perfect physical health right up until the moment he committed suicide.
_______

[rootseeker]

So,

1. What IS the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth? And,

2. WHY NOT just SAY the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, INSTEAD, especially when it is FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER to just SAY and EXPRESS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ANYWAY?
...

In reply to the previous entire post above this one as partially quoted above:

The simple and effective moral rule "do no harm" does work very well for life satisfaction, and is adopted in full as pacifism. However, there is a less simple rule that is "harm is only for stopping harm", in which stopping harm is self-defense and adopted in full is (mislabeled) the "non-aggression principle". The right to self-defense is also premised on placing the value for life above the value for peace. Certain behaviors reduce human life while others extend human life. By forcing a stop to behavior that reduces human life at the expense of peace, one increases life. If someone values peace more than they value life, pacifism would make a lot of sense as a reasonable choice and lifestyle. If someone values life more than peace, then the non-aggression principle would be a reasonable and logical choice. If peace is equally or more important than life on an absolute scale, then pacifism is moral while self-defense is immoral. If life is more important than peace on an absolute scale, then both pacifism and self-defense are moral choices.

Regarding generalities, the closer to something being probable as just above the 50% threshold (as a fuzzy/probabilistic logic truth condition), the more one is obligated to add a qualifier like "most" or "expect" or "probably" for clarity. However, as one approaches a 100% statistical probability, that obligation fades away. So "the human hand has five fingers" has little use for an "almost always" added in, while it would be poor form to say "People in the UK in 1960 got to work by automobile" through correct as a generality because just over 50% of people did go to work by automobile in 1960.

I didn't expect anyone would interpret my expressions as absolute irrefutable truth, so didn't add qualifiers. "The most important knowledge may be that you know nothing. You know nothing until you know everything because the one thing left to know may be how you are wrong about everything else." -Rainbow Rock.

I wouldn't claim that human morals rest on irrefutable truth, I would claim they rest on premises that lead to conclusions. It seems that you don't accept the premises of the arguments being offered. The primary premise I have proposed is that when someone abuses a right, then the right is forfeited for the purpose of justice. More specifically, the right is then reduced to a privilege to repair harm done and prevent further harm. The premise is not that another person may remove a right after abuse, it is that the right becomes downgraded to a privilege the moment it is abused. So, justice means the victim of harm is compensated, and further harm is prevented. Vengence or revenge are not part of justice.

I would restate "So, EVERY parent who feeds a child unnecessary food, which causes a so-called 'adverse health condition', is ABUSING their right to a parent of children, right?" as this to which I agree: Every parent who feeds a child unnecessary food, in a way that causes an adverse health condition, is abusing their right to be a parent of children. Then as you say, it is not necessarily the case that even when a child is abused as described, that removal of the child would be just, because as discussed there is almost always additional harm done in the removal of a child. At less than 50% of a chance the child will be harmed, it is unexpected that the child will be harmed and so it is unjustified to remove a child. Furthermore adverse in the context of physical health risk is measured by a reduction in lifespan.

"SO, what DEFINES 'severe' could be as MULTITUDE as there ARE people 'attempting' to so-call 'render justice'. Which, by the way, could be in the number OF absolutely EVERY capable person on earth, which would be in the number of just about EVERY adult human being." -Age

Yes, except for the segment of people who have abused their right to render justice. And all this connects with obese people "not being allowed to have or raise children" because it defines the bar that enables removal of a child. If the bar for removal is not met by someone, then removal is immoral. What morally qualifies someone to be care-taker of a child is not having abused or neglected any children. The state isn't violating morals by removing a child in circumstances of severe harm to the child.

"And what makes the 'expectation of harm' Accurate? By WHO, and USING WHAT 'measuring tool/instruments', EXACTLY?" -Age
For the purpose of the scenario of the OP, health statistics would be required that show a given likelihood of harm at a given weight. A weight that causes the likelihood of harm to exceed 50% would be an adverse health event. The likely harm could be expressed in a number of ways including the average years of life lost for the given excess weight, BMI, or bodyfat percentage measurement. Different metrics also them selves have inaccuracies, so those would be taken into account in calculating the expectation of harm taking place with greater than 50% certainty. If no such research has been done, one could not morally remove any child on account of obesity. There are lots of variables in any justification of child removal and they must be one-sided towards removal for justification.

And you are correct that after a right is revoked, it is aggressive to prevent someone from attempting to use what is at that point an unearned privilege. Furthermore, they could disagree the revocation is justified. So, the non-aggression principle, aka "NAP", frequently associated with libertarians, is misnamed.

Using USA statistics because they are the most widely available, I see that 84% of child removals are not related to any physical harm. "84% of all child removals are not related to any physical harm to the child." (Family Preservation Foundation. Child Welfare Statistics. 2019. https://familypreservationfoundation.or ... statistics) As you mention it is challenging to present a case in which it is clear that someone is doing less harm to a child than they risk causing by removing a child from their parent. And these statistics are shown that at least the vast majority of child removals seem to be done against morality.

I'm aware of the cause of most harm around the world including child abuse stems from violence of the state. However, where I believe we disagree is that I think if states never existed, there would still be a few people remain who are violent. For an initial idea of what kind of justice or injustice happens without the state one can observe non-human primates in nature. How often do they often use violence against each other? "Sometimes" is the answer, from my current understanding.

[Age]

So,

1. What IS the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth? And,

2. WHY NOT just SAY the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, INSTEAD, especially when it is FAR SIMPLER and FAR EASIER to just SAY and EXPRESS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, ANYWAY?
...

In reply to the previous entire post above this one as partially quoted above:

The simple and effective moral rule "do no harm" does work very well for life satisfaction, and is adopted in full as pacifism. However, there is a less simple rule that is "harm is only for stopping harm", in which stopping harm is self-defense and adopted in full is (mislabeled) the "non-aggression principle". The right to self-defense is also premised on placing the value for life above the value for peace. Certain behaviors reduce human life while others extend human life. By forcing a stop to behavior that reduces human life at the expense of peace, one increases life. If someone values peace more than they value life, pacifism would make a lot of sense as a reasonable choice and lifestyle. If someone values life more than peace, then the non-aggression principle would be a reasonable and logical choice. If peace is equally or more important than life on an absolute scale, then pacifism is moral while self-defense is immoral. If life is more important than peace on an absolute scale, then both pacifism and self-defense are moral choices.

Here we have an example of 'complicating' what is actually 'simple', and 'making hard' what is NOT and is JUST, essentially, 'easy'.

But adult human beings, back in the days when this was being written, had, unfortunately, obtained this 'bad habit' from unwanted 'misteachings'.

Regarding generalities, the closer to something being probable as just above the 50% threshold (as a fuzzy/probabilistic logic truth condition), the more one is obligated to add a qualifier like "most" or "expect" or "probably" for clarity.

If one KNOWS what percentage IS, EXACTLY, then just say or write down 'that percentage', that is; the ACTUAL Truth. If that percentage is KNOWN, FOR SURE, then that is; the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth. But if one does NOT YET KNOW the ACTUAL percentage, then saying or writing ANY 'generalized' word is JUST A GUESS or ASSUMPTION. But ALL ASSUMPTIONS or GUESSES can be Wrong. So, it is FAR BETTER TO NEVER USE 'them', EVER.

However, as one approaches a 100% statistical probability, that obligation fades away. So "the human hand has five fingers" has little use for an "almost always" added in, while it would be poor form to say "People in the UK in 1960 got to work by automobile" through correct as a generality because just over 50% of people did go to work by automobile in 1960.

Continually 'TRYING TO' "rationalize" or "justify" what you have been doing here "rootseeker" is NOT helping you.

I didn't expect anyone would interpret my expressions as absolute irrefutable truth, so didn't add qualifiers.

If you are NOT wanting to express 'absolute irrefutable truth' here, then what is 'it' you want to express? This forum, after all, is a philosophy forum, and if 'absolute and irrefutable truth' is NOT wanted to be expressed, NOR expected, then WHERE and WHEN is the 'absolute irrefutable truth' going to be expressed AND expected?

"The most important knowledge may be that you know nothing. You know nothing until you know everything because the one thing left to know may be how you are wrong about everything else." -Rainbow Rock.

'This' appears to be VERY, what is called, 'black and white thinking'.

I wouldn't claim that human morals rest on irrefutable truth, I would claim they rest on premises that lead to conclusions.

AND, if the 'premises' are NOT ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True AND Right, then NEITHER will the 'conclusion' be ALSO.

This is WHY ONLY sound AND valid arguments are the ONLY ones worthy of being expressed and copied, especially in a philosophy forum of all places.

It seems that you don't accept the premises of the arguments being offered.

If the 'premises' of 'arguments' are NOT ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, then I do NOT AGREE WITH NOR ACCEPT 'those premises'.

Are you under some sort of ASSUMPTION that I SHOULD or WOULD?

Do you accept 'premises' that are NOT true, NOT right, NOT accurate, or NOT correct?

If yes, then WHY, EXACTLY?

The primary premise I have proposed is that when someone abuses a right, then the right is forfeited for the purpose of justice.

And I have QUESTIONED about 'right', as in WHO decides 'what is right'?

But you have NOT ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I have posed, and ASKED TO you.

you just KEEP EXPRESSING your OWN views or BELIEFS as though they are ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY TRUE and RIGHT.

Now, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one wants to 'try to' make a premise, which includes the words 'abuses a right', then I NEED that one to EXPLAIN what the word 'abuse' MEANS and what the word 'right' is REFERRING TO, EXACTLY. Otherwise absolutely ANY one could SAY or WRITE 'those words' down as though 'those words', by themselves, have some ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE MEANING, in and of themselves. Which, OBVIOUSLY, 'they' do NOT.

More specifically, the right is then reduced to a privilege to repair harm done and prevent further harm.

WHEN is ANY so-called 'right' CLASSED AS 'abused', and WHO is THE ONE WHO MAKES 'that decision'?

These people, BACK THEN, REALLY DID think or BELIEVE that what they SAY, WRITE, and CLAIM WAS TRUE, but NEVER put ANY ACTUAL 'thought' INTO what they were SAYING, WRITING, and CLAIMING, as SHOWN and PROVED ONCE MORE here.

They just continually RE-REPEATED what they HAD HEARD, or READ, previously, but which 'they', "themselves", had NEVER REALLY QUESTIONED, NOR CHALLENGED, PREVIOUSLY.

The premise is not that another person may remove a right after abuse, it is that the right becomes downgraded to a privilege the moment it is abused.

AND WHEN you EXPLAIN WHO DECIDES on 'what', EXACTLY, IS A 'right', AND 'abuse', then 'we' CAN PROCEED. Until then 'we' WAIT.

So, justice means the victim of harm is compensated, and further harm is prevented. Vengence or revenge are not part of justice.

you are SO FAR OFF TRACK, and/or SO FAR AHEAD OF "your" 'self' here, as some might say, that to even BEGIN TO QUESTION, and/or CHALLENGE 'this' would just be a WASTE. As ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED above here.

I would restate "So, EVERY parent who feeds a child unnecessary food, which causes a so-called 'adverse health condition', is ABUSING their right to a parent of children, right?" as this to which I agree: Every parent who feeds a child unnecessary food, in a way that causes an adverse health condition, is abusing their right to be a parent of children.

So, WHO DECIDES IN WHAT 'way' 'that IS, EXACTLY'?

And, IN HOW MANY 'ways' IS THERE to 'feed' a child, UNNECESSARY FOOD, that CAUSES 'adverse health conditions'.

Also, WHO DECIDES what IS 'adverse', or NOT?

Then as you say, it is not necessarily the case that even when a child is abused as described, that removal of the child would be just, because as discussed there is almost always additional harm done in the removal of a child. At less than 50% of a chance the child will be harmed, it is unexpected that the child will be harmed and so it is unjustified to remove a child.

To me, absolutely ANY 'harm' CAUSED by STEALING 'the parents' AWAY FROM ANY 'child' IS 'ABUSE' of A 'child', itself. So, WHO DECIDES WHEN it is ALL RIGHT to ABUSE A child?

And, if there is ANY one WHO DECIDES that it IS OKAY or ALL RIGHT to ABUSE A child, then I WOULD QUESTION, and/or CHALLENGE 'what is gong on here'.

Furthermore adverse in the context of physical health risk is measured by a reduction in lifespan.

HOW is 'a reduction in lifespan' EVER KNOWN, ASSESSED, and DECIDED, BEFOREHAND?

"SO, what DEFINES 'severe' could be as MULTITUDE as there ARE people 'attempting' to so-call 'render justice'. Which, by the way, could be in the number OF absolutely EVERY capable person on earth, which would be in the number of just about EVERY adult human being." -Age

Yes, except for the segment of people who have abused their right to render justice.

you ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING the POINT, or just NOT UNDERSTANDING, here "rootseeker".

WHAT MAKES one so-called 'segment of people' RIGHT in regards to 'justice'?

Just by the USE of the words 'segment of people' in regards to 'justice', itself, MEANS that 'that person' who USE 'those words' does NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT 'justice', itself, IS, EXACTLY, and what True 'Justice' entails, EXACTLY.

And all this connects with obese people "not being allowed to have or raise children" because it defines the bar that enables removal of a child. If the bar for removal is not met by someone, then removal is immoral. What morally qualifies someone to be care-taker of a child is not having abused or neglected any children.

YET ABSOLUTELY EVERY adult human being, in the days when this is being written, IS ABUSING children.

Although 'this Fact' WAS CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, back in those days.

The state isn't violating morals by removing a child in circumstances of severe harm to the child.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you STILL to NOT be COMPREHENDING, or are PURPOSELY NEGLECTING, the Fact ABOUT 'WHO DECIDES'?

"And what makes the 'expectation of harm' Accurate? By WHO, and USING WHAT 'measuring tool/instruments', EXACTLY?" -Age
For the purpose of the scenario of the OP, health statistics would be required that show a given likelihood of harm at a given weight.

LOL if ANY human being thinks or BELIEVES that 'the weight', itself, of a human body has ANY ACTUAL affect on the CAPABILITIES to 'raise children', then 'that human being' is FAR MORE DISTORTED and DISTURBED "them" 'self', and is NOT 'healthy enough' to be TAKEN SERIOUSLY in ANY such discussion as this one.

A weight that causes the likelihood of harm to exceed 50% would be an adverse health event.

HOW, by ANY means, could the 'weight' of a human body, by itself, CREATE ANY 'harm', itself, in the RAISING OF A child?

Are you ALSO suggesting the ability of a human body to 'see' or 'hear', by themselves, also CREATES 'harm', itself, in the RAISING OF A child. And, human beings with BLINDNESS or DEAFNESS SHOULD ALSO BE JUDGED in their CAPABILITIES in RAISING children?

The likely harm could be expressed in a number of ways including the average years of life lost for the given excess weight, BMI, or bodyfat percentage measurement.

If the parents of child so-call 'die', allegedly and supposedly, earlier because of the weight of the body itself', then what has 'this' got to do with the ACTUALLY 'person' RAISING the child?

Different metrics also them selves have inaccuracies, so those would be taken into account in calculating the expectation of harm taking place with greater than 50% certainty.

Just USING numbers with percentage signs after 'them' does NOT REALLY WORK here.

Also, if there is ANY 'inaccuracy' in ANY metric or instrument USED, then those metrics or instruments would be BEST NOT USED AT ALL.

If no such research has been done, one could not morally remove any child on account of obesity. There are lots of variables in any justification of child removal and they must be one-sided towards removal for justification.

BUT, if ANY removal CAUSES 'harm', which ALL removals DO, then there IS NO 'justification' for REMOVING 'parents' FROM 'children'.

Although ANY one is ABSOLUTELY FREE to KEEP 'TRYING TO' "justify" this Wrong behavior.

And you are correct that after a right is revoked, it is aggressive to prevent someone from attempting to use what is at that point an unearned privilege. Furthermore, they could disagree the revocation is justified. So, the non-aggression principle, aka "NAP", frequently associated with libertarians, is misnamed.

Using USA statistics because they are the most widely available,

Are you SAYING or SUGGESTING here that statistics from OTHER countries are somehow NOT 'as available'?

I see that 84% of child removals are not related to any physical harm. "84% of all child removals are not related to any physical harm to the child." (Family Preservation Foundation. Child Welfare Statistics. 2019. https://familypreservationfoundation.or ... statistics) As you mention it is challenging to present a case in which it is clear that someone is doing less harm to a child than they risk causing by removing a child from their parent. And these statistics are shown that at least the vast majority of child removals seem to be done against morality.

I'm aware of the cause of most harm around the world including child abuse stems from violence of the state.

HOW, EXACTLY, are you 'aware' of 'this'?

I have NEVER heard NOR EVER seen ANY 'thing' that would have led me to think that the CAUSE of the MOST HARM around 'the world', including 'child abuse' STEMMED FROM so-called 'violence of the state'. Do you mean here 'physical violence'?

To me, what ACTUALLY CAUSES and CREATES, or IS 'the root' OF, ALL of the HARM, IN and AROUND 'the world', is just 'one thing' ALONE. Which, itself, IS NOT necessarily 'violence', itself.

The second and third 'roots' OF ALL of the HARM, or 'evil' if one likes, to me, is ALSO KNOWN. Which, again, in and of themselves, are NOT necessarily 'violence' in regards to physicality, AT ALL. Although 'they' DO LEAD TO and CAUSE and CREATE 'physical violence' TOO.

However, where I believe we disagree is that I think if states never existed, there would still be a few people remain who are violent.

Okay. So, you ALSO BELIEVE that JUDGEMENT, PUNISHMENT, and FORCEFULNESS, or CONTROL OVER "others" IS NEEDED, and REDUCES 'violence', right?

For an initial idea of what kind of justice or injustice happens without the state one can observe non-human primates in nature.

So, how monkeys or 'ape's' behavior, you USE as some sort of 'evidence' that 'you', human beings, NEED 'states' TO CONTROL 'you', right?

Also, I OBSERVE FAR MORE 'injustice' being done THROUGH and BY JUDGMENT, HUMILIATION, RIDICULE, PUNISHMENT, and CONTROL by 'you', human beings, and human being CREATED 'states', than I have EVER WITNESSED and OBSERVED in OTHER animal's behaviors.

How often do they often use violence against each other? "Sometimes" is the answer, from my current understanding.

HOW can A QUESTION, itself, BE AN ANSWER?

And the ANSWER TO your QUESTION here, from my perspective, IS; I do NOT know.

Do you KNOW the ACTUAL ANSWER to that ACTUAL QUESTION, or 'YOURS' here "rootseeker"?

If yes, then what IS 'that ANSWER'?

[Age]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?

[Age]

_______

All of this talk about diets and weight loss reminds me of a story Johnny Carson once told about a person he knew (or heard of) who gave up all fattening and unhealthy foods and all of his bad habits such as smoking and drinking.

And sure enough, he was the picture of perfect physical health right up until the moment he committed suicide.
_______

Is there A 'moral' to 'this story'? Or is 'this story' just A 'joke', A "justification" to have 'bad' or 'unhealthy' habits, or some 'thing' else?

[Sculptor]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

[Age]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

Since this one OBVIOUSLY LIED, maybe BECAUSE 'its' OWN 'regime' was NOT REALLY WORTHY of being expressed and shared anyway, what is OBVIOUS IS if one just eats less and moves more, then that one could NOT put more weight on and will just lose weight as well.

This OBVIOUSLY IRREFUTABLE KNOWLEDGE should take less than about five seconds to WORK OUT, COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND. So, if it takes ABSOLUTELY ANY one ANY LONGER to WORK OUT and UNDERSTAND HOW to JUST LOSE WEIGHT or JUST DIET, then they REALLY NEED TO TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT "themselves".

Oh, and by the way, 'obesity' IS NOT the direct result of the modernization and processing of food.

'Obesity' is the direct result of OTHER 'things', INSTEAD.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

Did you lose weight so you could fit into that little Chanel number you've been eyeing?

[Sculptor]

HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

Since this one OBVIOUSLY LIED, maybe BECAUSE 'its' OWN 'regime' was NOT REALLY WORTHY

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Or one of these gorgeous 'woman suits'. Now men get the chance to wear a woman's 'skin' without having to kill an actual woman first.
Gosh, men are so normal, it's hard to believe that all those bigoted women don't want these men in their enclosed, women-only spaces. Can't fathom it at all

woman suits.jpg (30.71 KiB) Viewed 2307 times

[LuckyR]

Obesity is not genetic.

It is the direct result of the modernisation and processing of food.

Food is specifically created to cause addiction. And this is what causes obesity.
Like other forms of addiction it does not affect everyone evenly.
For myself I have tried a long list of legal and illegal substances through my life, but have only found myself addicted to two of them: Tobacco, and Food.
I managed to quit smoking but it has taken me 50 years to undertand food enough to break that addiction too.

My first diet was at the age of 13, nd I have been following government advice in the avoidance of certain feed types, as well as advice on calorie counting.
In that time I must have been on nearly 40 diets, which were all more or less successful but all ended the same way. They ended food obsessed, tired, hungry and bored to death. Despite attempts to maintain weight loss the result was always the same. Afte a year or two of trying to avoid over consumption I ended up slightly heavier than at the start of the previous diet, and the cycle began again.

After 50 years I ended up obese, prediabetic, with a heart condition and on 7 meds.

Then I ignored the government advice, and the advice about calories and read some books.

It's enough to say that 20 months after the start of my new regime I have stopped 3 meds, no longer get heart pain, have lost 50lbs without counting a SINGLE calorie, have reversed the prediabetes and now maintain a healthier weight effortlessly.

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

I'll not hold my breath

Hey, kudos to you on both the tobacco and eating side of things!

What worked for you on the weight loss?

I've never had a weight problem (in the sense of gaining too much) though in my elder years I could have had a problem, so I used some minor "tricks" to maintain things where I wanted them to be.

[Age]

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

Since this one OBVIOUSLY LIED, maybe BECAUSE 'its' OWN 'regime' was NOT REALLY WORTHY

Since no one really ever reads post; and rarely shows significant interest to understand anything on this Forum I shall stop there. If any of you are serious enough to ask me HOW and why my regime has worked then I am happy to answer any questions and share my reading list.

If absolutely ANY one just wants to lose some body weight, then ALL they need to do is just EAT LESS and MOVE MORE.

ONCE AGAIN, 'it' IS REALLY VERY SIMPLE, and VERY EASY, INDEED.

NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID, NOR HEARD.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

[LuckyR]

Yes, if we were machines, with no emotions and no pasts, unaffected by all sorts of things that machines are not affected by, Age's simple formula would generally be correct.

Simple things for simple minds...