Should obese people be allowed to have or raise children?

[Age]

no.
we've all been trying that for 50 years, and that is why there is an obesity epidemic

LOL 'we' have ALL been trying that. REALLY "sculptor"? LOL How MANY is 'we' ALL, ACTUALLY?

And, so you WROTE that you ATE LESS, and 'this' WORKED FOR 'you', BUT when I SAY 'EAT LESS' 'you' THEN SAY 'this' will NOT work.

Also, for absolutely ANY one who WANTS TO SAY or WRITE, 'No, eating less and moving more will NOT work in losing weight', then PLEASE EXPLAIN to the rest of us HOW, EXACTLY, a human body COULD put on MORE WEIGHT WHEN 'it' IS putting LESS FOOD INTO 'it', AND, MOVING AROUND MORE, thus BURNING MORE FAT AND MORE CALORIES OF the LESS AMOUNT being put INTO the body.

No. He's saying you don't need to eat less.

HOW is SAYING, 'Following a 'program' of ONE meal per day, low carbs', NOT SAYING 'you don't need to eat LESS'?

Do you think, or is "sculptor", SAYING that 'it' was eating LESS than ONE meal a day, beforehand?

Or, SAYING that "sculptor" had ALREADY been ONLY eating ONE meal per day, but 'now' just eats LESS or LOW carbs.

Can 'you', people, REALLY NOT YET SEE that it IS BECAUSE of eating LESS what ACTUALLY ALSO HELPED in 'this one' LOSING WEIGHT?

It's about WHAT you eat.

I AGREE.

But ALSO, and to me anyway, eating LESS of WHAT one eats WILL ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, HELP in LOSING WEIGHT.

MORE quality protein. FEWER carbs.

Which INVOLVES eating LESS what is sometimes referred to as RUBBISH.

MORE metabolism-boosting exercise i.e. brisk walking. It works.

Yes, AGAIN, I AGREE and IS EXACTLY what I AM SAYING. That is; MOVE, MORE.

Maybe I HAD TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

Eat LESS what is called 'rubbish' food, which could and would ALLOW one TO eat MORE of 'good' food, AND, MOVE MORE one could NOT BUT LOSE WEIGHT. 'This' is OF COURSE if one does NOT eat to much MORE 'good' food to OVERRIDE the BENEFIT of NOT eating the 'rubbish' food, than they were BEFORE.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

LOL 'we' have ALL been trying that. REALLY "sculptor"? LOL How MANY is 'we' ALL, ACTUALLY?

And, so you WROTE that you ATE LESS, and 'this' WORKED FOR 'you', BUT when I SAY 'EAT LESS' 'you' THEN SAY 'this' will NOT work.

Also, for absolutely ANY one who WANTS TO SAY or WRITE, 'No, eating less and moving more will NOT work in losing weight', then PLEASE EXPLAIN to the rest of us HOW, EXACTLY, a human body COULD put on MORE WEIGHT WHEN 'it' IS putting LESS FOOD INTO 'it', AND, MOVING AROUND MORE, thus BURNING MORE FAT AND MORE CALORIES OF the LESS AMOUNT being put INTO the body.

No. He's saying you don't need to eat less.

HOW is SAYING, 'Following a 'program' of ONE meal per day, low carbs', NOT SAYING 'you don't need to eat LESS'?

Do you think, or is "sculptor", SAYING that 'it' was eating LESS than ONE meal a day, beforehand?

Or, SAYING that "sculptor" had ALREADY been ONLY eating ONE meal per day, but 'now' just eats LESS or LOW carbs.

Can 'you', people, REALLY NOT YET SEE that it IS BECAUSE of eating LESS what ACTUALLY ALSO HELPED in 'this one' LOSING WEIGHT?

It's about WHAT you eat.

I AGREE.

But ALSO, and to me anyway, eating LESS of WHAT one eats WILL ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, HELP in LOSING WEIGHT.

MORE quality protein. FEWER carbs.

Which INVOLVES eating LESS what is sometimes referred to as RUBBISH.

MORE metabolism-boosting exercise i.e. brisk walking. It works.

Yes, AGAIN, I AGREE and IS EXACTLY what I AM SAYING. That is; MOVE, MORE.

Maybe I HAD TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

Eat LESS what is called 'rubbish' food, which could and would ALLOW one TO eat MORE of 'good' food, AND, MOVE MORE one could NOT BUT LOSE WEIGHT. 'This' is OF COURSE if one does NOT eat to much MORE 'good' food to OVERRIDE the BENEFIT of NOT eating the 'rubbish' food, than they were BEFORE.

I don't know about the 'one meal a day' bit. Sounds extreme and unnecessary.

[Sculptor]

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.

.

In the simplest terms; forget what standard advice about calories in/calories out; low fat; eat less, exercise more
I followed a program of one meal per day, low carbs.

So, 'you' ATE LESS.

AND, WITH LESS so-called 'carbs'.

That is pretty much it.

Which is more or less EXACTLY what I just SAID.

I just added the words 'MOVE MORE' on here.

So, "iwannaplato", "scultpor's" advice seems to be even MORE SIMPLER, and EASIER, than mine was.

Emphasis on high fat, meat, fish and dairy based meals with plenty of green vegetables.
It's really about beating the hinger and to keep the fat burning switch ON. That is why you avoid the carbs.
The only other thing was to read a stack of book on metabolism.

How long has 'this' worked for?

And, WILL 'the results' be THE SAME in a year or two?

NO, I ate about the SAME NUMBER OF CALORIES but because of WHEN, ,and WHAT I ate my metabolism WAS geared to FAT burning.
You are not interested in KNOWING how THIS works.
So PLEASE dESiST

[Sculptor]

No. He's saying you don't need to eat less.

HOW is SAYING, 'Following a 'program' of ONE meal per day, low carbs', NOT SAYING 'you don't need to eat LESS'?

Do you think, or is "sculptor", SAYING that 'it' was eating LESS than ONE meal a day, beforehand?

Or, SAYING that "sculptor" had ALREADY been ONLY eating ONE meal per day, but 'now' just eats LESS or LOW carbs.

Can 'you', people, REALLY NOT YET SEE that it IS BECAUSE of eating LESS what ACTUALLY ALSO HELPED in 'this one' LOSING WEIGHT?

It's about WHAT you eat.

I AGREE.

But ALSO, and to me anyway, eating LESS of WHAT one eats WILL ALSO, OBVIOUSLY, HELP in LOSING WEIGHT.

MORE quality protein. FEWER carbs.

Which INVOLVES eating LESS what is sometimes referred to as RUBBISH.

MORE metabolism-boosting exercise i.e. brisk walking. It works.

Yes, AGAIN, I AGREE and IS EXACTLY what I AM SAYING. That is; MOVE, MORE.

Maybe I HAD TO BE MORE SPECIFIC.

Eat LESS what is called 'rubbish' food, which could and would ALLOW one TO eat MORE of 'good' food, AND, MOVE MORE one could NOT BUT LOSE WEIGHT. 'This' is OF COURSE if one does NOT eat to much MORE 'good' food to OVERRIDE the BENEFIT of NOT eating the 'rubbish' food, than they were BEFORE.

I don't know about the 'one meal a day' bit. Sounds extreme and unnecessary.

It's been the easiest diet I have ever been on and the most successful.
The correct part of your statment is "I DON'T KNOW".
Try reading the following:
The Complete Guide to Fasting, Jason Fung, MD.

[Sculptor]

For those who can't or won't read a book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQsMRjAwcFo

[Age]

.

In the simplest terms; forget what standard advice about calories in/calories out; low fat; eat less, exercise more
I followed a program of one meal per day, low carbs.

So, 'you' ATE LESS.

AND, WITH LESS so-called 'carbs'.

That is pretty much it.

Which is more or less EXACTLY what I just SAID.

I just added the words 'MOVE MORE' on here.

So, "iwannaplato", "scultpor's" advice seems to be even MORE SIMPLER, and EASIER, than mine was.

Emphasis on high fat, meat, fish and dairy based meals with plenty of green vegetables.
It's really about beating the hinger and to keep the fat burning switch ON. That is why you avoid the carbs.
The only other thing was to read a stack of book on metabolism.

How long has 'this' worked for?

And, WILL 'the results' be THE SAME in a year or two?

NO, I ate about the SAME NUMBER OF CALORIES but because of WHEN, ,and WHAT I ate my metabolism WAS geared to FAT burning.
You are not interested in KNOWING how THIS works.

What do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

'I' was THE ONE who ASKED 'you' here;
'HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?'

To which 'you' IGNORED, COMPLETELY.

So, WHY SAY that 'I' am NOT INTERESTED?

So PLEASE dESiST

DESiST FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

Expressing my views, questioning or challenging your views, or some 'thing' ELSE?

[Sculptor]

So, 'you' ATE LESS.

AND, WITH LESS so-called 'carbs'.



Which is more or less EXACTLY what I just SAID.

I just added the words 'MOVE MORE' on here.

So, "iwannaplato", "scultpor's" advice seems to be even MORE SIMPLER, and EASIER, than mine was.



How long has 'this' worked for?

And, WILL 'the results' be THE SAME in a year or two?

NO, I ate about the SAME NUMBER OF CALORIES but because of WHEN, ,and WHAT I ate my metabolism WAS geared to FAT burning.
You are not interested in KNOWING how THIS works.

What do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

'I' was THE ONE who ASKED 'you' here;
'HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?'

To which 'you' IGNORED, COMPLETELY.

So, WHY SAY that 'I' am NOT INTERESTED?

So PLEASE dESiST

DESiST FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

Expressing my views, questioning or challenging your views, or some 'thing' ELSE?

Since no one really ever reads posts; 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.

[Sculptor]

Here's a high pitched shrill American women for those that can't be bothered to read a book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Dkt7zyImk

[Age]

NO, I ate about the SAME NUMBER OF CALORIES but because of WHEN, ,and WHAT I ate my metabolism WAS geared to FAT burning.
You are not interested in KNOWING how THIS works.

What do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

'I' was THE ONE who ASKED 'you' here;
'HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?'

To which 'you' IGNORED, COMPLETELY.

So, WHY SAY that 'I' am NOT INTERESTED?

So PLEASE dESiST

DESiST FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

Expressing my views, questioning or challenging your views, or some 'thing' ELSE?

Since no one really ever reads posts;

I will ASK 'this', this time. What does this statement and CLAIM even MEAN? What are you 'TRYING TO' IMPLY here?

OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'respondents' ARE reading posts here.

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.

[Sculptor]

What do you ACTUALLY MEAN?

'I' was THE ONE who ASKED 'you' here;
'HOW and WHY did 'your' so-called 'regime' WORK here "sculptor"?'

To which 'you' IGNORED, COMPLETELY.

So, WHY SAY that 'I' am NOT INTERESTED?


DESiST FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

Expressing my views, questioning or challenging your views, or some 'thing' ELSE?

Since no one really ever reads posts;

I will ASK 'this', this time. What does this statement and CLAIM even MEAN? What are you 'TRYING TO' IMPLY here?

OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'respondents' ARE reading posts here.

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 start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

[Skepdick]

I'll start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

And he'll start using CAPITALS properly when you properly define "properly".

[Age]

Since no one really ever reads posts;

I will ASK 'this', this time. What does this statement and CLAIM even MEAN? What are you 'TRYING TO' IMPLY here?

OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'respondents' ARE reading posts here.

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 start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

Okay.

What does the word 'properly' even refer to here, exactly?

[Age]

I'll start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

And he'll start using CAPITALS properly when you properly define "properly".

VERY GOOD, and VERY CLEVER, "skepdick".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I will ASK 'this', this time. What does this statement and CLAIM even MEAN? What are you 'TRYING TO' IMPLY here?

OBVIOUSLY, ALL 'respondents' ARE reading posts here.

I'll start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

Okay.

What does the word 'properly' even refer to here, exactly?

What do YOU, AGE, mean by OKAY, here? What EXACTLY do YOU, AGE, mean when you write EXACTLY? What do YOU, AGE, mean by 'HERE' exactly? Why not THERE, or EVERYWHERE? What does AGE mean by WORD? WHAT exactly IS a WORD?

[Age]

I'll start to respond to you when you start using CAPITALS properly.

Okay.

What does the word 'properly' even refer to here, exactly?

What do YOU, AGE, mean by OKAY, here? What EXACTLY do YOU, AGE, mean when you write EXACTLY? What do YOU, AGE, mean by 'HERE' exactly? Why not THERE, or EVERYWHERE? What does AGE mean by WORD? WHAT exactly IS a WORD?

OBVIOUSLY the word 'properly' was NOT USED 'sufficiently' above BECAUSE was is so-called 'proper' to one IS NOT TO "another".

Now, before I proceed to CLARIFY, THANK 'you' for 'your' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here "vegetariantaxidermy".

What I mean by:

'Okay' is that I UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT that what was WRITTEN and SAID here is that one's VIEW or BELIEF.

'Exactly' is PRECISELY, to the one I am asking, or what IS AGREED WITH by EVERYONE.

'Here' is ALWAYS dependent, which WOULD and WILL BE CLARIFIED following QUESTIONING, which would OBVIOUSLY ONLY come from 'those' with CURIOSITY and INTEREST.

Why not 'there' is because I am REFERRING TO 'here'. And, WHERE 'here' IS, EXACTLY, can be VERY DIFFERENT.

'Word', here, are those printed letters seen on the screen in front of you now, which are closer together but which are separated by a larger 'space'.