[ SECRET POST #1667 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1667 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29.


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.


__________________________________________________

33.


__________________________________________________

34.


__________________________________________________

35.


__________________________________________________

36.


__________________________________________________

37.


__________________________________________________

38.


__________________________________________________

39.


__________________________________________________

40.


__________________________________________________

41.


__________________________________________________

42.


__________________________________________________

43.


__________________________________________________

44.


__________________________________________________

45.


__________________________________________________

46.


__________________________________________________

47.






Notes:

Posting this while LJ is up. Comment threads to follow

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #238.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[timemachineyeah.livejournal.com]

I LINKED TO THE OXFORD FUCKING JOURNAL TWICE !TWICE! ABOVE.

AND REFERENCED THREE TEXT WRITTEN BY FUCKING DOCTORS.

BUT YEAH. I'M TOTALLY JUST RELYING ON FUCKING ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.

I'M SORRY YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO CLICK A LINK.

[(Anonymous)]

That you consider the Oxford Journals anywhere near a legitimate souirce is laughable in itself, but referring to a site like WebMD as "doctors" is even more hilarious (the rest of what you linked to being MSNBC and FA blogs). So yeah, go eat a few more bags of Fritos and brownies to make yourself feel better. You know you wanna.

[timemachineyeah.livejournal.com]

Yes. And you've been backing yourself up ~wonderfully~.

And I wasn't talking about WebMD. I was talking Glenn A Gaesser and Paul Campos, who wrote two of the books I mentioned. Who are doctors.

And that very first link alone, contains 56 footnotes and references.

No one else on this thread has come up with one.

I'm not responding to any more criticism unless someone wants to try to back their asses up. My point has been more than made to anyone who was actually bothered to educate themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, because books published for profit that don't have to be reviewed for accuracy by any independent agency written by doctors who are the laughingstocks of nutritional science ("Sugar is healthy! Really, it is! Go eat brownies!") is totally backing up your point. There's definitely a point made here, but it's not what you think it is.

Face it, you're desperately pulling "evidence" from whichever ass you think smells the best, and it doesn't take more than a couple Google searches to show how much shit it's made of.

[timemachineyeah.livejournal.com]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond, and this isn't for your benefit, but rather the benefit of anyone reading along.

Yes, because books published for profit that don't have to be reviewed for accuracy by any independent agency written by doctors who are the laughingstocks of nutritional science

Yes, because I've always found the best way to scam people out of their money is tell people that they are okay as they are and they don't need to buy any of your products in order to live a happy life.

Oh (http://www.weightwatchers.com/Templates/Marketing/Landing_1col_nonav.aspx?xp1=home&pageid=1218021) no (http://www.nutrisystem.com/jsps_hmr/home/index.jsp?_requestid=920630) wait (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) lol (http://www.jennycraig.com/)

The diet industry is a $40 BILLION industry. ( http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/030616/16profit.htm )

There is a lot more money to be made by telling people that they are inherently flawed but YOU HAVE THE MAGIC SOLUTION. If people making money off a book disqualifies an argument, then consider the entire pro-weight loss argument disqualified.

And if the Oxford Journal doesn't do ya, how about the NIH?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19543208

"when compared to the acceptable BMI category, overweight appears to be protective against mortality. Obesity class I was not associated with an increased risk of mortality."

[(Anonymous)]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond, and this isn't for your benefit, but rather the benefit of anyone reading along.

Sure it is. Do you get wet watching yourself type or something?

There's also plenty of scamming to be done (at least in the short term) selling a book that will tell a lot of grossly fat, gullible morons exactly what they want to hear. Look up Kevin Trudeau sometime.

In case you're too busy rubbing one out over your Domino's box from last night, I don't see anybody here saying that being a little chubby (read: Obesity Class I) is inherently unhealthy. But that Obesity Classes II and III (morbid and super) are definitely linked to various health issues, and to insist otherwise is either denial or flagrant stupidity (a little of both in your case).

[timemachineyeah.livejournal.com]

Thing I said in my very second comment:


"And being fat or thin isn't a predictor of health until you get into the far extremes - which is what you would expect from and U curved/bell-curved population. People at the far ends of tall and short also have higher mortality"

Have a nice day!

[(Anonymous)]

So what exactly are you arguing about? If nobody here is saying that a little chubby is not bad but morbidly or super obese is? Are you seriously arguing with people who fundamentally agree with you just to hear yourself talk? Because that's the epitome of pathetic.