and, again, what are these fruit bowls?
- 1 kiwi
- 1 banana
- 5-6 strawberries
- 20 blueberries
- 10 raspberries
with
- 1-1.5 scoops of cherry ice cream on the top (which was probably my single greatest source of vitamin a before i switched to the red peppers, and probably remains the single biggest source of much needed animal fats in my diet).
- about 300 ml of the most fortified soy milk i can find
together, i should get enough vitamins and minerals from this to get me through the day.
my struggle is trying to make sure i actually sit down to eat it every day. i know that your body doesn't store a lot of this stuff, so catching up doesn't really work right.
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
If California were a country, it would rank fifth in the world for total COVID-19 cases behind only the United States, Brazil, India and Russia.
6th is south africa.
so, there's the c in the new brics - it's california.
brazil
russia
india
california
south africa
6th is south africa.
so, there's the c in the new brics - it's california.
brazil
russia
india
california
south africa
at
23:14
how many days did i skip meals this summer?
first, let's note that my eating schedule only calls for one meal per day, although it's sort of like eating a big brunch everyday. so, i'll eat a bowl of fruit as an appetizer (or, you could call it breakfast.) and then eat one of the following:
1) half of a large plate of pasta, which i may double up on if i skipped the previous day or if i'm just extra hungry. like the day i got back from 120 km of biking. i ate an entire plate, that day. usually, i will eat half the plate.
2) eggs, which is four eggs on rye bread, with cheese and salami.
these are not small meals, and if you didn't understand what i was doing you'd miss the point. while they are not small meals, they are roughly the size of what a lot of people eat just for supper. if you want to interpret the fruit as breakfast and the pasta as lunch, then i don't eat supper at all; if you want to interpret the fruit as breakfast and the pasta as supper, then i don't eat lunch - and it's actually half of what most people eat for supper.
so is that clear?
after having three bowls of fruit and half the eggs i normally would this morning, i'm now four days behind on the fruit (that includes today). i've also had some nachos over the period being examined, which i used to substitute for some skipped meals.
the legend then is as follows:
f = fruit skipped
f = fruit initially skipped, but caught up on
m = meal (that is, eggs or pasta) skipped
m = meal skipped, but nachos were eaten as replacement
june:
18 - f m
19 - f m
21 - f m
22 - f m
25 - f m
26 - f m
july:
01 - f m
02 - f m
03 -f m
04 - f m
07 -f m
08 -f m
10 -f m
11 -f m
12 -f m
13 -f m
21 -f m
22 -f m
23 -f m
24 - f m
25 - f m
26 - f m
27 - f m
28 - f m
29 - f m
30 - f m
31 - f m
the red dates are what i've eaten over the last few 48 hours, and given that i've got three days to get through 7 bowls of fruit, it's not likely that i'll be eating anything else for the rest of the month.
in those 44 days, then, i've only had 14 meals - and skipped 30, although i caught up to eight of them with nachos. so, i've skipped 22 meals this summer. that's about $50 in the bank, and i assure you my health is better off for it.
that is normal for me, in the summer - the heat keeps my appetite way down, allowing me to lose weight without even trying. it's the best part of the summer - you don't get hungry, and therefore don't have to eat.
but, i want to post this to demonstrate what a healthy person's diet actually looks like. i'm going to end up eating a grand total of two actual meals and a shitload of fruit over the last two weeks of july, and when i get tested they're going to tell me my stats are those of an olympic athlete, that i'm the healthiest person they've ever met. so, that's something to strive for, even if it seems impossible to accomplish right now.
you shouldn't be craving food two or three times a day, that's just going to make you obese, and you should take it as a sign that you need to change your lifestyle if you find yourself constantly hungry like that. whatever the intelligent design people want to tell you about genetics and hunger, the reality is that hunger is a feedback that happens when your stomach reaches a specific point of acidity, and not something that is genetically predetermined, so if you're hungry a lot it's because your stomach is physically too big. it may be uncomfortable for you to do so, but you basically need to starve yourself until it shrinks - and then you won't be hungry when you shouldn't be anymore.
first, let's note that my eating schedule only calls for one meal per day, although it's sort of like eating a big brunch everyday. so, i'll eat a bowl of fruit as an appetizer (or, you could call it breakfast.) and then eat one of the following:
1) half of a large plate of pasta, which i may double up on if i skipped the previous day or if i'm just extra hungry. like the day i got back from 120 km of biking. i ate an entire plate, that day. usually, i will eat half the plate.
2) eggs, which is four eggs on rye bread, with cheese and salami.
these are not small meals, and if you didn't understand what i was doing you'd miss the point. while they are not small meals, they are roughly the size of what a lot of people eat just for supper. if you want to interpret the fruit as breakfast and the pasta as lunch, then i don't eat supper at all; if you want to interpret the fruit as breakfast and the pasta as supper, then i don't eat lunch - and it's actually half of what most people eat for supper.
so is that clear?
after having three bowls of fruit and half the eggs i normally would this morning, i'm now four days behind on the fruit (that includes today). i've also had some nachos over the period being examined, which i used to substitute for some skipped meals.
the legend then is as follows:
f = fruit skipped
m = meal (that is, eggs or pasta) skipped
june:
july:
03 -
04 -
07 -
08 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 - f m
25 - f m
26 - f m
27 - f m
29 - f m
30 - f m
31 - f m
the red dates are what i've eaten over the last few 48 hours, and given that i've got three days to get through 7 bowls of fruit, it's not likely that i'll be eating anything else for the rest of the month.
in those 44 days, then, i've only had 14 meals - and skipped 30, although i caught up to eight of them with nachos. so, i've skipped 22 meals this summer. that's about $50 in the bank, and i assure you my health is better off for it.
that is normal for me, in the summer - the heat keeps my appetite way down, allowing me to lose weight without even trying. it's the best part of the summer - you don't get hungry, and therefore don't have to eat.
but, i want to post this to demonstrate what a healthy person's diet actually looks like. i'm going to end up eating a grand total of two actual meals and a shitload of fruit over the last two weeks of july, and when i get tested they're going to tell me my stats are those of an olympic athlete, that i'm the healthiest person they've ever met. so, that's something to strive for, even if it seems impossible to accomplish right now.
you shouldn't be craving food two or three times a day, that's just going to make you obese, and you should take it as a sign that you need to change your lifestyle if you find yourself constantly hungry like that. whatever the intelligent design people want to tell you about genetics and hunger, the reality is that hunger is a feedback that happens when your stomach reaches a specific point of acidity, and not something that is genetically predetermined, so if you're hungry a lot it's because your stomach is physically too big. it may be uncomfortable for you to do so, but you basically need to starve yourself until it shrinks - and then you won't be hungry when you shouldn't be anymore.
at
22:56
this was when the broadcasting shut down, right here:
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020_05_18_archive.html
draw your own conclusions.
https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2020_05_18_archive.html
draw your own conclusions.
at
20:30
what do i think happened?
i seem to have hurt somebody's feelings back injune may, and the cops seem to have stepped in to stop that person from crying too hard.
the person i was insulting before this shut down was actually the prime minister.
awwwww. did i huwt youw feewings justin?
awww.
i seem to have hurt somebody's feelings back in
the person i was insulting before this shut down was actually the prime minister.
awwwww. did i huwt youw feewings justin?
awww.
at
19:03
i like chocolate in my coffee, but i'm really not a chocolate person, and i'd much rather eat a fruity gummy.
fruit >>> chocolate.
fruit >>> chocolate.
at
19:00
what about the edibles, though?
i have mentioned here a few times that if i can get used to the edibles then i'll have no reason to smoke anything in the future. and i've been looking forward to that.
i believe that the edibles only recently went on sale. i don't recall seeing edibles listed at the store back in march, and i haven't looked into it at all since; i just looked into it for the first time right now.
so, apparently 10 mg is a good dose for edibles. i have taken edibles in the past, without knowing the dosage, and it's tended to knock me out hard, but it's been in the context of drinking and smoking other things, so i don't have a control. i know i've eaten some things people have handed me, and it generally hasn't worked out well.
the pickings are still very slim and still relatively pricey so i'm going to wait for the variety to improve and the price to come down before i look again.
so, for example, i can buy a $10 mg gummy for $8. that seems like it's one dose. but, i can buy a gram of pot for $8 and roll 5-6 joints out of it. so, the gummy doesn't seem to be very economical, in context.
i'm not going to buy a little gummy and try to cut it into 6 pieces.
some of the chocolate bars seem to be a little more economical. they seem to split them into 2-2.5 mg pieces, which is probably on the low side, but it may be a good starting point to do some proper testing with.
i have mentioned here a few times that if i can get used to the edibles then i'll have no reason to smoke anything in the future. and i've been looking forward to that.
i believe that the edibles only recently went on sale. i don't recall seeing edibles listed at the store back in march, and i haven't looked into it at all since; i just looked into it for the first time right now.
so, apparently 10 mg is a good dose for edibles. i have taken edibles in the past, without knowing the dosage, and it's tended to knock me out hard, but it's been in the context of drinking and smoking other things, so i don't have a control. i know i've eaten some things people have handed me, and it generally hasn't worked out well.
the pickings are still very slim and still relatively pricey so i'm going to wait for the variety to improve and the price to come down before i look again.
so, for example, i can buy a $10 mg gummy for $8. that seems like it's one dose. but, i can buy a gram of pot for $8 and roll 5-6 joints out of it. so, the gummy doesn't seem to be very economical, in context.
i'm not going to buy a little gummy and try to cut it into 6 pieces.
some of the chocolate bars seem to be a little more economical. they seem to split them into 2-2.5 mg pieces, which is probably on the low side, but it may be a good starting point to do some proper testing with.
at
18:52
there are no 30 degree days in the forecast right now for august :(.
so, i should be inside and sober and working, to the extent that i can find ways to fight off the a/c.
so, i should be inside and sober and working, to the extent that i can find ways to fight off the a/c.
at
18:16
so, i took advantage of the last day of warm weather to actually get some sleep today before it cools down to some unsleepable overnight lows, chilly and sort of scary numbers like 16 degrees celsius. brrrrrrr.
it's a reminder: it can get very cold in canada, even in july.
i meant to do a review of the subway scientist in the last post, but i forgot halfway through. yeah, laugh it up.
the pot was a little weaker than the last few i've bought, and that was noticeable (it was 19%), but i got a good count out of it so it sort of balanced out. however, if the selling point was that the product was supposed to have a distinctly fruity hue, then it simply didn't - i got a sort of artificial grape odour (almost like it had been sprayed with grape flavouring) for a few hours when i opened the pack, and some buds that almost looked burnt by something (maybe even the artificial flavouring). i don't want to slam this too hard, because it actually got the job done relatively well, and i want to reiterate that the count was good (in general, the RIFF products seem to have the best counts of the products i've tried, so far). but, it wasn't really what i was hoping for.
ok, so, now i need to get to cleaning and eating.
fwiw, when i say "catch up on eating", what i mean is catch up on my daily fruit bowls, not on my actual meals. i'm not going to sit and eat a week's worth of skipped pasta - that's gone. but, i will sit down and eat three bowls of fruit at a time, to catch up, if i skip a lot of them. what i actually want is to ensure i'm getting the bowl in every day....it's just hard to sit down and eat a bowl of cold fruit when it's cold....
it's a reminder: it can get very cold in canada, even in july.
i meant to do a review of the subway scientist in the last post, but i forgot halfway through. yeah, laugh it up.
the pot was a little weaker than the last few i've bought, and that was noticeable (it was 19%), but i got a good count out of it so it sort of balanced out. however, if the selling point was that the product was supposed to have a distinctly fruity hue, then it simply didn't - i got a sort of artificial grape odour (almost like it had been sprayed with grape flavouring) for a few hours when i opened the pack, and some buds that almost looked burnt by something (maybe even the artificial flavouring). i don't want to slam this too hard, because it actually got the job done relatively well, and i want to reiterate that the count was good (in general, the RIFF products seem to have the best counts of the products i've tried, so far). but, it wasn't really what i was hoping for.
ok, so, now i need to get to cleaning and eating.
fwiw, when i say "catch up on eating", what i mean is catch up on my daily fruit bowls, not on my actual meals. i'm not going to sit and eat a week's worth of skipped pasta - that's gone. but, i will sit down and eat three bowls of fruit at a time, to catch up, if i skip a lot of them. what i actually want is to ensure i'm getting the bowl in every day....it's just hard to sit down and eat a bowl of cold fruit when it's cold....
at
18:11
Genes contribute to the causes of obesity in many ways, by affecting appetite, satiety (the sense of fullness), metabolism, food cravings, body-fat distribution, and the tendency to use eating as a way to cope with stress.
i'll accept metabolism, primarily. body-fat distribution is a consequence of metabolism.
but, if you're going to tell me that you're fat because you have genetic factors that affect your appetite and there's nothing you can do to stop it, i'm going to laugh at you. yet, that seems to be what a lot of the argument is based on.
"well, sure i ate the entire cake. i was hungry! it's genetic!"
go take a holiday in africa and come back and tell me how you feel about that, now.
i'll accept metabolism, primarily. body-fat distribution is a consequence of metabolism.
but, if you're going to tell me that you're fat because you have genetic factors that affect your appetite and there's nothing you can do to stop it, i'm going to laugh at you. yet, that seems to be what a lot of the argument is based on.
"well, sure i ate the entire cake. i was hungry! it's genetic!"
go take a holiday in africa and come back and tell me how you feel about that, now.
at
07:29
it's been the sporadic efficacy of the conversion process at the one drive site that's screwed me up over the last few days. i'd be done by now if i wasn't stuck waiting and trying over and over to get the server to convert the file properly.
it was yesterday morning that the third trimester file refused to convert properly from doc to pdf (the error is that they introduce a conversion step, from doc to docx, that breaks the formatting). so, i fell asleep waiting for it to work, and was up in the afternoon. it converted, eventually.
then, i was ready to post the 2013 combined (final) updates yesterday afternoon when the machine rebooted on me before i got the chance to save the downloaded pdfs anywhere (after trying to get the conversion to work several times), so i'll need to go back to the one drive site and hope it works. this is the chromebook, and it's designed with this in mind, but it's a process to set back up, and it threw me for the day. i was going to wait until i was done, but i ended up eating for the first time in a few days, and that just knocked me right out, in the end, after however many days without eating or sleeping (which is what i actually prefer, fwiw. fuck eating. fuck sleeping. but, i don't have an energy source to plug into. not yet, anyways.). the warm & humid temperatures finally overpowered the a/c down here yesterday as well, which was highly conducive to sleep after however many weeks of the frigid air from upstairs making it so hard to sleep. i sleep best when the temperature is in the high 20s, and can't sleep at all when i'm even a little bit cold in the summer - even at 22 or 23, it just feels like somebody is dumping cold water on me.
i was up a little after midnight, when it cooled down, and have mostly been focusing on catching up on eating this morning.
i uploaded the 2013 deathtokoalas file to smashwords yesterday, but i didn't get a chance to catch the conversion before the reboot.
that means i have the following left to do:
1) check the july-dec 2013 deathtokoalas file at smashwords. the formatting there is bad, i just need to check that the file actually updated.
2) there is no travel blog for january, so i will need to upload just the dtk update to the january bandcamp archive. i will need to upload that file to smashwords, as well.
3) i will need to get the full travel blog file up to smashwords
4) i will need to get the full travel blog file and the full deathtokoalas file both up at lulu
5) i'll need to update the google drive share as well.
these are minor edits and should take an afternoon, but i want to prioritize cleaning for today.
the 2014 run through should be much quicker because i've got the parameters better set, now. i won't be adding any new posts, but i will be likely removing a lot and maybe transferring quite a bit. the major change is that the politics blog is likely to become a little more focused, as specific concepts get moved entirely to dtk.
will i do a combined blog one day?
i might, in the end, but likely only as a total update. so, you might get it all thrown at you in one ridiculous 100,000 page file, in the end. for now, i'm not planning on that.
so, for the day, i'm doing a lot of cleaning (including of myself) and i'll get back to this when it's done.
it was yesterday morning that the third trimester file refused to convert properly from doc to pdf (the error is that they introduce a conversion step, from doc to docx, that breaks the formatting). so, i fell asleep waiting for it to work, and was up in the afternoon. it converted, eventually.
then, i was ready to post the 2013 combined (final) updates yesterday afternoon when the machine rebooted on me before i got the chance to save the downloaded pdfs anywhere (after trying to get the conversion to work several times), so i'll need to go back to the one drive site and hope it works. this is the chromebook, and it's designed with this in mind, but it's a process to set back up, and it threw me for the day. i was going to wait until i was done, but i ended up eating for the first time in a few days, and that just knocked me right out, in the end, after however many days without eating or sleeping (which is what i actually prefer, fwiw. fuck eating. fuck sleeping. but, i don't have an energy source to plug into. not yet, anyways.). the warm & humid temperatures finally overpowered the a/c down here yesterday as well, which was highly conducive to sleep after however many weeks of the frigid air from upstairs making it so hard to sleep. i sleep best when the temperature is in the high 20s, and can't sleep at all when i'm even a little bit cold in the summer - even at 22 or 23, it just feels like somebody is dumping cold water on me.
i was up a little after midnight, when it cooled down, and have mostly been focusing on catching up on eating this morning.
i uploaded the 2013 deathtokoalas file to smashwords yesterday, but i didn't get a chance to catch the conversion before the reboot.
that means i have the following left to do:
1) check the july-dec 2013 deathtokoalas file at smashwords. the formatting there is bad, i just need to check that the file actually updated.
2) there is no travel blog for january, so i will need to upload just the dtk update to the january bandcamp archive. i will need to upload that file to smashwords, as well.
3) i will need to get the full travel blog file up to smashwords
4) i will need to get the full travel blog file and the full deathtokoalas file both up at lulu
5) i'll need to update the google drive share as well.
these are minor edits and should take an afternoon, but i want to prioritize cleaning for today.
the 2014 run through should be much quicker because i've got the parameters better set, now. i won't be adding any new posts, but i will be likely removing a lot and maybe transferring quite a bit. the major change is that the politics blog is likely to become a little more focused, as specific concepts get moved entirely to dtk.
will i do a combined blog one day?
i might, in the end, but likely only as a total update. so, you might get it all thrown at you in one ridiculous 100,000 page file, in the end. for now, i'm not planning on that.
so, for the day, i'm doing a lot of cleaning (including of myself) and i'll get back to this when it's done.
at
07:22
and is it just natural variation?
no.
these people would be eaten instantly by lions. no chance at all.
no.
these people would be eaten instantly by lions. no chance at all.
at
04:41
so, do i think that weight regulation is determined by genetic factors? that is, do i think that obese people are "born that way"?
no. not at all.
well, not really.
what does the science actually say? it's not what the media wants you to think, but that's normal - the media almost never gets the science right. generally, when you read a report about science at the cbc or cnn, it's been so distorted by the obscene religious censors that you essentially have to run through every clause with a giant not operation. their journalistic integrity is beyond atrocious.
so, forget about the nonsense you've read in the news - it's just that. nonsense.
so, let's ask a question we've asked a few times, now. what is a gene? and the answer is that a gene is a protein that regulates the production of hormones. so, in order to demonstrate that an issue is genetic, you have to show that it's regulated entirely or at least dominantly by hormone production. so, is obesity determined solely or even dominantly by hormone production? if it is, then you've found a genetic defect that should be targeted for elimination from the genome. if it's not, then you can't blame obesity on genetics.
so, is weight determined by hormones? this is the actual debate here underlying the media obfuscation, and the answer is sort of. two people standing side by side can eat the same meal and metabolize it differently, and that difference in metabolism will be caused by different levels of hormonal regulation (which, remember, is all that genes do), but at the end of the day they consumed the same amount of mass, and it's conservation of energy that is going to predominate in the end.
so, these news reports (which are designed to ensure nobody has their feelings hurt, first and foremost, and not as the cold, rationalist scientific explorations that they should be designed as, to discard emotions as meaningless subjective opinions) constantly want to bring up genes as this kind of black box explanation. our understanding of genetics is slowly pushing past the point where you can get away with this kind of lazy journalism, but for right now you can still throw just about anything in this pile of magic called "genetics" using tricks like "studies suggest" or "scientists estimate", and get the answer you expected out of it by designing the question that way. to call that a perversion of science would be an understatement. but, if you want to understand this properly, you're better off starting not from the assumption (and that is still all it actually is) that genetics are paramount and unalterable (as though god decided, right?), but rather from the conservation of energy, which we can use newtonian approximations for, in context.
energy stored = energy consumed - energy burned
so, if you're fat it's because you eat more than you need, and it's the most basic physics in the world to understand it as much.
it is consequently the case that if your fancy genetic model contradicts that simple equation then you can throw it in the trash - it's garbage. genetic/hormonal complications may affect the amount of energy your body burns, but the issue of stored weight is ultimately determined by how much one consumes and not by how much one burns and you simply can't store more energy than you've consumed. that's not biology; that's physics. you can't gain weight by not eating, and if you burn calories you will always lose some weight, even if your hormonal regulation is particularly defective and prevents you from burning fat like a healthy person in a particularly invasive way.
given that truth, hormonal regulation brought on by gene expression can at most be an annoyance. it's friction. it's a complicating factor. but, to say that you can't lose weight because of your genes is wrong. rather, people with poor hormone regulation due to defective genes will simply need to work harder and eat less to maintain healthy vital statistics.
that means that the issue is not genetic, at it's core - and that people with defective genes should be paying more attention to lifestyle, not giving into fatalistic assumptions, or giving up on life because god.
as an aside, do we want to conclude that obesity is a genetic defect? because, i can tell you that i'll never accept it. the unavoidable conclusion of trying to clinicize an issue that is in actual truth almost entirely about lifestyle would be that we need to find a way to eliminate the genetic disease/defect of obesity from the genome. i mean, we can't be walking around talking about accepting inferiority as normal. actual diseases need to be targeted and expunged. so, this intelligent design recast as liberalism thing only gets the religious people to the end point they want if it's rooted in religious assumptions in the first place; if you find the fatalism of these religious arguments laughable, i'm talking about the "god made me the way i am" crowd, you're just going to take the knowledge as an argument for eugenics. the idea that being fat is a choice and can be reversed is consequently a lot better than the alternative, which is that fat people have a genetic disease that cannot be cured and should be prevented from breeding.
no. not at all.
well, not really.
what does the science actually say? it's not what the media wants you to think, but that's normal - the media almost never gets the science right. generally, when you read a report about science at the cbc or cnn, it's been so distorted by the obscene religious censors that you essentially have to run through every clause with a giant not operation. their journalistic integrity is beyond atrocious.
so, forget about the nonsense you've read in the news - it's just that. nonsense.
so, let's ask a question we've asked a few times, now. what is a gene? and the answer is that a gene is a protein that regulates the production of hormones. so, in order to demonstrate that an issue is genetic, you have to show that it's regulated entirely or at least dominantly by hormone production. so, is obesity determined solely or even dominantly by hormone production? if it is, then you've found a genetic defect that should be targeted for elimination from the genome. if it's not, then you can't blame obesity on genetics.
so, is weight determined by hormones? this is the actual debate here underlying the media obfuscation, and the answer is sort of. two people standing side by side can eat the same meal and metabolize it differently, and that difference in metabolism will be caused by different levels of hormonal regulation (which, remember, is all that genes do), but at the end of the day they consumed the same amount of mass, and it's conservation of energy that is going to predominate in the end.
so, these news reports (which are designed to ensure nobody has their feelings hurt, first and foremost, and not as the cold, rationalist scientific explorations that they should be designed as, to discard emotions as meaningless subjective opinions) constantly want to bring up genes as this kind of black box explanation. our understanding of genetics is slowly pushing past the point where you can get away with this kind of lazy journalism, but for right now you can still throw just about anything in this pile of magic called "genetics" using tricks like "studies suggest" or "scientists estimate", and get the answer you expected out of it by designing the question that way. to call that a perversion of science would be an understatement. but, if you want to understand this properly, you're better off starting not from the assumption (and that is still all it actually is) that genetics are paramount and unalterable (as though god decided, right?), but rather from the conservation of energy, which we can use newtonian approximations for, in context.
energy stored = energy consumed - energy burned
so, if you're fat it's because you eat more than you need, and it's the most basic physics in the world to understand it as much.
it is consequently the case that if your fancy genetic model contradicts that simple equation then you can throw it in the trash - it's garbage. genetic/hormonal complications may affect the amount of energy your body burns, but the issue of stored weight is ultimately determined by how much one consumes and not by how much one burns and you simply can't store more energy than you've consumed. that's not biology; that's physics. you can't gain weight by not eating, and if you burn calories you will always lose some weight, even if your hormonal regulation is particularly defective and prevents you from burning fat like a healthy person in a particularly invasive way.
given that truth, hormonal regulation brought on by gene expression can at most be an annoyance. it's friction. it's a complicating factor. but, to say that you can't lose weight because of your genes is wrong. rather, people with poor hormone regulation due to defective genes will simply need to work harder and eat less to maintain healthy vital statistics.
that means that the issue is not genetic, at it's core - and that people with defective genes should be paying more attention to lifestyle, not giving into fatalistic assumptions, or giving up on life because god.
as an aside, do we want to conclude that obesity is a genetic defect? because, i can tell you that i'll never accept it. the unavoidable conclusion of trying to clinicize an issue that is in actual truth almost entirely about lifestyle would be that we need to find a way to eliminate the genetic disease/defect of obesity from the genome. i mean, we can't be walking around talking about accepting inferiority as normal. actual diseases need to be targeted and expunged. so, this intelligent design recast as liberalism thing only gets the religious people to the end point they want if it's rooted in religious assumptions in the first place; if you find the fatalism of these religious arguments laughable, i'm talking about the "god made me the way i am" crowd, you're just going to take the knowledge as an argument for eugenics. the idea that being fat is a choice and can be reversed is consequently a lot better than the alternative, which is that fat people have a genetic disease that cannot be cured and should be prevented from breeding.
at
04:25
fat people have a genetic disease that cannot be cured.
therefore, they should be prevented from breeding in order to eliminate the disease from the genome.
discuss.
therefore, they should be prevented from breeding in order to eliminate the disease from the genome.
discuss.
at
04:01
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)