More education for Trolly.

Assume the Flu virus has no serious mutations. Also assume the number of people with more serious managed comorbidities due to obesity grows exponentially as it has both in numbers of individuals and numbers of comorbidities.


Today I (someone healthy) can say no to the Flu Vaccine and assume whatever risk in that choice I see as acceptable and that is my right.

But if suddenly the number of people dying by the Flu skyrockets to Covid like numbers due to the growth in society of comorbidities (both numbers of people and number of comorbidities) then I will be told I need to take the Flu vaccine to protect this growing cohort of unhealthy.


So I (someone healthy) will be increasingly told 'you must now take vaccine A, B, C and D, etc' to protect others when that group of others (specifically the obesity epidemic) is largely predicated on individuals not exercising good choices or discipline in their life choices.

So i (someone healthy) is being told 'you must take medicine because others make bad choices',

So even if you argue the healthy person gets benefit from the vaccine too, that does not change the fact they are increasingly losing the choice they might want to make which is to try to live clean and healthy as a way to try to avoid taking medicines. Now you are saying 'too bad that is what you wanted and worked hard towards, but OTHERS are vulnerable due to their choices so YOU must now take medicines'.

It is obvious that the more vulnerable people living with managed comorbidities the more this need for OTHERS to medicate to protect them will occur.

There is NOTHING anti vax in my position there. ZERO.

YOu lie as always when you feel trying to deal honestly with what was written will not serve you. You are so obvious. You read an argument. See you have no way to counter and just switch to lying about it and then counter your lies as if they are the other persons.

I hope not one person is fooled by you and I would challenge anyone to state what they think is an anti vax position in my posts.

We are not seeing more deadly viruses because fat people are living longer. We are seeing more diseases like polio come back because dumbasses are getting medical advice from Joe Rogan and Alex Jones and spreading FUD on the internet.

Stating that people that fall in high risk categories should get the vaccine and those that are not is not a anti vax position.

Someone that is vaccinated or unvaccinated can spread it. That is the science.

I myself am fully vaccinated but if I had children I would not get them vaccinated unless they fell into a high risk category

If anyone, it's healthy people who are 'forcing' healthy people to take the vaccine to protect the vulnerable. You're the ones who get old.

We're happy to make some sacrifices for you but dont go blaming us as well

While there is some truth to what you say, medical science has tipped it so it is not exactly accurate.

You look at the extended lives (a good thing) of the obese and aged in the West versus the 3rd world and you see a vast disparity. That is because the aged and obese in the West can now live a lot longer (a good thing) due to host of medications to manage their comorbidities and other health problems that those in the 3rd world do not have access to.

This is a big reason why covid did not find these populations in places like India to tear thru as they were already dead.


I say again, if the FLu does not mutate in any meaningful way but suddenly due to a new host of medications a huge percent more of the obese and aged live a lot longer with serious comorbidities and the Flu suddenly becomes a very deadly thing to that new group and they start dying in mass numbers, then the position will change that people prior who were healthy and had the choice to not take the Flu vaccine suddenly now have to take it, to protect OTHERS.

it is not that the healthy person's risk profile or need for the vaccine or not has changed and is because others (who made poorer health choices) need protecting. So the healthy person has to medicate despite making good choices because a growing body of people made poor choices.

That is a big ask for society to make increasingly.

I dont doubt the obese are driving medical science in ways that are helping everybody. You're welcome.

Not sure you want to be making the argument that obesity doesn't reduce life expectancy. It's not true but suppose it was ...

You honestly do not know how viruses work at all. Viruses evolve to seek out vulnerabilities and that is a constant game we play with them.

So as you have a growing group with a growing list of vulnerabilities, more viruses will have success harming them. SOmetimes the virus may evolve to and get them. Sometimes those person living with increasing comorbidities may develop a comorbidity that is vulnerable to an existing virus.

it is basic math and logic to then extrapolate that as society goes from 20% obese or overweight decades ago to projected 80% obese or over weight by 2030 as projected, we will have a ton more vulnerable people living with a LOT MORE comorbidities making them more and more susceptible to an increasing number of viruses and diseases.

we will have to do a lot more to protect that 80% obese population from any virus that proves to be a threat, including demanding those at low risk and who are fit, take whatever vaccine can slow spread.

(an no one is arguing your second sentence so take your strawman elsewhere. That can be bad but it has no impact on what I am arguing)

This is so uninformed it’s hard to know where to start. The virus isn’t evolving to target people with poor health, people with poor health jus t generally have worse health outcomes.

You really should just stop inventing stuff.

What is it that you think is very poor about hit diet? In before,"zmog, carbs!"

He has done every diet in the book for cutting weight for his sport and has been doing this for a significant amount of time and is one of the most decorated in his sport.

Surely if his diet were lacking, he wouldn't be able to beat elite athletes and hold the world record for the fastest submission in IBJJF finals history.



Did you read his post? His problem isn't trying to lose weight. Having more muscle mass is the solution, and that isn't going to be from walking alone.

The reason why people hate the gym is because they approach it like a donk. They decide they want to get healthy and then read a few "Do this to annihilate belly fat" articles and then they have a gym routine with 12 exercises and then are in agony from DOMS the first week of January.

You only need 3 exercises, and 3 sets of 5 reps. In and out in under 30 minutes. You don't need a gym or even weights to get started. Here you keep harping on and on about discipline, yet a 20-minute strength-training routine 3-times a week is out of the question, lmao.

Woah, now wait a minute - Mr. You Don't Need Exercise To Lose Weight is claiming that exercise is why he can eat only pizza and pasta? At the end of the day, TDEE is TDEE. His diet is calorically scalable for anyone.

Studies have been done to show that high-carb or low-carb doesn't matter in terms of long-term weight loss and as you've correctly pointed out several times already, exercise is not mandatory in order to lose weight so why do you think him training 3x a day is relevant to the types of food he eats?

BTW, I'm not asserting that people here should eat only pizza/pasta but only because if they wanted to, they very likely wouldn't do it right.

You are only arguing half the picture.

Yes obese die younger than fit over all.

So in relative sense that means they may cost health care less.

But in an absolute sense obese and aged are living much longer (not comparatively to fit) than they did in the past with ever more comorbidities.


So again you can be 70 or even 80 in Canada and be obese and live with a host of comorbidities that would see you dead in the slums of india.

As this absolute population continues to grow (even if the fit population exceeds them), it is THEIR ABSOLUTE NUMBERS and how many will die, due to Virus X, that will make society call for EVERYONE to get a vaccine to try and stop spread.

So regardless of the relative arguments you may make, the problem I identify still exists.

OK but it kinda does, buddy. It does.

Different diets and lifestyles can work for different people. Just lol at people who come in with one-size-fits all solutions for the most complex machines on the planet.

I'm not giving a one-size-fits-all solution. Lol at coming to that conclusion based on that post.

I was basically agreeing with you and loling at the people giving out oversimplified advice.

Viruses absolutely due mutate to exploit vulnerabilities such as poor health or lack of prior exposure. You simply have no clue of the science you are trying to speak to and need to educate yourself.

People with poor health due generally have worse health outcomes (you got it half right) and yet they are living longer and longer with those worse health outcomes as society is getting better and better at medicating those poor health outcomes and keeping them alive in a managed way. They are not staying alive longer because they suddenly got healthier nor because they addressed the root problem. They are staying alive longer as we found a medication that can offset the symptoms or causes of problems.

So when a virus comes along that can get around that medications benefit and target those comorbidities directly, that group is now super vulnerable. When that viruses spead will cause mass death in that group, OTHERS will be demanded to vaccinate to protect them.

My point has nothing to do with any specific person diet.

I was simply re-iterating that weight loss is subject to diet nor education (healthy weight loss is though) and it is discipline primarily which will dictate that.

I keep repeating that as so many here thought it was laughable that i said discipline is the primary driver.

What will you if the maths shows it's healthy people living longer that outweighs people being fatter and in fact we on average are making the sacrifice for you?

Would you only apply your argument when it suits or will you be consistent? I'm consistent in opposing the argument either way.

the loling is on the people who deliberately over complicate it.

it is demonstrable fact that a person with discipline can lose weight on a very poor diet. Can lose weight on very good diet. Can lose weight with little knowledge. Can lose weight with immense knowledge.

It also demonstrable fact that without discipline the person will fail regardless of the points above.

So when someone like me says "discipline' is the key and it gets mocked as over simplistic it is because you have liberals types who think it is not NICE and it makes some people struggling to find the discipline feel bad.

Liberal types will rationalize any gaslighting to themselves to try and make people 'feel better'. Even if they make everything worse for everyone, including the person they think they are helping.

Apologies.

You cropped everything out of my post except for the dude's pic and what he eats, yet what he eats isn't relevant to your response? Lol.

I would say again you are missing the point. I could stipulate and agree to everything you say and it still misses the point.

The point again is to step away from the relative arguments.

If the percent of the population goes from 20% - 80% obese and living with extreme comorbidities, that means over 250MM people in the US at risk. If a covid or flu or any other virus starts killing them on mass that can be slowed via vaccination then BECAUSE OF THE MASS NUMBERS AT RISK, society will demand everyone vaccinate to protect them in a way they WOULD NOT, if only 5% were obese and only 6MM were at risk.

We CARE about mass numbers dying (rightly) which means the more science can keep vulnerable people alive, the more we increase that risk.

No relative argument changes those facts.

Yes what he specifically ate had NOTHING to do with the point I was making. You could template anyone with any diet in as I just used that to say 'diet does not matter as much as discipline'.

You keep saying 'ok but what his specific diet...' and that had nothing to do with my point. I actually have no idea what he eats beside seeing pizza. I read nothing else.

This would be a foolish assumption, since the viruses mutate sufficiently to require a different vaccine every year for those most at risk. And the vaccines only work on some, not all, of the most recent mutations.

Lol. You should try reading before responding to someone. I mean, give it a try sometime.

Yes, I see that. Next time you want to make a point, don't quote someone that posted NOTHING [sic QP caps] to do with your point.

I think we already know that fat people and smokers, for instance, are saving the rest of us a lot of money by conveniently not living to die horribly slowly of Alzheimer's and various cancers in their nineties and consuming not only a lot of medical attention but a lot of manpower-heavy personal care over many months.

That's not to say that we should actively encourage people to over-eat, under-exercise and smoke, because it's not good for you. But of course it would be cheaper for society at large if we did. On a purely economic analysis we should encourage maximum birth rates (to provide young fit workers and taxpayers) and the unhealthiest possible lifestyles (to reduce the number of annoying old people the young workers have to support). But that, though logical in a sense, would be sort of mad.