M60
Amazing Dr Phil
April 28 2016
Comments
-
Twisted_Mister
9 years ago
Phil? Not the psychologist who 'saves relationships' on TV, surely? I didn't know he was a dietician as well.... Anyway if you do enough exercise the weight will stay off anyway. I have pizza and Red Rooster once a week and am the same weight as I was at 20. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Twisted_Mister
9 years ago
If I ate lots of crap food and lay on the couch all day I'd be fat too. IMO taxing it wouldn't solve the issue. Smokes are taxed to high heaven but people still smoke because they choose to (and I'm one of them). I say you make your own choices and live with any consequences. - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
ugh, this is setting yourself up for even more nonsense than the GST Birthday Cake. You'd need to work out what "fast food" is, and not in a porno/obscenity "I know it when I see it" way. So Maccas hamburgers are "fast food" - but what nutritional metrics are you using to decide on it? Is it the fat content? is it the carb amount? total kilojoules in an item? Where does a fatty piece of steak sit - normally it isn't 'fast food', but what if you have it pre-prepared for you? where does a loaf of bread sit?
-
Mischeviouslad
9 years ago
Something something something about glass houses....... chev.... .......who claims to have "a little extra padding". I am ultimately responsible for the choice of what food passes my lips......... not a government.I am ultimately responsible for my health... not a government.I am ultimately responsible for passing the knowledge of those healthy eating choices on to my progeny..... not a government. Your taxes already go towards educating kids in schools about diet and nutrition.... and if that was working there'd be nothing to talk about. You would have been taught the "food pyramid".... its now the food "circle". IF the tax money poured into teaching the pyramid worked, they wouldn't have changed it, and there'd be no obesity, right?! So increasing the tax burden by taxing sugar, fat, and fast food will NOT reduce obesity... but it would be the single most effective way of sucking more money out of the population, to pile into consolidated revenue to NOT be used to reduce obesity. Do you really want to pay more tax?! Silly idea.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
... of dumb, ugly fat in a week then cut off your head. Next question? Sheesh!
-
AnnieWhichway
9 years ago
If Doctor Phil married Auntie Annie........ We could rule the world. And Annie would have lots of money.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' I am ultimately responsible for the choice of what food passes my lips......... not a government.I am ultimately responsible for my health... not a government.I am ultimately responsible for passing the knowledge of those healthy eating choices on to my progeny..... not a government. Your taxes already go towards educating kids in schools about diet and nutrition.... and if that was working there'd be nothing to talk about. You would have been taught the "food pyramid".... its now the food "circle". IF the tax money poured into teaching the pyramid worked, they wouldn't have changed it, and there'd be no obesity, right?! BUT nr1 - not all school students receive education on diet and nutrition. Not all schools offer home economics or even healthy cooked lunches -that is an issue. Same with Sex Ed btw :) nr2 - the solution is "Eat food, not so much, mainly plants" BUT if you go to a supermarket in Australia - and you want to stick to "eat food" then forget about 70% of the store's contents to begin with. Those are edible products - not food. What remains is overpriced fruit and veggies (which are important for one BUT are expensive) some meat, eggs and some products such as dips etc. BTW I did my grocery shopping at my local supermarket today - they have an egg shortage (!) so I don't know how I am going to make a healthy omlette tomorrow morning.. nr3 - when a 2l bottle of high sugary soda COSTS LESS than a bottle of milk or a kg of fruit then for someone who is on a budget and is looking for a CHEAP source of CALORIE -so that they feel less hungry- then the choice is a no brainer - they are going to buy the SODA and the chips. I overheard managers talking about "having to clear stock" in the soda aisle (not going to name which brand) because a new delivery is coming in and they have to make room for it...they said they have to put the cola on special because it was not selling at 2AUD for 2L - but was disappearing from the shelves come Friday afternoon at 1.38AUD for 2L! So it is now 1.38AUD for 2 L which is LESS than the home-brand bottle of milk. or a yoghurt. n4 - sugar is damn everywhere - the government should tax these products for the negative externalities it creates - that was the same principle applied for tobacco as well - science has now proven that addiction to tobacco is not much different to addiction to sugar...so why no tax on sugar? oh...wait..Australia has a substantial sugar cane industry...I rest my case..
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I have extra padding that makes me "not thin" but I haven't got enough to describe myself as a BBW I am stuck :) but I challenge anyone who is 10000% sure that "fat people are lazy and dumb" to an IQ test followed by a swim-off .. we go to a 50m pool start swimming and see who tires out first then we do an IQ test and compare the results always wanted to challenge one of those "celebrity trainers" to this :)
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I would keep GST at 10% but increase it to 15% for any processed food product that contains sugar where the DI of sugar is over 10% issue solved
-
RHP User
9 years ago
...a politician is lying? His/hers lips are moving! Let's tax the bejezus out of politicos that tell porkies! Julia, Kevin, Tony and Malcomb... ya'all owe us about $4 gazillion dollars!
-
RHP User
9 years ago
His diet works eh???? Not according to your pics it doesn't lol But I'm happy sucking down maccas, and resting my drink on my guts as I steer the big banger down the road by just twisting....I don't need hands so I can eat more burgers and chips....seems to me being a fat cunt is more efficient than anything...don't see no skinny pricks able to multitask like I do lol :p
-
Languid
9 years ago
Tax isn't the way to go. As others above have said people should be able to make stupid (and what is stupid to one person isnt necessarily stupid to someone else) choices if they want (and it doesn't directly impact on others). And its the same with making things illegal. If a problem is really a health issue the only approach that has ever worked is education and more education and more education. It is gradually working with smoking although it will never work with everyone of course. Far out pretty heavy stuff this for a Friday lunchtime.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
About educating people ,that is like telling a drug addict or alcoholic that drugs and alcohol are bad for them. Stress ,depression ,anxiety etc รงan all be contributing factors . There is almost zero support or understanding about this issue which is of epidemic proportions in this country. Food is used to self medicate,provide comfort,entertain boredom away etc. Drug addicts have more help and support than the overweight who are fat shamed on a daily basis Q
-
inspirit
9 years ago
You bore me to tears with your biased and often generalised uneducated posts. Dr Phil....oh please. Next you'll be enlightened by Oprah.. ๐ฆ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SYDnobarbie' I would keep GST at 10% but increase it to 15% for any processed food product that contains sugar where the DI of sugar is over 10% issue solved being "processed" doesn't make a food some inherently nasty thing - or necessarily better or worse than an unprocessed food. Apple and orange juice are pretty much sugar water. That seems to just feed into the "natural so it's fine" notion which is contributing to a LOT of dental issues, particularly in kids who are fed stacks of fruit loaded with sugar, and juice to drink. It's particularly bad on kids where the tooth enamel isn't able to cope as well as an adults. I'd be interested to see what happens when you get kids actively occupied - not necessarily with some exercise activities, but I imagine when we were all out climbing trees, playing in the sandpit, or with lego, we were doing that and not constantly snacking. The amusing thing is all this "kids getting fatter and fatter, not like in yesteryear" - so we must change the school canteen menu. Forgetting that in yesteryear (the era of desirable child size) the canteens only sold sausage rolls, finger buns and donuts - your lunch was a peanut butter sandwich (white bread of course). Canteen food should form such a tiny amount of the overall food intake of a kid that it becomes irrelevant.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'inspirit' Next you'll be enlightened by Oprah.. Hey now, go easy on Oprah... she's put on and lost enough weight to build a publishing empire. Remember Oprah is ''Harpo'' spelled backwards... unfortunately the two other Marx Brothers never got a look in. Ocihc and Ohcuorg just sound so... African! Who the fuck is Lihprd?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
I'm informed of studies which have determined sugar is not only entirely unnecessary in the human diet, but is actually toxic. That said, I know there are many things I like to eat which contain sugar, including those items with "hidden" sugar. I understand the libertarian arguments that government should get out of everyone's lives, and should let people suffer the consequences of their own actions. However, I think this rationale is somewhat flawed, as it frequently invokes unrealistic and unreasonable value judgements. How far would society have progressed if all of our forebears took an "every man for himself" attitude as some would seem to advocate? People's actions DO impact one another, as much as we all might prefer otherwise. In discussions over healthcare, I think it worthwhile to remember and consider there is much more to this than simply the direct cost impacts to government healthcare budgets. There certainly are massive direct costs pertaining to Heart Disease, Diabetes, Anxiety, Depression etc etc. There are also the indirect costs associated with these chronic health conditions such as workplace productivity (indeed even workforce participation cut short), social welfare costs and so forth. If you thought you are already paying too much in taxes, Medicare levy/private health insurance premiums, you might consider just how much more you could be paying in the absence of the Public Healthcare System. Taxes do not necessarily all have to go to consolidated revenue. Some may be hypocated to the funding of particular initiatives. A tax on sugar likely would be regressive in nature. Beside raising revenue, taxes frequently are used to modify people's behaviours. We're not breaking new ground here. As has already been pointed out: What of Tobacco? Alcohol? Gambling? These are just the simple examples. I'm sure we could all think of many more. Everything's got to be paid for somehow. The real choice is what proportion you pay in your capacity as a consumer, and what proportion you pay in your capacity as a taxpayer. In principle surely it is reasonable to tax most the people participating in the particular practices which incur costs additional to that which we all must reasonably bear. The corollary is that it also should be deemed reasonable to expect consumers deriving the greatest benefit and with the greatest capacity to pay in fact do so. The great trick to all of this is that we don't necessarily have very good transparency over the level to which different behaviours/practices are subsidised by the existing tax base, or confidence we're getting the best value for our tax dollar. Sure am looking forward to seeing the Budget next week! ; )
-
RHP User
9 years ago
*hypothecated
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Fck you two...Let's the three of us get it on together...I reckon the three of us naked and drunk and smashed would be a fckn stupidly wild weekend....
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Lol are you a top or bottom?? Lol :p - Posted from rhpmobile
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' , particularly in kids who are fed stacks of fruit loaded with sugar, and juice to drink. at least they're also getting other nutrients and dietary benefits such as fibre. Juices are more of an issue particularly when many have extra sugar added. It is all the sugary drinks that are a particular problem as they provide no dietary benefits at all. There are many medical and health professionals who support a 'sugar tax' to raise the prices of soft drinks etc.
-
inspirit
9 years ago
It might be taxing tho ๐ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
chevtrek
9 years ago
Quoting 'SYDnobarbie' I would keep GST at 10% but increase it to 15% for any processed food product that contains sugar where the DI of sugar is over 10% issue solved
-
chevtrek
9 years ago
Sounds more like a comment an addicted person would say. Quoting 'inspirit' You bore me to tears with your biased and often generalised uneducated posts. Dr Phil....oh please. Next you'll be enlightened by Oprah.. ๐ฆ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
Mischeviouslad
9 years ago
I went to the zoo yesterday. While wandering around looking at the various animals, I came across the gorillas. Something about them reminded me of your topic, chev. I wonder if taxing sugar would affect the obese frame of that gorilla who's diet consists solely of green vegetables and a small amount of fruit. Perhaps you'd like to enter the enclosure and tell him he could do with coming down a few pounds.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'chevtrek' Quoting 'SYDnobarbie' I would keep GST at 10% but increase it to 15% for any processed food product that contains sugar where the DI of sugar is over 10% issue solved I am still waiting for a consultancy fee from any party that is willing to take up my solid recommendation. 5% GST increase ON SELECTED GROUP OF GOODS is peanuts...yet every little helps..
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' I went to the zoo yesterday. While wandering around looking at the various animals, I came across the gorillas. Something about them reminded me of your topic, chev. I wonder if taxing sugar would affect the obese frame of that gorilla who's diet consists solely of green vegetables and a small amount of fruit. Perhaps you'd like to enter the enclosure and tell him he could do with coming down a few pounds. You can twist it as much as you want and turn it into a discussion about "fat" and "laziness" by using the orangutan as an example (by the way IS a wrong example because orangutan weight and height does not vary as significantly amongst its members of the species as humans!) but the nutritional science is already there. Sugar rich processed foods are bad for us - orangutans don't eat this.They are BIG by EVOLUTION. Like the Elephants. They are born to be big to survive Humans are not born to be THAT big as these foods make them... I thought you are smarter than this...
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'SYDnobarbie'Sugar rich processed foods are bad for us - orangutans don't eat this.They are BIG by EVOLUTION. Like the Elephants. They are born to be big to survive Humans are not born to be THAT big as these foods make them... "sugar rich processed food" is vague to the point of being a useless definition - do you define "sugar rich" by percentage? by grams per serving? (Overnight the packaging on Tim Tams will indicate the serving size is a quarter of a biscuit - you will still be able to consume a full packet per sitting) How do you define a "processed food"? it's a nothing term, and takes no account of the fact that I could craft a "processed food" with the same nutritional value as some 'healthy' unprocessed food - processing the healthy food doesn't necessarily change it into something bad, it could even be better depending on what you're using and what nutrients you need. Just because it is natural it isn't necessarily better. Besides, if you have a look at what plants and animals naturally were, you'd see just how much they've been altered to increase yields and nutrients. Where does a cup of tea/coffee land if bought from a cafe? Is it taxed as a whole (is the question changed from "1 or 2" to "1 or two and tax" ;) ) or are bowls of sugar left out so you can add your own and avoid the tax?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
You can only die once.....lets all go out like elvis!!! :p
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'S_OnTheLoose' Quoting 'SYDnobarbie'Sugar rich processed foods are bad for us - orangutans don't eat this.They are BIG by EVOLUTION. Like the Elephants. They are born to be big to survive Humans are not born to be THAT big as these foods make them... "sugar rich processed food" is vague to the point of being a useless definition - do you define "sugar rich" by percentage? by grams per serving? (Overnight the packaging on Tim Tams will indicate the serving size is a quarter of a biscuit - you will still be able to consume a full packet per sitting) How do you define a "processed food"? it's a nothing term, and takes no account of the fact that I could craft a "processed food" with the same nutritional value as some 'healthy' unprocessed food - processing the healthy food doesn't necessarily change it into something bad, it could even be better depending on what you're using and what nutrients you need. Just because it is natural it isn't necessarily better. Besides, if you have a look at what plants and animals naturally were, you'd see just how much they've been altered to increase yields and nutrients. Where does a cup of tea/coffee land if bought from a cafe? Is it taxed as a whole (is the question changed from "1 or 2" to "1 or two and tax" ;) ) or are bowls of sugar left out so you can add your own and avoid the tax? in my initial post - sugar rich processed food is where the sugar content of 1 serving is more than 10% of the recommended dietary intake for an adult. Cola and most soda would fall into this category. processed food is any food product which is made from raw materials which are no longer recognizable in the finished product. The change I am proposing is simple and executable... A lot of countries do something similar to this -even when people are not aware..in the UK for example various products have either 0 or 20% VAT dependent on the % of and the level of processing done on cocoa. Raw cocoa is VAT free and a cocoa cake with a lot of cocoa is 20%VAT. Many countries have several rates of VAT,GST..One country has a standard rate of 27%, a reduced rate of 17%, a super reduced rate of 5% and an exempt rate of 0%. Australia has 10% or a 0% NZ has 15% A GST increase is coming - just a matter of time...If it is coming then do it smart...Keep fresh food 0%, increase processed and unhealthy foods - e.g sugar loaded processed foods...SIMPLE
-
Mischeviouslad
9 years ago
Quoting 'SYDnobarbie' Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' I went to the zoo yesterday. While wandering around looking at the various animals, I came across the gorillas. Something about them reminded me of your topic, chev. I wonder if taxing sugar would affect the obese frame of that gorilla who's diet consists solely of green vegetables and a small amount of fruit. Perhaps you'd like to enter the enclosure and tell him he could do with coming down a few pounds. You can twist it as much as you want and turn it into a discussion about "fat" and "laziness" by using the orangutan as an example (by the way IS a wrong example because orangutan weight and height does not vary as significantly amongst its members of the species as humans!) but the nutritional science is already there. Sugar rich processed foods are bad for us - orangutans don't eat this.They are BIG by EVOLUTION. Like the Elephants. They are born to be big to survive Humans are not born to be THAT big as these foods make them... I thought you are smarter than this... Yes.... I am.... which is why I was pointing out the ridiculousness of taxing people for the choice of what they put in their mouth..... for the purpose of... redistribution of that money to make people.... less fat or prone to putting the same crap in their mouth??? Its totally illogical.
-
RHP User
9 years ago
This is the crux of my post the other day concerning hypothecation of that revenue were such a Tax implemented. Rather than have that money paid into Consolidated Revenue (where it might be apportioned to anything and/or everything), it could instead be allocated directly to the Health Budget. Thus it would to help pay for the treatment of conditions such as Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc which are frequently (though admittedly obviously not always) attributable to people's lifestyle choices. It is simply suggested that those who partake in actions with consequences help meet the financial costs incurred. On a related side note for your consideration, have you considered how many non-drinkers and non-gamblers derive benefit from the Government's collection of Tax Revenue from those activities? I wonder how many of our fellow citizens might make a call for the abolition/repeal of those Taxes by reason that the payers of those taxes are not the sole beneficiaries of those taxes' associated spending measures?
-
RHP User
9 years ago
A philosopher, a neuroscientist, a social researcher and a Christian walk into a bar for a drink (bar is actually a hall in Sydney somewhere, and the drink is actually a debate) One states; there is no such thing as free will. One says; basically there is no free will - we are a product of everything that has been before, our genetics, environment etc,. One says; free will is a bit of an illusion, but we can ultimately make a choice, especially if supported. One says; the choices man makes, are all man's fault. They banterThen one of them pipes up again: I think this debate is interesting, but have you noticed something about those who believe absolutely in free will? Damn there is no punchline
-
RHP User
9 years ago
Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' Quoting 'SYDnobarbie' Quoting 'Mischeviouslad' I went to the zoo yesterday. While wandering around looking at the various animals, I came across the gorillas. Something about them reminded me of your topic, chev. I wonder if taxing sugar would affect the obese frame of that gorilla who's diet consists solely of green vegetables and a small amount of fruit. Perhaps you'd like to enter the enclosure and tell him he could do with coming down a few pounds. You can twist it as much as you want and turn it into a discussion about "fat" and "laziness" by using the orangutan as an example (by the way IS a wrong example because orangutan weight and height does not vary as significantly amongst its members of the species as humans!) but the nutritional science is already there. Sugar rich processed foods are bad for us - orangutans don't eat this.They are BIG by EVOLUTION. Like the Elephants. They are born to be big to survive Humans are not born to be THAT big as these foods make them... I thought you are smarter than this... Yes.... I am.... which is why I was pointing out the ridiculousness of taxing people for the choice of what they put in their mouth..... for the purpose of... redistribution of that money to make people.... less fat or prone to putting the same crap in their mouth??? Its totally illogical. Exactly as illogical as the tax on tobacco... or the rules around wearing a seatbelt or the rules around wearing a helmet or the lockout rules Never mind - you will look back on this in 20years and may be think of me :)
-
Mischeviouslad
9 years ago
You actually prove my point by highlighting that people's choices define the result... and that simply throwing money at a problem doesn't entirely eliminate it! ๐ - Posted from rhpmobile
-
chevtrek
9 years ago
However part of my point is that obesity can be reversedwith diet and exercise and willpower.It is not a question of money but a question of looking inthe mirror and saying, is this who I want to be and I am to get of my ass and change my life.When I was a child I was out from dawn to dusk playingor being creative and this kept me thin and fit.My mother had a washing machine but still did half the clothesby hand and went a did shopping on her bike.When my father started taking her to the shops and started helping around the house she doubled in size.The same happened to me for when I was 40 I was making 5000 a week and started not to do physical labour but haveothers do it for me so, I gained wait.2 years later I gave away the business free and went back to physical work and lost the weight.There is to much out there to make us couch potatoes--PlayStation...dishwashers...takeaway...crockpots and so on.We no longer go and visits friends we chat via Skype or Facebookand tell ourselves we are social and active.A cartoon story showing man having everything done for him by robots is a good one to watch as technology is already producing robots.Have a look at a cartoon called WAL-E in which everything is doneby bots and all they do is chat via media all day.
-
Mischeviouslad
9 years ago
Frikken revelation!!! Exercise, plus sensible food intake... = weight loss Who knew! But I really can't see how any of what you took the time to write above... relates to your topic of taxing fast food. If anything... it contradicts the principle because ONLY those who choose to exercise, and/or eat cleanly and sensibly... will lose excess weight. Those who choose to eat fast food... will choose.... to eat fast food. Choice.
-
chevtrek
9 years ago
Diabetes now affects one person every fiveminutes see the program on Sunday.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share