Saturday, September 01, 2018

Rules for life on caring, corpulence

Fat people do not deserve your care. They may receive it, but they don't deserve to.

If I told you I'd give you $1 million tomorrow morning if today you worked out as you were instructed to work out and ate as you were instructed to eat, would you do it? Of course you would. So you have the will power to make the necessary changes with the right motivation.

Being significantly overweight is unhealthy and unattractive.

To allow oneself to become and then remain fat evinces a lack of self-care.

It is folly to care about a person more than he cares about himself.

Your ability to care is limited. Just because someone lives in a mud hut somewhere in Cameroon does not mean some amount of your finite ability to care should be siphoned off for him. It is an affront to those more deserving of your care.

Ikso fatso, fat people do not deserve your care.

Parenthetically, that is unless they are your minor children. In that case it is your duty to care excessively for and about them. They didn't choose to be your children but you chose to be their parent. It is acceptable to be an emotional martyr for your minor children, but not for anyone else.

And if you are fat, prove to yourself--and the world--that you are worthy of being cared about by caring about yourself and shedding the sludge!


IHTG said...

Do working class opioid addicts from the Rust Belt deserve your care? People screw themselves up in all sorts of ways. Be careful not to make a libertarian/Randian argument if your real motivation is aesthetic.

snorlax said...

(Warning: rambling personal anecdote follows).

I'm N<30 years old, still too young in my case to have visibly aged in terms of gray hairs or balding or wrinkles, and up to about a year ago I was always an ectomorphic 5'9" and hovering between 125 and 135 lbs. I always scoffed at overweight people — "it's not hard to be skinny; I've done it for N<30 years!"

A few months ago I was having trouble fitting into my pants with a 28" waist, so I stepped on to a scale for the first time in a while and was shocked to see the number "155" (BMI 22.9, so still not considered "overweight," but getting there). I took a good look at myself in the mirror and sure enough I'd become quite unattractively skinnyfat, with a noticeable paunch. It was such a gradual process that I genuinely hadn't noticed.

This obviously wasn't a direction I wanted to continue going in, so I (mostly) eliminated alcohol and sugared drinks from my diet, cut down on carbs in general and increased my protein intake, and started strength training workouts at least 5 days a week. I'm now in the best shape of my life, still 155 lbs but prevented from fitting into my old pants by a six-pack instead of a paunch.

Anyway, I now have quite a bit more empathy for overweight people — metabolism is a real thing that does matter a great deal and it really can shift on a dime quite drastically as you age. If I had a more average body type and I'd been 155 lbs to begin with, I think I could easily have reached 200 or more before I noticed, and that would've been a much deeper hole to dig myself out of.

216 said...

End farm subsidies, prices will increase, obesity will decrease, food will be imported from the Third World, emigration might decrease.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

AE - I wouldn't be so cold. I'm of the view that causes of obesity is derived from addiction to corn syrup the same way people are addicted to cocaine. Obviously people have a responsibility to end an addiction - but its not so simple as "stop eating".

I might add that I have been pretty fat at times (the picture on my fb is 8 years old) but am 25 pounds less than i was at my heaviest. If you stop eating fast food - that really helps. It also helps that fast food gets old after awhile.

Kentucky Headhunter said...

Maus said...

I currently weigh 200 Kg. As such, I am not merely fat, but super obese per ICD-10. Frankly, I don't give a fuck whether you or anyone "cares" about me. I can tell you that many people have mistaken my obesity as a sign of diminished intelligence and a lack of education, neither of which is true.
The science of metabolism is poorly understood. The medical community has erred in its nutritional recommendations for years; and the current gold standard of treatment is a drastic and unnatural surgery plagued with severe side effects and of underwhelming success. Loss of weight has much less to do with willpower than with developing a better understanding of the interactions between metabolic setpoint; gut fauna; hormones like insulin, leptin and ghrelin; and varied proportions of macronutrients.
AE, your fat prejudice and the offer of antiquated nostrums are unworthy of you. Stick to statistical analysis and leave the science of metabolism to those who are better trained and more objective. /rant

Issac said...

Fasting works with 100% success. I have never lost a patient who was under medical supervison during a fast even as long as 180 days. You can easily lose hundreds of kg and it's as simple as not eating and maintaining your electrolyte levels (intravenous or through salt and water intakes) so as to burn the fat your body accumulated. Once your body is a normal size, you will find a 100% recovery of your metabolism and your health. Anything not amputated can be restored by this method. You have no excuse.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Your body is a temple and it's not sound if it is built from soy, corn sugar, etc.

I had an aunt who was fat and after she got told that her blood pressure was at the point where she was at risk of a stroke, she lost almost all of the weight in a year. She was one of those who blamed genetics, bad food, etc. but in the end it still came down to will, where it was either getting healthy or a stroke. In the end it still came down to willpower that saved her.

The question comes down to how bad do you want it? A lot of times, it's easier to eat a Big Mac and feel sorry for yourself. Most fat people are in a spiral where they eat because they are depressed and get depressed because they eat. A conscious effort has to be made to break the cycle.

SeanF said...

Earthlings, if you've got a 200 kg maus, I'd hate to see one your rats.

snorlax said...

SeanF -

Audacious Epigone said...


When dealing with mindset, objectivism is not half bad.

I have this kinds of conversations IRL. They're phrased as questions, but in both cases the purpose is rhetorical.

Think of it as a riff off of Jordan Peterson's "clean your room" suggestion. That made him a bazillion dollars--and it's useful, too. So is this!


Timely testimonial, thanks.

There are all kinds of extenuating circumstances. I know this readership is smart enough to implicitly understand that, and that I know that. "Fat" in this context is really directed at self-inflicted poor physical health more generally. Mark Rippetoe says an adult man weighs at least 200 pounds. I can hold that with the thrust of this post at the same time with no problem. I'm 6'1 210lbs. On the BMI scale, that's overweight, but no one would describe me that way.


Right, it's hardly all genetic. We weren't this fat a century ago.


If there's enough interest in them, I'd like to do some mindset posts periodically. It requires a different mentality (heh). I understand the inherent tension people perceive between that and HBD. But we live as though we have free will--and if we don't, who cares about anything?--so why not lay all the cards out?

Kentucky Headhunter,

See, don't get mad at me. I'm just doing as I've been programmed to do. "My shadow weighs 42 pounds", ha.


If it's fixed I guess it's fixed, in which case you can attribute this to be targeted towards the rule while operating in the knowledge that you are the exception.

I hope you're being completely honest with yourself.


Right. Any fatties in Auschwitz? Any fatties in photos from a century ago (who weren't in the circus)?

Random Dude,

Instead of the rhetorical $1m thought experiment, instead it's that everything you eat each day gets posted in real time to your Facebook timeline. How many people wouldn't change a thing in their diets? Social shaming works.



216 said...


In an alternate timeline Jordan Peterson is the equivalent of Gloria Steinem, and every major university has a Department of Fascism.

Andrea Daley Utronebel said...

Fat people deserve my care. I will take care of them by taking away 90% of their food.

Problem solved.

szopen said...

food will be imported from the Third World

Definetely not from Africa. Africa currently imports a lot of food (i've read the really unbelieveable percentages, so I won't even quote them), and this won't change, because increase in productivity is slower than increase in population.

Anonymous said...

Obesity is the acid test of whether someone really understands the heritability of traits and their expression in a phenotype based on environment.

Jig Bohnson said...

I'm glad someone else already said it at length - metabolism varies tremendously between individuals and especially with age. That's why I find it difficult to condemn any individual fat person.

On the other hand, there is no plausible biological or physiological reason that metabolism would vary with legal marriage status, and women seem to get fat 2 years after the wedding and skinnier soon after a divorce, so I that case I condemn galore. In fact, AE, can you quantify this, because it is ridiculously predictable?

216 said...


Labor intensive cash crops (fruits) can be grown in the Third World, while the mechanized First World floods the market with staple crops(grains). Lab meat in particular would be a revolution that would obliviate the need for large numbers of foreign labor working in slaughterhouses.

Chinese investment in Africa will increase the productivity level, their trade with Africa already far outstrips the US. The EU will also throw lots of money down that bottomless pit, as it is the most politically viable option of reducing (not preventing) mass migrations. We just don't find the garrison state an acceptable way of living, unlike the Israelis whose ancestors lived in shetls and ghettos, or in restricted quarters of Arab cities.

Mr. Rational said...

Lab meat in particular would be a revolution that would obliviate the need for large numbers of foreign labor working in slaughterhouses.

Just as we're about to have self-driving trucks and taxis, the robot slaughterhouse is also on the way.  Probably much cheaper than trying to grow meat in vats.

We need to care for our people in flyover country.  That begins with taking all the soon-to-be-unemployable immigrants and sending them home instead of leaving them here to make trouble.

Jim Bowery said...

Populations that don't care about themselves may deserve care that individuals of those populations do not. An entire population that doesn't care about themselves may be suffering from an epidemic of some sort. Take whites, for instance. We obviously will not be receiving the care of the Centers for Disease Control looking into the "epidemic of ethnomasochism" will we? Talking to your typical white Social Pozness Zombie doesn't inspire one to care about them individually, does it? Certainly, dealing with the epidemic as one would hoof and mouth disease in livestock may be particularly appealing after such a "conversation" with such an "individual", but it evinces a lack of awareness of the magnitude of the problem. Fortunately, quarantine not only keeps diseases from spreading, it is very likely that a bunch of white Social Pozness Zombies forced to walk their zombie talk by living amongst only themselves and their "unprivileged others" may even cure a substantial number of them. I believe AE has shown us some correlations recently along these lines.

Insofar as the obese are concerned -- imagine, if you will, a stealth virus that causes a very simple change in metabolism:

It reduces the brain's signal to the body that it demands glucose.

Note, this may not actually reduce the brain's demand for glucose, it would just "lie" about the demand. This will have two effects: 1) The victim will become "stupid" and 2) The victim will become obese without a change in diet.

Such a virus would be a perfect biological weapon if it could be constructed to target only certain genotypes. Virtually undetectable and highly effective in making the adversary unable to defend his territory and institutions.

herfsi said...

J. Swift would suggest we eat these fat people. #NAFALT :)
the last 50 years has been the first time in human history where almost everyone can eat as much as they want of any thing they want at any time they want. now we see who has frontal lobe inhibition & the ability to "walk away." ymmv.

Anonymous said...

Oh stop worrying this will fix itself...or rather the fix is in.
The derivatives are at $531 Trillion.
Moreover the derivatives are 'compressed' into...something.
No longer notional [which was always a scam].

I mean: they'll starve.


216 said...

When I see these tweets, I wonder, is their empirical data on the efficacy of pandering?

I disagree with those that say "Trump should explicitly acknowledge whites", as I don't think this would cause an "awakening". Implicit identity, and explicit reference to the "working class" and "forgotten men" and "rural Americans" are "positive identities" in comparison to "white" which for most white people is either "default" or a negative identity.

I've tended to view pandering as not designed to win over non-white voters, but as an attempt to assuage white moderates. I've seen this as the view of the Western center-right cuck establishment as well. They see the same data that we do, they simply think that going full cuck will generate higher margins from white voters than going with the Sailer Strategy. Working on the presumption that we have nowhere else to go, Trump may be onto something by trying to both pander and run the Sailer Strategy. But that pandering would be much easier to do with a 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill than a 1 trillion dollar corporate tax cut.

Andrew Smith said...

A few thoughts.

1. “Normalize” has to be one of the worst words in our language. It’s inherently flawed. You can’t make something abnormal normal. That doesn’t work. Additionally, if throughout the entire history of human civilization something has been seen as abnormal, you don’t get to make it normal because feelings.

2. It’s kind of ironic to me that “loving the skin you’re in” is one of the strongest forms of self-hate there is. Intentionally leading an unhealthy life is sentencing yourself to death. There’s nothing normal about that. Striving to better yourself everyday is the most satisfying way to live.

3. Personal story. About 5 years ago, I started to let myself go a bit (working an odd schedule, which I know AE can relate to). I made the conscious decision that something needed to change. I immediately started running 2 miles a day and I quit drinking pop. Then, every six months I would quit another unhealthy habit (energy drinks, sweets, breaded foods, fries, etc) and increase my workout. That’s been the best method for me. I’m now down 30 pounds and I’m still working to get better. I’ve got a baby on the way, and I refuse to be the parent who has to sit and watch his kids play.

Audacious Epigone said...


Harsh. In terms of efficacy, though, it's unassailable.


More than half of Zimbabwe's workforce (such as it is) works in agriculture and the country still cannot feed itself.


Ha, I'm getting a whiff of troll bait there, but the short answer is incentives--including social shaming or the avoidance thereof--matter.

Solid post idea there, thanks.


Related, have you seen this? Our opposition's leadership is figuring out the world's most important graph. Our leaders better follow suit.


This post is intended to be about mindset and, on an individual level, doing what you can to change it. Yes, the deck is stacked, so much so that intentionality is necessary for many people to avoid becoming significantly overweight.

216 said...


The biggest export in Zim is tobacco, with most of it going to East Asian markets. Achieving autarky in grain production isn't viable, unless the needed capital could be acquired to reintroduce mechanization. The largely black Caribbean can't feed itself either, but that hasn't caused social collapse because they found another source of income.

The most important graph is running headlong into the Toilet Paper Theory of economics. And at least 2 billion people alive today don't have a toilet, our leaders see only consumers, and the ideal consumer with high time preference.

Perhaps its tiresome, but I often recall Tsushima and Isandlwana when it comes to permanent doubt over any idea of superiority that we have.

Feryl said...


"Related, have you seen this? Our opposition's leadership is figuring out the world's most important graph. Our leaders better follow suit."

Granted, neo-liberal elites still feel as if they've got everything within their grasp, they need only convince more of the plebes to go along with the program, and censure the ones who don't. Oh, and I'm sure that within the next 20-30 years every single 'corrupt' and/or reactionary leader can be bought off or forced out.

It's never going to happen. As we speak, some country whose name escapes me has a historical majority of buddhists who are actively terrorizing the Muslim areas.

The whole disgusting neo-liberal enterprise is about cloaking greed and the destruction of traditional culture in the nobility of individual enterprise and free will. In the early 1970's it was common for people to question the ability (and basically the point) of humanity to continue to grow and "innovate" in the face of growing civic instability and actual or potential resource shortages and pollution problems. All this realism has been cast aside by neo-liberals prizing economic growth and ferociously trying to beat the tribalism out of people.

If we really wanted to "help" people, we'd leave them alone. Or give push back when they lean too hard on us. Not act like doormats who think that over-population and invasion is a human right.

Lance E said...

Nothing like some good old fat-shaming (and I use the term positively) to bring out the whiners.

It's a sad sight, truly. If American conservatives can't even take control of their own body weight, how can they ever take control of their government and culture?

"But everyone's metabolism is different!" Brilliant insight. So go get your BMR/RMR measured and find out what yours is. Or track your weight and calorie intake for a month to come up with an accurate estimate. Or just exercise more, which speeds up your metabolism, while maintaining your current diet.

There's no excuse. Literally none. Nobody gets fatter on maintenance calories, everyone gets thinner on a deficit. If you want to save money, spend less than you earn. If to want to lose weight, eat less than you burn. That's all.

TPC said...

If you spend your life on the road taking the kids to physically intensive activities, as many American parents do, you can't immediately tell you're gaining weight until you've picked up a few (dozen) extra pounds. And since you live life on the road, to keep your own children from getting fat (and there are clear signs this is no longer working either), it's now a real logistics puzzle to figure out how you can spend the time racking up that deficit, maintain schlepping the kids to their stuff and also earn the money to keep the family solvent.

I know a decent number of slim, even ripped/muscular married white fathers with 1-2 kids. I don't know any with 3+ kids. The dads range from a small paunch of 10-20 extra lbs to 50-100lbs overweight. Given that the norm is more like "Andrew Smith", where you're supposed to play with your kids (which is historically weird at best), it's sure not going to be easier for married parents as long as people continue being in denial about basic logistics of middle-class life interfering with having enough physical activity to stay slim and parent children according to middle class norms.

Feryl said...

"The most important graph is running headlong into the Toilet Paper Theory of economics. And at least 2 billion people alive today don't have a toilet, our leaders see only consumers, and the ideal consumer with high time preference."

Since the late 70's, Western capitalist forces have understood that:

- White birth rates have collapsed
- The Third World handles "progress" terribly, by over-crowding urban areas, murdering each other regularly in wars and gang violence (whose lethality and impact is worsened by modern weapons), and reproducing beyond responsible means.

So what do we do? We could halt immigration, and wait for living standards to rise until whites felt confident to start reproducing again. But look, high living standards in the 70's didn't keep birth rates high. We could have lebensraum into non-white countries while not being overly concerned about the demographics of trad. white nations, but isn't that colonialism?

So I guess let's celebrate the decline of whites while expecting said whites to subsidize and cheer on efforts to aid non-white countries while welcoming in non-whites into trad. white countries. The multi-nationals and liberal dreamers can't figure out how to get the 3rd world to change it's culture to be more amenable to Western capitalist values, and it can't rely anymore on traditional 1st world stock to account for adequate 'growth' (profits), while also being avowedly against whites en masse settling non-white countries for any reason at all. So the globalists figure the only thing they can do is shove billions of people into the erstwhile 1st world while it still functions with anything resembling stability and rule of law. Of course, as places like California and the no-go zones of France and Sweden indicate, arrogant elites riddling regions with rampant diversity is going to inevitably strain things to the breaking point. The only people who can stand living in most of CA at this point are super-rich people, desperate foreigners, and really pathetic wannabe elites.

As much hay as S Sailer makes out of this happy talk liberal loony bin, it really is getting to be alarming to see the lengths that elites go to so as to avoid unpleasant reality. You can't be motivated by pure greed, no matter how you gloss it, and expect the corruption to be accepted. You can't expect to fool people for decades on end that the desire to be rich and detached from (perhaps above) one's roots and tribe is "progress". You can't expect the masses of humanity who aren't and never will be "winners" to forsake the ethnic and tribal affiliations that give them comfort and meaning.

216 said...


I don't think liberals will shift their morality until things reach Mad Max levels of violence and decay. And that's a far drop, as in Syria/Somalia/Congo level. Probably at least half of all South African whites are liberals, and it would surprise me if US/CAN or Western Europe descended to that level of violence barring an energy crisis/economic depression. South Africans put significant resources into gated communities and private security, on top of a higher tax burden in an economy dependent on volatile commodity exports. The worst aspect is that white college graduates have a high number of points to be admitted to CAN or OZ, depleting their ability to increase future birth rates. Perhaps if "white flight" became either impossible, or it meant living in Belarus, attitudes towards invasion might harden.

Should the dissident right-wing movements one day gain power, the geopolitical situation (and residual leftist morality) will only allow closed borders on the basis of payments to the erstwhile emigrant homelands. Sweden (NATO freeloader that isn't even a NATO member) apparently pays seven times the level per capita that we do, and their nationalists want to pay even more to induce repatriation.

It says a lot about the present situation that deportation of anyone that isn't a violent felon is strenuously opposed by extralegal methods. As a matter of optics, and efficacy, immigration law enforcement needs to be targeted at the businesses profiting off invasion. Trump sent a horrible message by pardoning the kosher slaughterhouse owner, and without the condition of deportation to Israel. Euro nationalists might also benefit from going "Permit Patty" on the tendency of migrants to engage in squatting.

Rod1963 said...

Wow, this topic touched a nerve.

But AE has a valid point. Guys like Denninger have pointed out the immense cost that fatties cost us.

The morbidly obese have no one to blame but themselves. The 300lb blue hair harpy only has to look in the mirror to find the culprit. The same with 5'10" 270lb conservative gun owner. Who spent too much time eating and sitting on his ass and is now worthless to himself and his family if SHTF or if he gets a heart attack because of his shitty lifestyle.

Now sometimes it's brought on a by a crappy job that doesn't give you time to work out and eat right because of it's demands. Think real hard about that job. It's going to kill you in time. You either change jobs or find a way to get in some exercise and eat better.

That saidm take the alt-right community as a whole. Most of us know full well the party is going to end at some point and when it does if you're sick,disabled, you are probably going to die since medical care will be rationed if you can even afford it. That means the diabetics and fatties who need a boat load of drugs to keep alive will be among the first to perish.

You owe to yourself to drop the fat and get healthy. The same applies to the pencil neck brigade. You guys need to hit the weights and eat right. Do the basics 3x a week and in a couple of months you'll notice the difference and like it.

Maus said...

1. While you may enjoy the Schadenfreude, fat shaming has no impact on those to whom it's directed.
2. Try following the science of metabolic resting points and the drastic impact major weight loss has on RMR. See
This is my experience. I went from 156 kg to 115 kg within nine months in 1992 on a medically-supervised 800 calorie per day diet and a regimine of two hours daily exercise. It permanently altered my RMR. Within seven years I gained 70 kg despite a modest diet of 2500 calories per day and around 30 minutes of daily exercise. In 2010, I lost 36 kg on a Paleo-style diet which I maintained for two years. Admittedly, my exercise habits diminished to a sedentary occasional 20-minute walk. Now, six years later, I am at 200 kg despite maintaining a daily 2500 calorie diet, which should support a BMR of about 110 kg. This is not whining, just the facts. YMMV.
3. If you have a normal RMR, bully for you. You might want to refrain from popping off about calories in versus calories out. Science no longer supports that view. It follows that Z-Man's mindset advice is also of questionable value for those who tried to follow such advice and ended up with permanently reduced RMRs that are no longer amenable to mindset.

Anonymous said...


No, working class opioid addicts from the Midwest do not deserve my, or anyone's care. I am not a libertarian, but it would be preferable to some welfare nanny state.

Fat people don't deserve our care. Disabled people don't deserve our care. Druggies don't deserve it, low IQ people don't deserve it, and proles don't deserve it.

The world belongs to people who work hard, have high IQs, behave conscientiously, obey the law, achieve higher education degrees, eat healthy food, and make lots of money. All the plebs need to GTFO.

Mr. Rational said...

I've tended to view pandering as not designed to win over non-white voters, but as an attempt to assuage white moderates.

I suspect it's red-pilling.  When minority prospects are looking up, and they're STILL sitting on the edge of rioting instead of making hay while the sun shines, the ingratitude alienates normie Whites and helps turn the GOP into the GAP (Generic American Party, aka the White party).

Anonymous said...

"You shouldn't care about a person more than they care about themselves"
That sounds like a prescription to let the demoralised and depressed die.

Audacious Epigone said...


Kaizen is the way to tackle it. The journey of one thousand miles starts with a single step.


Hong Kong doesn't feed itself, either. But they don't have over half their active labor force employed in agriculture, either!

Lance E,

The exceptions are the genetic profiles that would've been in the circus a century ago. For everyone else, it is a choice.


Interesting. There's a lot to think about there. On the one hand, the EBT single mothers toting the brood are the fattest parents of all even though they hardly invest in their kids at all and have tons of free time. But if you work an 8a-5p and then take the kids to practice and McDonalds in your business casual before getting home at 8p, it's going to take a special dedication.

Squats and planks, intensely, for ten minutes a day three days a week--a whopping half hour--can do wonders for women, though. There are ways.


The way this resolves itself will be the most important story of the 21st century.


A serious merit immigration system that put a little pressure on the top 2%-20% might help, but that's a fleeting possibility now.


A lot of our guys get this. I've been consistently impressed. The contrast at AmRen the last couple of years was especially stark. Fisticuffs our side could've taken theirs even if they had a 5-to-1 advantage in numbers. I honestly don't think that's an exaggeration.


Social shaming does work. A single shot in the night, no. But if being fat was like being a smoker or *gasp* a white nationalist, far fewer people would be fat.


This post isn't intended as an elitist message, it's a tough love motivational one. Whatever your current situation, there is room for improvement. Improve.

Mr. Rational,

Exactly. It's never enough. It will never, ever be enough.


Caring about others more than they care about themselves--outside of close blood relatives--is a recipe for emotional exhaustion and ultimately a perpetual low-grade resentment at the world. Don't martyr yourself for someone else who isn't even trying. WEIRDOs really need to hear this.

snorlax said...

AE -

I'd say especially close blood relatives (if adult).

216 said...


Merit-based emigration "Super-Fulbright scholars" is a more plausible and preferable outcome. This country is overrun with overeducated graduates with too much debt. Low-trust Third World societies could benefit from a more diverse group of managers. Liberals cannot put up opposition to this without pandering to nativist sentiment in the Third World, committing an own goal.

I'm aware of their potential for hypocrisy, but Super-Fulbright solves several problems at once. Overreducated and underemployed postgraduates are out, Third World economies perform better, its probably cheaper than Belt and Road. A prolonged exposure to the Third World also might turn liberals into realtalkers, especially if there is no return option. Imagine exchanging DSA members for South African Boers.

Mr. Rational said...

For everyone else, it is a choice.

Maybe, maybe not.  With the replacement of physical labor by sedentary jobs, and the alteration of the food supply to encourage consumption plus additions like growth-promoting hormones, there is probably a lot less choice involved than you think.

Something I've noticed on the road is that when I see Mennonites all their girls are fair and trim.  Not one fatty so far.  Do they eschew processed food and hormones?  That is something worthy of study... a study that agribusiness would desperately want to bury or kill before it can be done.

Lance E said...

TPC - I think it should be evident that I (and probably AE) are discussing people who are obese, not merely overweight. It's the difference between 20-30% body fat (for men, depending on age - more for women), which is a dozen extra pounds, and over 30%, which is a "few dozen". Don't lie - everyone would notice putting on 30-40 pounds of fat, because your clothes won't fit anymore. Not having time to exercise isn't any kind of excuse, you just need to eat less.

By the way, my father is in the "3+ kids" range and has always been slim. He makes time to exercise and doesn't overeat. So it seems I've already disproven your assertion.

Maus - fat shaming is, in fact, effective - that's proven, despite what the fat-positive idiots will tell you. And there's nothing modest about a 2500-calorie diet; 2000 is average, modest would be 1500-ish. You tripled your calorie intake and stopped exercising, so you gained a ton of weight. Obviously. Don't blame RMR for that!

Yes, RMR does decline as you lose weight, so you have to adjust your calories downward or increase activity in order to continue losing weight (not to maintain). That's where many dieters stumble. But that's a problem when you're at 10% body fat and trying to cut to 8%, not when you're 200 frickin' pounds overweight. And the fact that you were initially able to drop the weight proves that you aren't one of the circus freaks AE is referring to. You made a choice.

Lance E said...

For anyone who really honestly believes they "don't have time" to stay fit: burpees require no equipment and very little space, burn 10-15 calories per minute, and spike your heart rate which will cause you to burn more calories at rest for a couple of hours.

Do 10 minutes of those, twice a day. That's all it takes, if you truly believe your diet is OK and are actually serious about wanting to cut. Although my guess is that most of the folks making these claims actually have terrible diets and a "you burned it, you earned it" mentality around exercise.

Audacious Epigone said...


Wrt merit immigration, I'm talking about in terms of bringing the 2%-20% towards immigration restrictionism, not utilitarian benefit to the country in the short-run. We need to remove the stigma of restrictionism as being a flyover thing. Easier said than done.

Lance E,

Tinker with a few inputs, see results. Those results will remain within the spectrum of your genetic profile, but they will occur.

216 said...


The authors here are what restrictionism looks like from the professional left-of-center class. Very informative Q for verbal types like me, but they always counter-signal the Right.