training with PTSD

[Kent Berry]

I'd like to point out that, while a troll post from the beginning, you shitlords have turned a question on training populations with PTSD into a bitchy slap-fight on the internet about politics. I hope you're all immensely proud of yourselves. Your capacity to fuck up threads on this board is impressive. Truly.

Like you, I have nothing to add to the discussion at hand but since Rip approved your post I figured I'd just say that I agree 100%. I find it inconceivable that anyone who's not personally close to Rip could even muster up an opinion about how he chose to handle a deeply personal trauma, much less feel compelled to bloviate about it on teh interwebz. I could only make it about a third of the way through most of the walls of text. What an appalling shitshow.

I notice a lot of relatively recent join dates. I don't think some of these people understand that the Coach Rip of a few years ago would have never brooked such distractions. My opinion is that he's a skilled puppet master, grown bored with the training questions and enjoying watching the dupes take the bait and savage each other.

[Culican]

So thats the difference: I am not ideology-driven (getting rid off that would be such an advantage to discussing politics in a rational, more productive way, especially nowadays in the US). I am data driven. I want the most people possible to be most satisfied, free, healthy whathaveyou. Thats my overarching goal.

What a benevolent ruler and overlord you would make. I am sure you have convinced us all.

[Dave Joksimovic]

US. Obesity is a very good example for this, thanks for bringing it up: Why is it that obesity is a bigger problem in the poor than the rich - wouldnt it be the other way round if it was a problem of having too much money to buy food? Well, because its a problem of bad choices grounded in bad education and life circumstances.

Your ignorance is showing.

I find it almost comical that this entire time while you've been spouting off how government is needed to fix all these "problems" you accidentally zero in on a huge problem caused by government. Do you know WHY the obesity "epidemic" disproportionately effects the poor? Let me clarify a few things for you:

First, capitalism has made food amazingly abundant. Imagine that. There is more food in your average Walmart checkout line than you might find in an entire grocery store in Venezuela. That's a pretty good "problem" to have. That abundance has also helped to drive the cost of that food DOWN... so you know, those poor victims of inequality can better afford it. I'm sorry, I'm getting off track... back to obesity. These "bad choices" you speak of seem to happen because of the nutritional quality of food these "poor" people are ingesting at an alarming rate. Most of these junk foods contain highly processed corn syrup. Its astoundingly prevalent. Why? BECAUSE IT'S GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED. Government has artificially incentivized this kind of behavior by making the crappiest food the cheapest to produce and market. The rich are LESS obese because they aren't living off the dollar menu at McDonald's.

I'm not even going to touch how you also blame "bad education", which would be another area the government has all but monopolized as well.

Billions In Tax Dollars Subsidize The Junk Food Industry - Business Insider

[timelinex]

Your ignorance is showing.

I find it almost comical that this entire time while you've been spouting off how government is needed to fix all these "problems" you accidentally zero in on a huge problem caused by government. Do you know WHY the obesity "epidemic" disproportionately effects the poor? Let me clarify a few things for you:

First, capitalism has made food amazingly abundant. Imagine that. There is more food in your average Walmart checkout line than you might find in an entire grocery store in Venezuela. That's a pretty good "problem" to have. That abundance has also helped to drive the cost of that food DOWN... so you know, those poor victims of inequality can better afford it. I'm sorry, I'm getting off track... back to obesity. These "bad choices" you speak of seem to happen because of the nutritional quality of food these "poor" people are ingesting at an alarming rate. Most of these junk foods contain highly processed corn syrup. Its astoundingly prevalent. Why? BECAUSE IT'S GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED. Government has artificially incentivized this kind of behavior by making the crappiest food the cheapest to produce and market. The rich are LESS obese because they aren't living off the dollar menu at McDonald's.

I'm not even going to touch how you also blame "bad education", which would be another area the government has all but monopolized as well.

Billions In Tax Dollars Subsidize The Junk Food Industry - Business Insider

Uhhhh, at best your argument explains why it's easier to make bad choices while poor (cheap food is calorie packed and "bad for you"). It is a great perspective when deciding social policies that have to account for the fact that most people are lazy or DO NOT have the discipline to make good choice. It does absolutely nothing to prove that it's still not a choice. You can just eat less of the cheap garbage. If you are talking about the difference between obese and not obese, it's as simple as calories in and calories out. DONE. No obesity. I've went from 200lb to 175lb a bit ago while dieting (before starting working out again). I ate out every dinner at terribly high calorie density restaurants. I just made sure to count every calorie going into my mouth, whether it was fettuccine Alfredo, breadsticks, a juicy burger, dram of scotch, or broccoli. It didn't matter what the food was. I made sure the end calorie count was at my goal every day and the weight melted off slowly. So blaming it on government or financial situations is just an excuse. It's a great conspiracy theory that alleviates personal responsibility and points the finger at someone else.

Losing weight and staying below obesity level is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and doable in all situations. It's just not necessarily easy. In fact, it's so simple that you can just literally do nothing and you will lose weight (...obviously not the healthy way...but proves the point).

[Marenghi]

Ok, in short: This is not the point: Its not the point if "the government" is good or bad (it very probably is neither that black or white), its not if capitalism hasnt advanced economy the best of all system (it very probably has).

Like I said, people have formed rules of living in a society for thousands of years. This is about ameliorating an extreme inequality that is the product of current, obvious extreme mechanisms. This inequality is not the will of the majority of the people, hence in a democracy, it should be changed.

Send me a PM if you want to discuss that.

[cgeorg]

Obesity: yes....poor choices...and low intelligence. Unfortunately in a free society, people with low intelligence are going to continue to make poor choices and it may be manifested in other ways, but it is still "inequality".

Oh ffs, Twinkies are cheaper by volume and most definitely by caloric density than most produce. Many times poor families can't afford to eat healthy food. Make sure you shame them when they need to use WIC to buy some dry beans though.

[Dave Joksimovic]

Uhhhh, at best your argument explains why it's easier to make bad choices while poor (cheap food is calorie packed and "bad for you"). It is a great perspective when deciding social policies that have to account for the fact that most people are lazy or DO NOT have the discipline to make good choice. It does absolutely nothing to prove that it's still not a choice. You can just eat less of the cheap garbage. If you are talking about the difference between obese and not obese, it's as simple as calories in and calories out. DONE. No obesity. I've went from 200lb to 175lb a bit ago while dieting (before starting working out again). I ate out every dinner at terribly high calorie density restaurants. I just made sure to count every calorie going into my mouth, whether it was fettuccine Alfredo, breadsticks, a juicy burger, dram of scotch, or broccoli. It didn't matter what the food was. I made sure the end calorie count was at my goal every day and the weight melted off slowly. So blaming it on government or financial situations is just an excuse. It's a great conspiracy theory that alleviates personal responsibility and points the finger at someone else.

Losing weight and staying below obesity level is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and doable in all situations. It's just not necessarily easy. In fact, it's so simple that you can just literally do nothing and you will lose weight (...obviously not the healthy way...but proves the point).

Was I actually talking about personal choices and fitness, or was I talking about how government subsidies incentivize lower quality food to become cheaper and more abundant and therefore more accessible? At the end of the day I don't care if you eat a Big Mac or a certified organic non-GMO cruelty-free head of broccoli for lunch, I don't want the government paying for any of it.

And dude, I know ALLLLL about the choices. I dropped 115 pounds off of my ass making those choices and I track my food like its a science experiment since I started training.