The big fat con story



DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I'm a firm advocate of social safety nets but obesity is completely
>>> avoidable and we should not be paying for other people's laziness and
>>> irresponsibility.
>>
>> true. so we can all agree socialized medicine is a bad idea?
>
> Absolutely not.

hmm, then you're mandating that i pay for other people's stupid activities.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]
 
"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm a firm advocate of social safety nets but obesity is completely
>>>> avoidable and we should not be paying for other people's laziness
>>>> and irresponsibility.
>>>
>>> true. so we can all agree socialized medicine is a bad idea?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>
> hmm, then you're mandating that i pay for other people's stupid
> activities.

That doesn't automatically follow. There's a limit to any health system's
resources so there's no guarantee absolutely everything can or should be
covered. Even within a "socialized" medical system there are priorities.
I'll never ever support a ghastly, inequitable system like that in the US
which deprives a quarter of the population of adequate health care.

Furthermore, there are other ways governments can influence behaviour.
So-called "fat taxes" for example. Force the cost of a Big Mac above that
of the chicken salad McDonalds now sell. That sort of thing.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:03:53 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

>As someone who likes to do lots of risky things that put me at risk for
>becoming a burden on society (riding down steep mountain trails, riding
>near cars, riding outside instead of using a stationary bike,
>occasionally riding without a helmet, motorcycling, drinking beer

<snippage>

>Ahem, back to the point:
>
>Obesity is not necessarily "completely avoidable" (and Chalo has pointed
>out that many people like himself who are very fit but also very tall
>just get categorized as obese by crude BMI measures), but I'll concede
>that there is a substantial group of people on this continent who are
>carrying around much more weight than they should be.

What do you think is the -real- reason that ppl who are fit or thin have
such an hostile attitude towards the obese?

I suspect it's a form of projection, or something. I know I can get like
that and find myself almost having an angry reaction to seeing them on TV.

It's weird, and definitely seems to have some hidden component of
self-hatred of the 'there but for the grace of...' nature involved.

I'm not trying to pin this on anyone else, b/c as I said, I have it too,
and it seems a bit irrational, b/c as you aptly pointed out we all have
behaviors that involve doing risky things that might burden society.

It can't just be that it's so rampant. As I've jokingly said, it's these
fat fsks that make us fit ppl look good.

I mean, sure it's upsetting to be on a plane flying coach sitting next to
someone that's really obese, but other than that, is it just be that
there'd be more food to go around if they'd stop? ;-)

-B
 
"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> I'm a firm advocate of social safety nets but obesity is completely
>> avoidable and we should not be paying for other people's laziness and
>> irresponsibility.
>
> As someone who likes to do lots of risky things that put me at risk
> for becoming a burden on society (riding down steep mountain trails,
> riding near cars, riding outside instead of using a stationary bike,
> occasionally riding without a helmet, motorcycling, drinking beer
> instead of red wine sometimes, eating refined sugar and butter mixed
> together, eating doughnuts...) I think it's very dangerous to declare
> someone else's weight a societal problem in this way. That a social
> safety net should become an excuse to dictate behaviour is a kind of
> dreadful creeping totalitarianism.

********. Obesity is at epidemic levels, with the concomitant dreadful
health costs, not least of which is diabetes and related illnesses as well
as cardiovascular disease. Society has every right to say this is wrong and
to act against those who put themselves in this position even though they
know better. And they do know better. They just ignore it because it would
take some effort.

> In the grand theory that the personal is political, this makes
> complete sense, of course, but the theory is insane, and leads to
> people thinking that the weight of particular strangers is something
> we should all have a say in.

The theory is fundamentally sound. We are all part of the same society.
What you do can impact on me in a host of ways and when it does I'm entitled
to push back.

> Ahem, back to the point:
>
> Obesity is not necessarily "completely avoidable" (and Chalo has
> pointed out that many people like himself who are very fit but also
> very tall just get categorized as obese by crude BMI measures), but
> I'll concede that there is a substantial group of people on this
> continent who are carrying around much more weight than they should
> be.

For the vast bulk of the Fat ***** In Denial (FFID) out there it is
completely avoidable. They're fat because they make every excuse under the
sun instead of taking responsibility for the fact they eat ****, they eat
heaps of it and they don't exercise. Oh, and where did I say anything about
BMI? I use body fat percentage, not BMI.

> If you want to solve this, I propose that education programs
> (basically, ads on TV telling people to get some exercise) and small
> structural changes that make getting exercise easier (bike-friendly
> streets, grassroots fitness events, etc.) will be as effective and
> vastly less intrusive than, say, fat taxes or mandatory fitness
> programs.

Exercise is useful for a variety of reasons but the bottom line to weight
loss is always your diet. Fat taxes would have more impact than bike paths
(as much as I like bike paths). When the cost of a Big Mac and fries is
higher than that of the roast chicken salad McDonalds now sell then we'll
start seeing some real lifestyle changes. One of the biggest problems is
that bad food tends to be cheaper than good food.

> The former approach owes a lot to the "broken windows" theory of crime
> control: small changes in the environment can cause big behaviour
> changes. Cities like Vancouver and Boulder are slimmer than other
> places on the continent, and it's not because of municipal junk-food
> taxation. It's because there's a strong social sense that being fit
> and participating in fitness activities is the norm in these places.
> Even I couldn't resist it forever.

That's good and I'm willing to bet they didn't achieve that community ethos
by accepting that being fat is OK because it isn't.

> Also, I recommend we encourage global warming because the milder
> Winters will give less excuse for not riding.

Our winters are already fairly mild. Oz is facing a dramatically bad future
if the global warming predictions are even close to being true. Our
continent is already the driest on the planet - *halving* our annual
rainfall can only mean disaster on an unprecedented scale for us.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> I'm a firm advocate of social safety nets but obesity is completely
> >>>> avoidable and we should not be paying for other people's laziness
> >>>> and irresponsibility.
> >>>
> >>> true. so we can all agree socialized medicine is a bad idea?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not.
> >
> > hmm, then you're mandating that i pay for other people's stupid
> > activities.
>
> That doesn't automatically follow. There's a limit to any health system's
> resources so there's no guarantee absolutely everything can or should be
> covered. Even within a "socialized" medical system there are priorities.
> I'll never ever support a ghastly, inequitable system like that in the US
> which deprives a quarter of the population of adequate health care.

I'm afraid that you have now argued two interesting things:

1) Obesity is bad

2) Obesity is of public concern because it imposes costs on the public
health system

Now, let's see how many things we can tax because they lead to public
health costs?

food, extreme sports equipment (those swiss balls are okay, well,
balance hazard, so the half-balls are acceptable only), the
calcium-deficient, bicycles, motorcycles, beer (I know it has lots of
tax, but why stop there? Add another 10% as a health surcharge; let them
drink Merlot!), skis, swim trunks (too dangerous to swim in open waters;
supervised pools are of course safe, so they will make sure to have a
selection of rentable swimwear available at every location), hiking
boots (do you have any idea how many people get lost in the woods every
year?) video games, computers (sedentary lifestyles are to be
discouraged! Put a penny-per-byte tax on downloads to get those FFs out
from behind their keyboards), Televisions, scissors (except those safety
scissors that kids use), hand tools...shall I go on?

> Furthermore, there are other ways governments can influence behaviour.
> So-called "fat taxes" for example. Force the cost of a Big Mac above that
> of the chicken salad McDonalds now sell. That sort of thing.

Shurely (to quote Frank magazine) it would be better to just revoke the
health cards of the overweight? A set of fat calipers could be a part of
every hospital's crash cart. If you pinch more than an inch at
admission, they triage you until you lose some weight. Or die, whichever
comes first.

Now, you don't want to hear this, but Big Macs don't make people fat.
Too much food, and more importantly, too little exercise, makes people
fat.

I don't eat Big Macs, but that's a taste thing. I do however eat lots of
taxable foods on a regular basis: doughnuts, Popeye's apple pies (which
unlike the modern McDonald's ones, are still deep-fried; the baked
McDonald's pies are detestable as fast food goes) doughnuts (I am
eternally torn between Tim Horton's and Krispy Kreme), hot fudge sundaes
(the best thing McD's makes), panacotta (a whole bowl of that this
week...bad idea...), lamb (high in cholesterol dontcha know), cookies,
baclava, keteifes (sp?)...the list goes on.

Now, I am 5'6", 153 lbs., which is a "normal" BMI, albeit on the high
side. And the trend over the last 6-9 months has been a loss of about a
pound a month, maybe a bit more. How do I do it? Absurd amounts of
cycling (no really: I rode 20 km to work yesterday, then another 25 km
to a crit, then 20 km in the race, then another 20-odd km home, though I
wimped out and took public transit most of the way home).

Now clearly you have no public-health interest in what I eat, even
though I show every sign of abusing my body if you just look at my diet.
So your plan to tax bad food (and I can't wait to hear how you define
bad food; it should be even more fun than this argument), will unduly
penalize me, while doing not a thing to the skinny and listless types
who don't exercise but don't eat either.

Obviously you meant to make this idea revenue-neutral by taking the cost
penalties on food and applying them to beneficial activities. Since
actively religious people statistically live longer, divorce less, and
are happier, I propose that the food taxes be put into a fund to
encourage religious activity among the citizenry. Atheists will of
course be fined.

I also have some great ideas for taking care of Irish babies,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

> > Also, I recommend we encourage global warming because the milder
> > Winters will give less excuse for not riding.
>
> Our winters are already fairly mild. Oz is facing a dramatically bad future
> if the global warming predictions are even close to being true. Our
> continent is already the driest on the planet - *halving* our annual
> rainfall can only mean disaster on an unprecedented scale for us.

Always thinking selfishly of yourself! Vast tracts of Canada will become
arable as the winters become milder. Riding will be reasonable
year-round if the temperature rises a few degrees in most cities.

Screw Australia! You're misinhabiting a desert anyways!
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

> ********. Obesity is at epidemic levels, with the concomitant dreadful
> health costs, not least of which is diabetes and related illnesses as well
> as cardiovascular disease.
<snip>
> For the vast bulk of the Fat ***** In Denial (FFID) out there it is
> completely avoidable. They're fat because they make every excuse under the
> sun instead of taking responsibility for the fact they eat ****, they eat
> heaps of it and they don't exercise. Oh, and where did I say anything about
> BMI? I use body fat percentage, not BMI.

I offer a photo that illustrates the flaw in your thinking:

http://www.rulongardner.com/images/album/15s.gif

Rulon Gardner has *way* more body fat than Aleksandr Karelin, whom he
beat largely due to superior stamina compared to the leaner, and
stronger, wrestler. Rulon is a fat guy who is also an elite,
top-level athlete in superb health.

Poor health can be a cause of obesity, but obesity is NOT a cause of
poor health.

Fat guy and sumo champion Akebono, 6'8" and 500+ pounds:
http://photojpn.org/exp/sumo/ake1.html

Fat guy Vasily Alexeyev, record-breakingest strongman ever:
http://www.strengthtech.com/photos/weightp/alex/alex.htm

Any fashionably slender person would be supernaturally blessed to have
such health and fitness!

Chalo Colina
 
>Fat guy and sumo champion Akebono, 6'8" and 500+ pounds:
>http://photojpn.org/exp/sumo/ake1.html

Dude! For many years the average lifespan of sumo wrestlers was only about 45
years!!! By altering the type of excessive calories they eat (7000/day) to
more "healthy" excesses, they have increased that average age of death to the
astoundingly awful age of still only 60. Get a clue. The fat kills these
people. You are in denial if you rationalize anything else.
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ********. Obesity is at epidemic levels, with the concomitant
>> dreadful health costs, not least of which is diabetes and related
>> illnesses as well as cardiovascular disease.
> <snip>
>> For the vast bulk of the Fat ***** In Denial (FFID) out there it is
>> completely avoidable. They're fat because they make every excuse
>> under the sun instead of taking responsibility for the fact they eat
>> ****, they eat heaps of it and they don't exercise. Oh, and where
>> did I say anything about BMI? I use body fat percentage, not BMI.
>
> I offer a photo that illustrates the flaw in your thinking:
>
> http://www.rulongardner.com/images/album/15s.gif

I have only normal eyesight.

> Rulon Gardner has *way* more body fat than Aleksandr Karelin, whom he
> beat largely due to superior stamina compared to the leaner, and
> stronger, wrestler. Rulon is a fat guy who is also an elite,
> top-level athlete in superb health.
>
> Poor health can be a cause of obesity, but obesity is NOT a cause of
> poor health.

Yes, it is. There is a demonstrated link.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> That doesn't automatically follow. There's a limit to any health
>> system's resources so there's no guarantee absolutely everything can
>> or should be covered. Even within a "socialized" medical system
>> there are priorities. I'll never ever support a ghastly, inequitable
>> system like that in the US which deprives a quarter of the
>> population of adequate health care.
>
> I'm afraid that you have now argued two interesting things:
>
> 1) Obesity is bad
>
> 2) Obesity is of public concern because it imposes costs on the public
> health system
>
> Now, let's see how many things we can tax because they lead to public
> health costs?
>
> food, extreme sports equipment (those swiss balls are okay, well,
> balance hazard, so the half-balls are acceptable only), the
> calcium-deficient, bicycles, motorcycles, beer (I know it has lots of
> tax, but why stop there? Add another 10% as a health surcharge; let
> them drink Merlot!), skis, swim trunks (too dangerous to swim in open
> waters; supervised pools are of course safe, so they will make sure
> to have a selection of rentable swimwear available at every
> location), hiking boots (do you have any idea how many people get
> lost in the woods every year?) video games, computers (sedentary
> lifestyles are to be discouraged! Put a penny-per-byte tax on
> downloads to get those FFs out from behind their keyboards),
> Televisions, scissors (except those safety scissors that kids use),
> hand tools...shall I go on?

No, you should take a Valium instead. My argument is about obsity,
something that has no benefits, only has disadvantages, imposes enormous
human and economic costs on society and is completely avoidable. You're
comparing apples to oranges.

>> Furthermore, there are other ways governments can influence
>> behaviour. So-called "fat taxes" for example. Force the cost of a
>> Big Mac above that of the chicken salad McDonalds now sell. That
>> sort of thing.
>
> Shurely (to quote Frank magazine) it would be better to just revoke
> the health cards of the overweight? A set of fat calipers could be a
> part of every hospital's crash cart. If you pinch more than an inch at
> admission, they triage you until you lose some weight. Or die,
> whichever comes first.
>
> Now, you don't want to hear this, but Big Macs don't make people fat.

No ****. How many time do I have to say just that before people start
believing I believe it? But the point I actually made remains valid. A Big
Mac with fries is cheaper than a McDonalds roast chicken salad. We want
more people eating roast chicken salads and fewer people eating Big Macs and
fries. A really good way of encouraging that is to tax the **** food so
that the roast chicken salad is cheaper.

> Too much food, and more importantly, too little exercise, makes people
> fat.

You've got the priority exactly the wrong way around. Diet first and
foremost is the most important criteria for whether one gains, loses or
maintains weight. Exercise has an imortant role to play but in and of
itself it's not as important as diet.

> I don't eat Big Macs, but that's a taste thing. I do however eat lots
> of taxable foods on a regular basis: doughnuts, Popeye's apple pies
> (which unlike the modern McDonald's ones, are still deep-fried; the
> baked McDonald's pies are detestable as fast food goes) doughnuts (I
> am eternally torn between Tim Horton's and Krispy Kreme), hot fudge
> sundaes (the best thing McD's makes), panacotta (a whole bowl of that
> this week...bad idea...), lamb (high in cholesterol dontcha know),
> cookies, baclava, keteifes (sp?)...the list goes on.
>
> Now, I am 5'6", 153 lbs., which is a "normal" BMI, albeit on the high

I do wish people would stop using BMI. It's a ******** measure. What's
your bodyfat percentage?

> side. And the trend over the last 6-9 months has been a loss of about
> a pound a month, maybe a bit more. How do I do it? Absurd amounts of
> cycling (no really: I rode 20 km to work yesterday, then another 25 km
> to a crit, then 20 km in the race, then another 20-odd km home,
> though I wimped out and took public transit most of the way home).
>
> Now clearly you have no public-health interest in what I eat, even
> though I show every sign of abusing my body if you just look at my
> diet. So your plan to tax bad food (and I can't wait to hear how you
> define bad food; it should be even more fun than this argument), will
> unduly penalize me, while doing not a thing to the skinny and
> listless types who don't exercise but don't eat either.

Given the gigantic public benefit of reducing obesity the fact that you
might have to pay a little more for your junk fod is of no concern to me
whatsoever. How would I define "bad food"? That's a good question. I'd
start with any white food where there is a brown equivalent (ie, white
sugar, bread, pasta, rice, etc is bad, brown sugar, bread, pasta, rice, etc
is good). You could then look at foods which have proportionately
excessively high levels of saturated fats (nearly half the fats in a Big Mac
are saturated) or excessively high in simple sugars. It would never be
perfect but it would have a profoundly positive impact on society by hitting
fat ***** in their hip pockets.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:27:15 +1000, "DRS"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>A really good way of encouraging that is to tax the **** food so
>that the roast chicken salad is cheaper.

Sin taxes haven't helped people quit smoking, or gotten them driving
smaller cars...what makes you think they'd be more effective for
this?
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 05:27:15 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A really good way of encouraging that is to tax the **** food so
>> that the roast chicken salad is cheaper.
>
> Sin taxes haven't helped people quit smoking, or gotten them driving
> smaller cars...what makes you think they'd be more effective for
> this?

Smoking has significantly declined where I live and "sin taxes" have
certainly played a part in that. In this case it's not directly comparable
since the goal isn't to get people to stop eating but to stop eating ****
food. Forcing the price of **** food up can only help that goal. If
someone is going to binge anyway would you rather they binged on Big Macs or
roast chicken salads?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:32:13 +1000, "DRS"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>If
>someone is going to binge anyway would you rather they binged on Big Macs or
>roast chicken salads?

Personally, I don't feel that I have any say in what somebody else
eats, nor would I want anybody else having any say in what I eat.
--
Rick Onanian
 
"Rick Onanian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 06:32:13 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If
>> someone is going to binge anyway would you rather they binged on Big
>> Macs or roast chicken salads?
>
> Personally, I don't feel that I have any say in what somebody else
> eats, nor would I want anybody else having any say in what I eat.

If you lived alone on on island then fine. When you live in a community and
your behaviour impacts on others then it's not fine.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Smoking has significantly declined where I live and "sin taxes" have
> certainly played a part in that. In this case it's not directly
comparable
> since the goal isn't to get people to stop eating but to stop eating ****
> food. Forcing the price of **** food up can only help that goal. If
> someone is going to binge anyway would you rather they binged on Big Macs
or
> roast chicken salads?
>
Smoking in my area has declined only after laws banded smoking in most
public places. Before then I saw no slow down despite the high taxes on
cigarettes. More taxes won't solve the problem and unless you increase the
price of a Big Mac to double the price of a chicken salad, it won't change
the way people choose to eat. I say the best way to solve the obesity issue
is better education. The average person doesn't know how to eat healthy and
they typically choose a diet based on how easy it is rather than on good
solid research. Teach people to "think" and they might make better choices.

Dan.
 
[email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:
>
> Dude! For many years the average lifespan of sumo wrestlers was only about 45
> years!!! By altering the type of excessive calories they eat (7000/day) to
> more "healthy" excesses, they have increased that average age of death to the
> astoundingly awful age of still only 60. Get a clue. The fat kills these
> people. You are in denial if you rationalize anything else.

You are in denial if you think that health can be measured by
longevity alone. It is one indicating factor of health, but it does
not make for good comparisons between large and small folks.

What all the athletes I mentioned have that normal people to not have
isn't longevity, but preternatural vitality and abundant strength and
power. Who cares to live to be 100 if all that time is spent tiny,
weak, and impotent?

A mighty man is likely to remain powerful as an ox until the day he
dies, whereas a long-lived scrawny person might see 40 years during
which he or she can't lift his or her own suitcase. Is that healthy
on the part of the thin person?

It's well known that, fat or thin, small people live longer than large
people. That does not mean that large people are less healthy!
That's like saying a mastiff is less healthy than a wheezing,
trembling Chihuahua because it won't live as long.

A little research on osteoporosis will show that fat people generally
don't suffer this malady. It's a horrible, life-ruining ailment that
strikes only the thin, so of course it's not a cause for changing body
shape like, say, high blood pressure or other "diseases" that are
characteristic of fat people. You'd never catch a doctor telling a
scrawny middle-aged woman to put on some weight, even if it would save
her years of being bedridden with a broken pelvis later on. Yet any
doctor is likely to suggest weight loss to a fat patient with elevated
blood pressure, who has no other symptoms of health problems.

Chalo Colina
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote;

Chalo wrote

> > Poor health can be a cause of obesity, but obesity is NOT a cause of
> > poor health.
>
> Yes, it is. There is a demonstrated link.

I already said there was a link, in that poor health could cause
obesity. The reverse is not the case; an otherwise fit and healthy
person will not become unhealthy simply by being fat.

You employ the logical fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", assuming
that because some people with unhealthy lifestyles become fat as a
result, that all fatness is the result of an unhealthy lifestyle.
Just ain't so, mate.

Chalo Colina
 
[email protected] (TopCounsel) wrote:

> Dude! For many years the average lifespan of sumo wrestlers was only about 45
> years!!! By altering the type of excessive calories they eat (7000/day) to
> more "healthy" excesses, they have increased that average age of death to the
> astoundingly awful age of still only 60.

Sumo is an intensive and stoic discipline. While wrestlers are
active, they enjoy robust health and vigor, traumatic injuries being
their main risk. When they retire, it is likely that they adopt less
healthy habitual patterns-- drinking plenty after their many years of
restraint, and forsaking their previous workouts but not their
prodigious feasting.

It's not an unfamiliar situation; it's displayed often by the titans
of the football gridiron as well. Years of celebratory indulgence can
undo the benefits of years of focused training. But that is not to
say that they don't possess excellent health while in their prime-- or
that some of them don't maintain a healthy balance even if others fail
to observe moderation. I would be willing to wager that as former
competitors' health declines, they often _lose_ weight rather than
gaining it!

Chalo Colina
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
The big fat con story
Replies
62
Views
3K
Road Cycling
Chalo
C
M
My Big Fat Studded Ice Tires
Replies
1
Views
539
Road Cycling
Peter Cole
P
J
  • Locked
now this is a big fat SURPRISE
Replies
5
Views
648
Road Cycling
Wkabout
W
gary-trek
If height is a big factor in cycling explain lance Armstrong
Replies
26
Views
5K
Road Cycling
treecko142
treecko142
loly222
Crossin Big Roandabouts, Like cheese
Replies
5
Views
1K
Road Cycling
loly222
loly222
Top Bottom Back