danzarth - Member

danzarth

Joined September 2010

Posts

368

Following

Followers

Weight History

Start Weight

281.4 lb

Lost so far: 8.7 lb

Current Weight

272.7 lb
Performance: losing 0.0 lb a week

Goal Weight

154.0 lb

Still to go: 118.7 lb

danzarth's Weight History

view danzarth's complete history

Following

	mikefarinha
	only visible to followers

	DairyKing
	last weighin: losing 1.1 lb a week

	erika2633
	only visible to followers

	koffeebean7
	last weighin: losing 0.1 lb a week

view all

danzarth's Latest Posts

Kate Upton and Skinny Gurl website slam
I'd like to respond to Jess's question about men choosing a chubby girl over a slim one.

All other things being equal, you are right, most men would prefer a slim, or at least fit and healthy, woman to an overweight woman.

However, things are not equal, and there are a lot more factors involved with choosing a potential mate than physical beauty. I, for one, overwhelmingly prefer a woman who is fit and beautiful between her ears, and I know that several of my guy friends who are in the same school of thought.

To grossly overgeneralize, I have found that many women who are naturally thin or pretty tend to have a host of personality issues that I would rather not deal with (e.g. I'm pretty and desirable, and you're lucky to be with me). Many women who place a great deal of importance on their weight or looks also tend to have self-esteem issues.

This is not to say that I wouldn't date an Olsen twin look-alike, or a swimsuit model, or even Cathy Bates. But, I probably wouldn't stick around for long if I found their personality irritating.

And there are a multitude of ways for a woman to catch a man's eye, as I'm sure all of you women already know. A flirtatious exchange can be as attractive as washboard abs, to the right guy.

posted 18 Jul 2012, 11:30

Motivating Quotes
"Pain is the feeling of weakness leaving your body."
-Unknown Drill Sergeant

posted 17 Feb 2012, 14:37

Chewing gum burns 11 calories per hour...?
I came across this article in the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of the energy expended in chewing gum. I found it a little surprising, and perhaps interesting for those who, like me, can absentmindedly chew a single piece of gum for several hours.

According to the study, chewing gum raised the number of calories burned while at rest by almost 20%, or about 11 calories per hour.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199912303412718

posted 06 Feb 2012, 13:49

Should sugar be considered toxic?
This discussion got a lot more attention than I expected. Thanks to everyone who posted and kept the discussion lively.

As far as I can tell, the general consensus seems to be that too much sugar is probably bad for you, but calling it toxic is a bit extreme, and the government should stay out of the nutrition business (which includes taxing sugar, and also giving subsidies to corn farmers).

A lot of people seem to favor a consumer-education approach, but there are not a lot of non-government organizations that would have an interest in promoting this kind of education, apart from certain industries which produce non-sugary or non-starchy foods (Cattle Growers Association, International Broccoli Farmers, etc.).

Maybe just having this conversation on forums like this will have some kind of effect. The more attention given to the subject, the more people might be prompted to learn more for themselves. And, the more educated consumers are, the better decisions they can make.

Anyhow, I ran across this article today. It's somewhat related to the topic at hand. Enjoy.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-carbs-20101220,3,465492,full.story

posted 06 Feb 2012, 12:01

Should sugar be considered toxic?
I'm not saying that I agree with the vilification of sugar; I just said that there are some interesting points to be discussed.

I think an important distinction needs to be made between natural sugars, refined sugars and chemically-modified sugars. All sugars are not created equal.

According to the paper in Nature, the fructose molecule is metabolized in the liver in the same way as alcohol, much differently than the glucose molecule which naturally occurs in starchy foods. The health effects of fructose metabolism have been studied in multiple independent studies, and have almost universally been found to be harmful.

I'm not going to go to the extreme of saying that "sugar is evil", but it is definitely harmful if eaten to excess, regardless of weight gain or loss. This same standard has been used to restrict manufacture and sales of alcohol and tobacco products, so why not sugar? If the standard does not apply to refined sugar, by what logic can we justify restrictions on tobacco?

Sadly, it seems that the answer is "money in politics". There are strong lobbies involved with agriculture and sugar production, and the popular sentiment is not yet strong enough to motivate politicians to vote against their own financial interests.

I'm not sure how the conversation turned to nationalized health care, but I honestly don't see the connection with this particular topic, except in the most superficial way.

To me, this really is as simple as whether we accept the statement, "Too much sugar is harmful to your health." If we accept this as true, then maybe we shouldn't sell sugared soda in public schools, and maybe we should put measures in place to induce manufacturers to use less sugar in their products.

posted 02 Feb 2012, 14:13

danzarth has submitted 5 posts