Our food changed sometime in the '70s or '80s. When I was a kid, overweight people were rather rare. Has the "modern" diet gotten us addicted when we're kids -- and still very active -- to foods that we should be eating very sparingly which then cause huge weight gains when we continue to eat them after we reach our early twenties and our post education lifestyle
The other problem is that people of prior generations were expected to be able to deal with their own emotions in a mature manner and generally weren't as stressed-out as Americans today are.
(Did you know that a 12oz can of coke does as much liver damage as a 12oz can of beer?)
So almost none at all? Heh.
Thing is, sodas are typically sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Only the liver can metabolize fructose. Personally, I drink water and only occasionally have a carbonated drink. There are lots of good reasons to avoid sodas; sugar is only one of them. Once you get used to drinking water, you'll wonder how you were ever satisfied drinking what is basically syrup.
if you eat less, you will lose weight.
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean your weight loss will be 100% FAT loss. On the contrary, consuming less calories can also cause your body to store up MORE fat, to compensate for the food shortage. Numerous studies have shown this effect... you just end up with a smaller "fat" rat than the control subject.
If you gradually switch from "eating more calories than I would have ever needed" to "eating about the right amount, give or take" I strongly doubt you'll have this problem. At least that wasn't my experience. The studies I have seen were all concerning unsustainable fad diets that you could not continue using for the rest of your life.
Yes - and it can also make you very sick at the same time. People have starved themselves to death whilst remaining obese. To simply say "eat less, you'll lose weight!" makes as much sense as saying "just remove all the microorganisms from your blood stream, and you'll be cured!" Simple, right? Whilst technically correct, unfortunately it is not at all a useful suggestion. The sooner people stop deluding themselves with trivial knee-jerk responses that tacitly blame the patient, the sooner we can make progress to finding an actual solution for a real problem. Remember: if it was that easy, nobody would be fat.
"Eat less" isn't the same thing as saying "eat nothing or nearly nothing while failing to obtain the nutrients you need".
"Blame" is also a small-minded concern. When I personally needed to lose some weight, there was no concern with fault or blame. I (get this) *took responsibility* for my own condition and made some adjustments to it. Some sustainable, permanent adjustments that did not involve neglecting the nutrition I needed. It was never a problem after that. In fact it was one of the easiest things I've ever done. That's because I took responsibility and accepted that the power to change it was within myself, the exact opposite of victimhood. This is exactly what I never see from fat people. They're victims and they are hostile to the idea that they don't need to be. That's because they don't understand the difference between fault/blame and responsibility/power. That's the part that is "not that easy" for so many because we have such a shallow, small-minded culture that doesn't like to think too deeply about much of anything no matter how much better life can be.
All you are saying is that doing something the stupid and careless way won't yield a good result. This was already known.
This says nothing whatsoever about what happens when obese people reduce their calorie intake. Obese people got that way because they were consuming more calories than they burned. For them, reducing caloric intake sounds like a good idea (although an instant 50% cut sounds drastic - if that were me I'd make more gradual adjustments).
But your Starvation Experiment doesn't address this at all. Again what was the point of posting it?
Everyone I know who successfully lost weight and kept it off for years did it by making permanent, sustainable, healthy changes in their lives. A few of them learned to like veggies and other healthy foods. Others did that and also formed the habit of regular exercise. The point is to consume fewer calories than you burn until you reach a new equilibrium. Like so many other things that upset people, this works every time it's properly tried.
That's a really apt comparison, particularly given that a lot of the ISPs in question are themselves phone companies.
Meaning the ISPs are too cowardly to actually charge the *users* of said bandwidth, i.e., their customers. They would rather try to foist that charge off on another party with whom they have no business relationship and to whom are not providing any service, and have that other party deal with the bad PR. That's bullshit - Netflix is already paying for the bandwidth they use and has already spent a lot of money attempting to mitigate everyone's costs (via colo'd cache boxes), and if the ISP is not happy with the amount of bandwidth their customers are using, they need to charge *them* more, not Netflix. In the process they can also explain to their customers how oversubscription works, and that the new charges are a result of their own poorly-thought-out business model. Bonus points if they include information about how much they're already subsidized by the government in the form of rights-of-way, municipal franchise agreements, etc.
Given that half of all internet traffic comes from Netflix and YouTube, it's going to be a hoot when they start obtaining metrics proving their traffic is being throttled by the ISP, and providing said proof to customers that complain about the resulting sub-par video experience, and it will be trivial for them to do so. The ISPs may find their bargaining position isn't as strong as they thought if customers start cancelling or downgrading their cable/DSL subscriptions as a result.
On the flip side, Hurricane Charley came directly over where I was living at the time, and we never lost telephone service, power, gas, or water, all of which were delivered underground. Certainly it's not problem-free, but in my experience it's been a lot more reliable.
"Quickly", he/she says. Usually that's the case, but I've had SMS messages delivered days after sending them, and of course none of the suggestions listed work when the person you're trying to contact doesn't have a cell phone or internet service.
This sounds to me like the beginning of a big push for federal dollars by the incumbent phone companies, because if you get rid of POTS you're going to have to spend billions of dollars getting the remote areas of the country wired for IP/cellular, and looking at past experience the phone companies sure aren't going to pay for it.
I'm right there with you. The original purpose of copyright in the U.S. (for *limited times* per the Copyright Clause) was to encourage people to create. You're allowed to profit from your work for a few years, which lets you eat and keep a roof over your head (and maybe put a couple more Bentleys in the garage). But that gravy train was purposefully designed to run out so that you'd have an incentive to continue creating. I really see nothing wrong with the original 14-year term. If you can't monetize your work in that time, too bad. If you expect a payout just because your dad was a popular author, too bad. I'm sure the descendants of the Brothers Grimm would like to get some of Disney's profits too, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to it.