Sherlock Holmes Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 So now lack of self control= disease. Learn self control and the "diseases" known as addiction and obesity become cured... Interesting.......
Thurman#1 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Chill said: I care what Chaz thinks...Blind faith is never a good thing. It isn't blind faith to think the experts - in nearly any area - know more than the people whose expertise in medicine is checking the internet. It's sense. 19 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: So now lack of self control= disease. Learn self control and the "diseases" known as addiction and obesity become cured... Interesting....... Ah. Trolls or internet experts who know everything from their couch. Desperate to get the thread ended, and with less than 50 posts. Why am I engaging? Driving nails through my head would be a better use of time, self, than discussing things with people who know way more than the experts 'cause they read a few articles. Edited January 18, 2019 by Thurman#1 1
Shortchaz Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: Of course it is... we got the same chemical companies that produce pharmaceuticals cooking up food additives to make you feel that crackhead feeling about food. Great test of showing how you use food as a stimulant, fasting a few days. You'll start craving bread, meat, dairy. Depends on what foods you are addicted to. Those 3 are the top for sure. Lots of great research on the subject, I recently started reading Food and Addiction it’s facinating 1
Chill Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, Shortchaz said: It’s a semantics argument over the definition of disease. I could argue it either way. If you choose, it’s not a disease. Laziness is not a disease, it’s a choice. Just another excuse for the person with a compulsive habit. Im sure no one chooses to get cancer. Which is actually a real disease. 3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: It isn't blind faith to think the experts - in nearly any area - know more than the people whose expertise in medicine is checking the internet. It's sense. Ah. Trolls or dolts. Why am I engaging? I wouldn’t trust any ones opinion. Always get second and third opinions. Usually the results change. Being an expert doesn’t mean they’re right. 1
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said: It isn't blind faith to think the experts - in nearly any area - know more than the people whose expertise in medicine is checking the internet. It's sense. Ah. Trolls or dolts. Why am I engaging? Well, I would happen to be an Ex-pert... Used to work in the medical field. Opened my eyes to a lot of bad things I wanted no part of. You know, kind of like enabling people by telling them their lack of self control and discipline is a "disease". But go ahead and trust the experts, they have your best interests as their top priority? 1
Shortchaz Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Chill said: If you choose, it’s not a disease. Laziness is not a disease, it’s a choice. Just another excuse for the person with a compulsive habit. Im sure no one chooses to get cancer. Which is actually a real disease. I think people use the term disease as a shorthand/umbrella term in the case of addiction. They recognize that it’s not exactly the same as cancer.
Sherlock Holmes Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, Shortchaz said: Lots of great research on the subject, I recently started reading Food and Addiction it’s facinating I'll give you this...The only "pathology" that involves food addiction is the parasites we harbor from eating that garbage food in the first place. Most cravings do stem from this. Still self control beats them out.
Chill Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Shortchaz said: I think people use the term disease as a shorthand/umbrella term in the case of addiction. They recognize that it’s not exactly the same as cancer. Except the actually abuser. Just another crutch.
ButchCT Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 Football is a sport of excess. Hard to see that changing, as the sport has always tested the limits of the human body.
formerlyofCtown Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ..."The Fridge" is a terribly sad story.....then you see other linemen who once retired, returned to a more normal weight....guess it is up to the individual...... And you see Zo return while he is still playing.
Mr. WEO Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 45 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: Love how MD's made Obesity a disease... What pharmaceutical are they gonna cook up for this one? Oh wait, it's gonna be uncurable, right? So much wrong here... 1
Shortchaz Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: I'll give you this...The only "pathology" that involves food addiction is the parasites we harbor from eating that garbage food in the first place. Most cravings do stem from this. Still self control beats them out. Even simpler, refined sugar and salt. Eat no added salt or sugar for 2 weeks and try a piece of corn...life changing. the saddest part is people don’t even know the true taste of a ripe piece of fruit. We’ve ruined our sense of taste by adding salt, sugar, and fat to everything. All for the dopamine hit... 1
ButchCT Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 56 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said: Love how MD's made Obesity a disease... What pharmaceutical are they gonna cook up for this one? Oh wait, it's gonna be uncurable, right? Sometimes, it is. Example, some cases of PCOS.
ThurmasThoman Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 9 hours ago, unbillievable said: The second you make it the public's responsibility, is the day the government mandates exercise. This is an incredible insight.
fansince88 Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 8 hours ago, mead107 said: Eric Woods has lost 60 lbs. In a year. Excuses. Im still not where I need to be because of excuses. If it kills me it is my fault. Nobody puts the extra plate of spaghetti in front of me. 1
ThurmasThoman Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 In my opinion, a lot of the problems that players face post-retirement could be solved by the lotto winner question: annuity or lump sum? If, out of the next CBA, teams agreed that they would only hand out "lifetime contracts" it would be good for EVERYONE--league included. For example: Josh Allen signed a 4 year, 21.2 million dollar contract at age 22. Let's define a "lifetime contract" as one that runs until the player is old enough to draw from Social Security: 62. The Buffalo Bills give Josh Allen a 40 year contract with a 529,725 dollar a year annual salary, which they should be mandated to distribute bi weekly (which would come to roughly 20 thousand a paycheck). Every new contract he signed would simply add to his biweekly paycheck, as if he were getting a promotion. So to continue this example, let's use Russell Wilson's next contract as an example: 4 years, 87.6 million. If Josh Allen signed that deal, it would be a 36 year contract, or a 2,433,333 annual raise. His new paycheck would be 93.5 thousand more dollars, meaning he would take home 113,500 a week, for life. These lump sum payments, in my opinion, are destroying players lives. The sense of loss and failure from losing not only your job but your ability to lose money ON TOP of losing all of your money and being reduced to living like ***** knowing you used to be a multimillionaire... it's enough to make a man crazy, or to drive them to suicide, or to overeating. And the owners should want to do this. Not because of morality, but because of economics. A, they would get to hold on to their money for decades longer, so all gains on it would be theirs--some of the contracts would pay for themselves just by market returns over their lifetime. So it's a win/win situation financially for players and teams (and I think the owners would have to pay the money into a trust that they couldn't withdraw from but which payed dividends out, but as for who would control how that money was invested--who knows). On top of that, B, I predict you would see much better health-related outcome measures for players after their playing days ended, because income streams are guaranteed. They can coach youth football, work in schools, be charitable in the communities where they played, join the country club and learn how to golf because they can afford to be a member there when they're 45--basically, the little things in life that give us all purpose that you can't access if you're a former athlete because you're broke and have no saleable skills, and you're ego is destroyed because you used to be the BMOC, now you're a failure. Let these guys be BMOCs for their entire lives, and you can start to sweep away this nasty little image problem that the league is forming for its post playing days. 1
wakingfane Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 What a dumb article. No wonder some people think the New York Times is just an elitist, out of touch, weeping, storm in a teacup. I don't think that's true overall, but not judging by this article.
formerlyofCtown Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 Being a fat person myself, such issues are usually a matter of self control. 1 1
formerlyofCtown Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 29 minutes ago, JohnnyGold said: In my opinion, a lot of the problems that players face post-retirement could be solved by the lotto winner question: annuity or lump sum? If, out of the next CBA, teams agreed that they would only hand out "lifetime contracts" it would be good for EVERYONE--league included. For example: Josh Allen signed a 4 year, 21.2 million dollar contract at age 22. Let's define a "lifetime contract" as one that runs until the player is old enough to draw from Social Security: 62. The Buffalo Bills give Josh Allen a 40 year contract with a 529,725 dollar a year annual salary, which they should be mandated to distribute bi weekly (which would come to roughly 20 thousand a paycheck). Every new contract he signed would simply add to his biweekly paycheck, as if he were getting a promotion. So to continue this example, let's use Russell Wilson's next contract as an example: 4 years, 87.6 million. If Josh Allen signed that deal, it would be a 36 year contract, or a 2,433,333 annual raise. His new paycheck would be 93.5 thousand more dollars, meaning he would take home 113,500 a week, for life. These lump sum payments, in my opinion, are destroying players lives. The sense of loss and failure from losing not only your job but your ability to lose money ON TOP of losing all of your money and being reduced to living like ***** knowing you used to be a multimillionaire... it's enough to make a man crazy, or to drive them to suicide, or to overeating. And the owners should want to do this. Not because of morality, but because of economics. A, they would get to hold on to their money for decades longer, so all gains on it would be theirs--some of the contracts would pay for themselves just by market returns over their lifetime. So it's a win/win situation financially for players and teams (and I think the owners would have to pay the money into a trust that they couldn't withdraw from but which payed dividends out, but as for who would control how that money was invested--who knows). On top of that, B, I predict you would see much better health-related outcome measures for players after their playing days ended, because income streams are guaranteed. They can coach youth football, work in schools, be charitable in the communities where they played, join the country club and learn how to golf because they can afford to be a member there when they're 45--basically, the little things in life that give us all purpose that you can't access if you're a former athlete because you're broke and have no saleable skills, and you're ego is destroyed because you used to be the BMOC, now you're a failure. Let these guys be BMOCs for their entire lives, and you can start to sweep away this nasty little image problem that the league is forming for its post playing days. Nasty image. Yes I look down on the league because all these guys that get to do and live a dream most of us wish we had are irresponsible.
Recommended Posts