Fat people want to tax your video games!

US Democrat pushes for TV, video game fat tax January 26, 2008 - 11:49AM
Source:ABC

A Democratic lawmaker in New Mexico wants to tax televisions and video games to raise funds to fight childhood obesity and improve education in the state, officials said.

"I have asked our legislative council service to prepare the 'Leave No Child Inside' bill and am hopeful that it will be ready for me to introduce on Monday," former teacher Gail Chasey said.

'Leave No Child Inside' - a play on the federal education initiative 'No Child Left Behind' - is backed by the Sierra Club environmental group.

"The bill proposes levying a 1 per cent excise tax on the purchase of TVs, video games and video game equipment and would create the 'Leave No Child Inside' fund to receive those revenues," the Sierra Club's Michael Casaus said.

The author and sponsors of the bill, who include dozens of other organisations besides the Sierra Club, according to Mr Casaus, expect to raise $US4 million a year through the tax.

The items that would be taxed have been carefully chosen because of their links to obesity and poor school performance, the Sierra Club says, citing medical studies.

Around one-quarter of New Mexico's children are obese or overweight, and just over half finish high school, said Mr Casaus.

"The goals of the bill are to improve the academic performances of our kids, to promote a more healthy life****and to provide our children with outdoor learning experiences, using our state parks and public lands as ****ooms," he said.

According to a study cited by backers of the bill, hands-on, outdoor study leads to better grades among students, including in mathematics and science.

Another study has shown a 27 per cent improvement in the science test scores of students who participate in outdoor education programs.

Earlier this week, a high school in the US state of Georgia launched another unique initiative to boost the math and science grades of students.

Creekside High School near Atlanta offered students money to attend remedial ****s in the two subjects for 15 weeks and a monetary bonus for maintaining a "B" grade average afterwards.

fatfighters

http://www.bigpond.com/news/breaking/content/20080126/2147188.asp

Because the 10,000 Mcdonalds, Burger Kings, Wendys, and Dunkin' Donuts have nothing to do with it.Guiltfeeder566

Or the fact that the only food we advertise is the type of junk mentioned above.

That's... stupid, to put it lightly. It's almost like junk food and fast food have nothing to do with it. :|

Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!sSubZerOo

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!LukeAF24

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Thats a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy.. There is no evidence to prove this what so ever.

Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.Wetall_basic

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!sSubZerOo

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.sSubZerOo

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!Palax

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

They should tax the TV companies for entertaining people so much that they don't want to exercise. Also they should tax the TV companies because

I am not saying this isn't a stupid idea.. But its a over reaction to be sure.. its 1%, if people can't afford or tolerate this.. How in the hell do they buy so many brand new games to begin with? Thats 50 cents people... You can't even buy a full candy bar for 50 cents..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!LukeAF24

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Exactly.

I hate politicians.SimpJee

Hahahah Same.

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.sSubZerOo

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Why should I have to pay for the government's program of trying to convince people not to be fat? It's not my fault that they don't eat with good sense. If anything it's big corporations selling and advertising nothing but garbage food (McDonald's, Doritos, Coca-Cola, Burger King, Breyers) who are perpetuating this phenomenon. We should make them pay for this program, because they are most at fault.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!sSubZerOo

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

They should tax the TV companies for entertaining people so much that they don't want to exercise. Also they should tax the TV companies because

I am not saying this isn't a stupid idea.. But its a over reaction to be sure.. its 1%, if people can't afford or tolerate this.. How in the hell do they buy so many brand new games to begin with? Thats 50 cents people... You can't even buy a full candy bar for 50 cents..

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

[QUOTE="Palax"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!sSubZerOo

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

They should tax the TV companies for entertaining people so much that they don't want to exercise. Also they should tax the TV companies because

I am not saying this isn't a stupid idea.. But its a over reaction to be sure.. its 1%, if people can't afford or tolerate this.. How in the hell do they buy so many brand new games to begin with? Thats 50 cents people... You can't even buy a full candy bar for 50 cents..

I already pay too much in taxes and 50 more cent is 50 cent too much for such a pitiful and pointless program.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Palax"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!Wetall_basic

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

They should tax the TV companies for entertaining people so much that they don't want to exercise. Also they should tax the TV companies because

I am not saying this isn't a stupid idea.. But its a over reaction to be sure.. its 1%, if people can't afford or tolerate this.. How in the hell do they buy so many brand new games to begin with? Thats 50 cents people... You can't even buy a full candy bar for 50 cents..

I see so by this rational you will never buy say beer? Seeing as it has huge taxs to help curb people from purchasing so much? The main purpose of taxs like these are mainly to CURB purchases rather then to gain profits..

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Palax"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Meh its only 1% tax increase who cares... Thats 50 cents increase for a $50 game.. Some one call the press!sSubZerOo

First of all the I don't have much confidence that the money will be spent with responsibility in mind. Second of all they are trying to single out the video game industry for this tax. They only mentioned levying this tax on TV purchases meanwhile every single game sale or game peripheral will carry this tax. Which means I'm going to be paying for it.

They should tax the TV companies for entertaining people so much that they don't want to exercise. Also they should tax the TV companies because

I am not saying this isn't a stupid idea.. But its a over reaction to be sure.. its 1%, if people can't afford or tolerate this.. How in the hell do they buy so many brand new games to begin with? Thats 50 cents people... You can't even buy a full candy bar for 50 cents..

I see so by this rational you will never buy say beer? Seeing as it has huge taxs to help curb people from purchasing so much?

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.sSubZerOo

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Think about what you just said because kids don't have jobs. So they don't buy games their parents buy the game. So how would a 5% tax increase encourage kids to stop buying games and play outside when its the adult who bought it to begin with?

Let's say that even if that kid has 1 less video game due to the 5% tax that one kid will more than likely still not go outside and exercise. The whole fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many video games a kid has...the kid is only going to exercise outside if the kid chooses to of their own volition, or if parent encourages that kind of behavior.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.Palax

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Think about what you just said because kids don't have jobs. So they don't buy games their parents buy the game. So how would a 5% increase encourage people to stop buying games and play outside when its the adult who bought it anyway?

Because most people money is a object and they have a budget.... If your reasoning were the truth all kids in the US must have every toy out there.. Oh wait they don't..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.Palax

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Why should I have to pay for the government's program of trying to convince people not to be fat? It's not my fault that they don't eat with good sense. If anything it's big corporations selling and advertising nothing but garbage food (McDonald's, Doritos, Coca-Cola, Burger King, Breyers) who are perpetuating this phenomenon. We should make them pay for this program, because they are most at fault.

If this gets passed,i'll buy guns,ammo,vehicles and build training camps,and start a civil war :|

Though someone might do it for me :P

Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.Wetall_basic

Because if they go outside then they'll either be murdered... or even worse sexually molested.

Because the 10,000 Mcdonalds, Burger Kings, Wendys, and Dunkin' Donuts have nothing to do with it.Guiltfeeder566

[QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.sSubZerOo

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Think about what you just said because kids don't have jobs. So they don't buy games their parents buy the game. So how would a 5% increase encourage people to stop buying games and play outside when its the adult who bought it anyway?

Because most people money is a object and they have a budget.... If your reasoning were the truth all kids in the US must have every toy out there.. Oh wait they don't..

I edited my post, but I fail to see how your reasoning led you to this. I'm not so sure that you even agree with yourself.

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

sSubZerOo

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Almost all of my gamer friends are skinny. Only 2 of them could be considered obese. 1 of them works on a farm too so he gets excercise, the other works out and eats healthier than anyone I know. Noone knows why he's fat.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

DivergeUnify

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Uhh no.. BMI has a classifcation for the obese.. Fat is not taken into account.. It specifically has to do with wieght and hieght..

In fact Penn and teller bull sh*t did a whole episode on this I suggest you watch it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Palax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]Thats very stupid. How about,we,I don't know,encourage children to play outside sometimes? Don't feed them a strict diet of McDonnald's and Burger King,perhaps? Or even force them to exercise for 20 minutes a day? Nope,we need more taxes,to go toward a orginisation I've never heard of,that seems useless.Palax

Well because taxs have been shown to work.. Take for instance beer, its a pretty elastic product for ages 18-24.. Meaning if taxs/prices raised on it will have a drastic effect on lowering purchases.. This is important because it curves high way deaths of drunk driving in this group wich is correlated from this.

there could be a direct correlation with this as well.. Though I am not sure how a 1% tax increase will do anything.. 5% would curve quite a few people.. But I doubt it will have that much of a affect on such things..

Think about what you just said because kids don't have jobs. So they don't buy games their parents buy the game. So how would a 5% increase encourage people to stop buying games and play outside when its the adult who bought it anyway?

Because most people money is a object and they have a budget.... If your reasoning were the truth all kids in the US must have every toy out there.. Oh wait they don't..

I edited my post, but I fail to see how your reasoning led you to this. I'm not so sure that you even agree with yourself.

My point being man is its basic economics.. If a product is elastic, a increase in price can sway the total volume sold.. Look it up because apparently you don't seem to realize this.. Now that being said I already stated its stupid, because 1% isn't going to do anything, and I have also said video games is not a cause of over wieght.. Its in activity, poor diet etc.. I agree with you its stupid I never stated other wise.. But then again its only a 1% tax who cares, I do not see my self going into bankruptcy over an extra 50 cents a game (thats if its brand new too).. That being said it could be justified but I would have to see data if there is a direct correlation with it, I doubt there is an affective one... Also I would be thankful seeing as taxs are very very small compared to other countries.. A long with amassing debt, and a slowing economy... If you are this outraged by a 1% tax I suggest you leave the country before taxs are forced to actually raise to combat these deficits.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

sSubZerOo

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Uhh no.. BMI has a classifcation for the obese.. Fat is not taken into account.. It specifically has to do with wieght and hieght..

In fact Penn and teller bull sh*t did a whole episode on this I suggest you watch it.

Seriously, read my post I just said BMI is an accurate way of determining if someone is overweight by height and weight but does not take into account fat and therefore obesity

BMI cannot determine whether a person weighs a lot by body fat percentage or whether they have a lot of muscle mass. It's completely inaccurate for it to be used for obesity, but under/overweight is perfectly fine: you just don't know the content that makes the person overweight. Don't tell me to read up on it

the bastards! Video games don't make people fat, inactivity does :|Shiggums

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

DivergeUnify

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Uhh no.. BMI has a classifcation for the obese.. Fat is not taken into account.. It specifically has to do with wieght and hieght..

In fact Penn and teller bull sh*t did a whole episode on this I suggest you watch it.

Seriously, read my post I just said BMI is an accurate way of determining if someone is overweight by height and weight but does not take into account fat and therefore obesity

BMI cannot determine whether a person weighs a lot by body fat percentage or whether they have a lot of muscle mass. It's completely inaccurate for it to be used for obesity, but under/overweight is perfectly fine: you just don't know the content that makes the person overweight. Don't tell me to read up on it

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm

Look for your self.. If your wieght is certain point for yoru hieght you are CONSIDERED OBESE BY THE BMI scale.. I could care less what your explaination is.. I am specifically pointing ou tthats how the government declares a person obese THROUGH THE BMI csystem.. That is why the BMI is crap.. Also overwieght is just as bad, for instance I am overwieght under the BMI, this is with a 10% body fat content..

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

sSubZerOo

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Uhh no.. BMI has a classifcation for the obese.. Fat is not taken into account.. It specifically has to do with wieght and hieght..

In fact Penn and teller bull sh*t did a whole episode on this I suggest you watch it.

Seriously, read my post I just said BMI is an accurate way of determining if someone is overweight by height and weight but does not take into account fat and therefore obesity

BMI cannot determine whether a person weighs a lot by body fat percentage or whether they have a lot of muscle mass. It's completely inaccurate for it to be used for obesity, but under/overweight is perfectly fine: you just don't know the content that makes the person overweight. Don't tell me to read up on it

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm

Look for your self.. If your wieght is certain point for yoru hieght you are CONSIDERED OBESE BY THE BMI scale.. I could care less what your explaination is.. I am specifically pointing ou tthats how the government declares a person obese THROUGH THE BMI csystem.. That is why the BMI is crap.. Also overwieght is just as bad, for instance I am overwieght under the BMI, this is with a 10% body fat content..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

kids from buying so much games, thus spending more time in side possibly.. Yet again I never said its going to be effective.. If theyh added say like 5% then it could be affective.. But not 1%...

... I was never discussing the program what so ever.. And that being said the obesity rate is a fraud in general.. You know the scale used by the government to judge a person if they are obese is the rediculous BMI system? Thats a system made in the 19th century by a mathmatician.. Not just that but it doesn't make any sense.. Using the BMI every player in the NFL is at very least overwieght if not obese.. The Govinator in his prime would be ****fied as obese in his prime as well..

It may work it may not work.. I would have to look at the evidence at hand.. That being said its just 1%, its not worth pulling hair out for.

DivergeUnify

BMI= weight/height( or vice versa i dunno :P)

Obesity= fat/weight

Uhh no.. BMI has a classifcation for the obese.. Fat is not taken into account.. It specifically has to do with wieght and hieght..

In fact Penn and teller bull sh*t did a whole episode on this I suggest you watch it.

Seriously, read my post I just said BMI is an accurate way of determining if someone is overweight by height and weight but does not take into account fat and therefore obesity

BMI cannot determine whether a person weighs a lot by body fat percentage or whether they have a lot of muscle mass. It's completely inaccurate for it to be used for obesity, but under/overweight is perfectly fine: you just don't know the content that makes the person overweight. Don't tell me to read up on it

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm

Look for your self.. If your wieght is certain point for yoru hieght you are CONSIDERED OBESE BY THE BMI scale.. I could care less what your explaination is.. I am specifically pointing ou tthats how the government declares a person obese THROUGH THE BMI csystem.. That is why the BMI is crap.. Also overwieght is just as bad, for instance I am overwieght under the BMI, this is with a 10% body fat content..

I know but overwieght in that type of system is suppose to function as unhealthy meaning you need to lose the wieght.. The government uses the BMI to calculate the amount of obese people in the US.. Thats teh bad thing about it, it makes the assumption that all excess wieght is specifically fat.. And not muscle.

I know but overwieght in that type of system is suppose to function as unhealthy meaning you need to lose the wieght.. The government uses the BMI to calculate the amount of obese people in the US.. Thats teh bad thing about it, it makes the assumption that all excess wieght is specifically fat.. And not muscle.sSubZerOo

I don't mind this really. Whether we want to admit it or not, children are much more sedentary nowadays, and computer games/television do have something to do with that. Obesity is becoming a real problem. Just because there are other contributing factors doesn't mean you should ignore this one. In reality, all the contributing factors should be addressed. I think it would be great if we introduced concepts like daily workplace/school calisthenics. And we'd all be better off if we spent less time in front of our monitors and more time being active.

By the way, I realize the irony of using my computer to decry a sedentary life style, so don't bother pointing that out.

That's... stupid, to put it lightly. It's almost like junk food and fast food have nothing to do with it. :|

scorch-62

I think they do have something to do with it. But I also remember reading a study a little while ago that stated it is not increased calorie consumption, but rather inactivity that has resulted in fatter children and especially teens nowadays. Calorie consumption hasn't changed dramatically in the last 30 years, but young people are getting much fatter in general. I wish I could dig up the link again, but I don't even remember how I came across the study in the first place. Maybe for a response to another topic about obesity...

I don't mind this really. Whether we want to admit it or not, children are much more sedentary nowadays, and computer games/television do have something to do with that. Obesity is becoming a real problem. Just because there are other contributing factors doesn't mean you should ignore this one. In reality, all the contributing factors should be addressed. I think it would be great if we introduced concepts like daily workplace/school calisthenics. And we'd all be better off if we spent less time in front of our monitors and more time being active.

By the way, I realize the irony of using my computer to decry a sedentary life style, so don't bother pointing that out.

pianist