I'm clearly annoyed about something: that something is Weetabix. Or rather, the lack of it. Have you seen the portions you get nowadays? Tiny! I had to have 5 this morning because they've made them so small. But it isn't only the wonder-breakfast that is Weetabix - everything is getting smaller. It's all in response to the growing number of fatties that can't keep their chubby mitts out of the biscuit box. I think it's a measure that will backfire, though - they'll just put more in their bowl/face, like I had to this morning.
These gargantuans know there is something wrong with them (which is pretty perplexing, because wouldn't you take action if you had a life-threatening illness?), we see them on TV at all hours of the day, putting their bodies on show in some form of pity-act, when they've only got themselves to blame. I'm not talking about the morbidly obese people, that have genuinely got a reason to be the size they are. I mean the Waller-inspired mountains that get big because they're so damn lazy and have a defeatist attitude to helping themselves. It actually infuriates me that the problem has gotten so bad in our society, we're making unneccesary changes to products which have been available to healthy consumers for decades.
I have a solution. It lies not in food, but in clothes. Stop manufacturing above certain sizes and the population will have to adjust. Prescription clothes for those with proper problems. Sure, this could backfire and we'd see masses of naked blubber waddling up the street (like Orca beached himself in New Look), I accept this risk, but I think we've tried everything now except for shame. I'm only half-serious, of course, but what else is there? Nobody would accept a forced regime of exercise, or a mass-culling of jumbos.
But seriously, people will follow trends that are in shops, and if you make the better clothes in smaller sizes, then the people will have to follow suit (pun intended, yes I am so clever yo). Look at mobile phones. All the decent ones are on monthly tariffs, not Pay As you Go. you have to pay a King's ransom to get a nice-looking phone off a monthly scheme, but people will because it gives them freedom. An example of leading consumers by the nose, and it proves that they will follow. So yeah, I'm annoyed because my food was small, when it needn't have been because I'm not stupid and can resist the urge to eat packets of crisps and biscuits afterwards. Thanks for nothing, nation of fatsos.
> I think we need fat people and there important, because whenever you
> feel a bit bad about yourself for anything at all, you can look at a
> particualarly plump person waddling down the street in a poncho or
> some kind of clothing that doesn't quite hold them all in, and you
> feel good about yourself and walk about happy in the knowledge theres
> people worse of.
A bit inhumane and selfish, but I've no doubt most people feel the same, especially at times of self-image problems. Though when you eventually grow out of that (if ever), you'll feel pity instead of superiority.
As for the woman losing 19 stone - seriously good for her. THat must have taken a lot of effort, and that difference in appearance, saggy skin or not, must be worth it. At least for a couple of months.
> I was flicking through a certain magazine last night and read that a
> woman had lost 19 stone and she's kept it off so good for her. But
> dammit - 19 stone - that's two whole other adults.
I bet she had a lot of loose skin though? I feel sorry for fat people who lose loads of weight, because they think they'll look all slim and attractive, but they just end up with rolls of stretched skin. Might as well have carried on being fat.
> There should be a fat tax on fatty foods or fast food, as yes it is
> unhealthy if you dont eat it in moderation. It costs the NHS millions
> and the problem is only going to get worse. I mean you may think it is
> harsh having a fat tax which peole who eat in moderation on junk food
> have to pay but it is eaxactly the same for booze. If its unhealthy
> and will end up costing more tax then it should have more tax charged
> on it.
That's not a bad idea. After all the government justifies excessive taxes on alcohol and tobacco by claiming it is just covering the additional money that will be spent on drinkers or smokers clogging up the NHS. So in theory all these overweight peoples heart/limb/lung problems is doing the same. Fat food tax ahoy baby!
> Coatsy wrote:
> Basically, a lot of overweight people like junk food because it's
> cheap (cheap = more) and it fills them up a fair bit.
> Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison. They like it because it
> requires no effort.
Constituent ingredients can often be cheaper, whereas a ready meal is often quite expensive, as is fast food.
> Whitestripes DS wrote:
> Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison.
> Actually, not true. It fills them up initially but because of the
> sugar, it has a high Glycemic Index. Before long, they feel hungry
> again. Needless to say, they don't attribute this to the food, but to
> their appetite. This mass comsuption of food, is what makes the cost
> build up.
Exactly, so it's expensive.
A Big Mac Meal from McDonalds will set you back £3.50 (or something)
So, a Big Mac each for a family of four is going to cost you £14.
Or, you could make four 10" pizzas from scratch (I don't care what anyone says, as long as you don't use too much cheese and don't have a lot of meaty toppings, then a pizza is pretty healthy) for a fiver, and it'll feed twice as many.
> Nonsense, it's expensive in comparison.
Actually, not true. It fills them up initially but because of the sugar, it has a high Glycemic Index. Before long, they feel hungry again. Needless to say, they don't attribute this to the food, but to their appetite. This mass comsuption of food, is what makes the cost build up.