Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Guess who dies faster then those waiting-in-line-forever NHS beneficiaries...

Jul 18, 2011#1

@Li3n

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14070090

New life expectancy figures show Americans some way behind countries like Canada, the UK and Australia. Why?
Living in the world's richest country comes at a price, and it's measured in life years.

Men in the US are on average aged 75 when they die. That is 1.5 years younger than men in the UK and 3.5 years younger than men in Australia, says a new study.
American women live on average to just under 81 - about three years younger than the average Australian woman.
While life expectancy in the US continues to improve, says the report by researchers at University of Washington in Seattle and Imperial College, London, it is not increasing as quickly as in other Western countries, so the gap is widening.
"The researchers suggest that the relatively low life expectancies in the US cannot be explained by the size of the nation, racial diversity, or economics," says the document, which ranks the US 38th in the world for life expectancy overall.
"Instead, the authors point to high rates of obesity, tobacco use and other preventable risk factors for an early death as the leading drivers of the gap between the US and other nations."

"We weren't surprised that we had lower life expectancies than other countries, but we were surprised by the fact that we were falling further behind," says Dr Ali Mokdad, professor of global health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
Take a country like Australia, he says. "It also has a nation of immigrants. It also is a relatively young country. It has similar socioeconomic characteristics.
"It has an obesity problem, and yet it has continued to improve in life expectancy and remains one of the healthiest nations in the world."
So how should the US address these risk factors?
Smoking alone is responsible for one out of every five deaths in the US, the professor says, yet the US has not been as tough as Australia in restricting tobacco advertising and public smoking.
Australia also has a greater focus on primary care - which helps with health education, and early treatment of any problems - and it has done a good job reducing the number of road traffic accidents, he adds.
The US could also save 100,000 lives a year by reducing salt in people's diets, since high blood pressure kills one in six people, Dr Mokdad says.
Then there's the big issue - about one in three adults is classified as obese. That's about 10 times as many as in long-living countries like Japan, according to OECD figures.
But the US is a big country, and while parts of Mississippi have a male life expectancy of 67, behind nations like the Philippines, women in areas of Florida live as long, on average, as the Japanese, who top the longevity rankings.
It is precisely this kind of inequality that goes some way to explain why the US - and the UK to a lesser degree - lag behind other countries, according to Danny Dorling, a professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield in the UK.
He believes a more even distribution of wealth, even if the average were lower, could mean longer lives for everyone.
"I think stress is a part of it - this is the key thesis of Michael Marmot and his book on the status syndrome. People get worn out faster with greater inequality.
"However there is much more. If you have most health spending just going on a few people who have the best health to begin with - [as in] the US system - that is hardly efficient.
"In a more unequal rich country more doctors are working on things like plastic surgery. More dentists whiten teeth than fix bad teeth and so on."

Infant deaths
While it is not surprising that poor Americans lose out from inequality, Prof Dorling argues that the rich may suffer too.
"Top income groups are badly affected because their doctors are not necessarily mainly interested in their health but work for organisations that have to make an income," he says.
"I am not suggesting it is deliberate but you make more money out of a patient who spends more on many drugs and investigatory operations than one who lives longer with less intervention.
"In a more equal system the rich who are well get less intervention - and they live longer in the UK than the US."
Growing income inequality in the UK, since the 1970s, has has helped to push it down the European life expectancy rankings, says Mr Dorling.
However, life expectancy is not just about forecasts made for newborn babies.
When you look at life expectancy at 65 or 75, the US performs rather well, says Svetlana Ukraintseva, senior investigator at the Center for Population Health and Aging (CPHA) at Duke University in North Carolina.
Elderly Americans have a higher chance of surviving heart disease and many cancers than their counterparts in other rich countries, she says. Where the US lags behind is what happens at a much younger age.
"It's likely not the quality of medical care itself that is the problem but access to it. Medical insurance for all might help."
This is one goal of the healthcare reform signed into law in March 2010, which will oblige American adults to have health insurance when it comes into force in 2014.
However, this remains a controversial idea in the US and the legislation could yet come unstuck.
Challenges to the constitutionality of the law are working their way through the courts, and fierce opponents in the Republican Party make no secret of their desire to repeal the legislation if the opportunity arises.

Jul 18, 2011#2

strawman

Summary:

Americans die at a higher rate than other countries due to poor lifestyle choices, and not due to access to health care.

Overall life expectancy is lower in the US also due to the high incidence of infant and childhood deaths, which some theorize could be due to lack of health insurance.

I love how the article muddles it all together and tries to connect lack of national health insurance with lower life expectancy. All the information is in the article that tells you that life expectancy is not really related to health insurance, and yet the title and several points through it attempt to imply that is the case without really coming out and saying it - because the research doesn't support that conclusion.

Once you force all americans to start eating good diets, exercising, and cutting out bad habits - regardless of health insurance access - you'll see a dramatic improvement in life expectancy. So even though there is likely a connection between life expectancy and health insurance access, it's insignificant next to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc, etc, etc. All things that most Americans can control without medical care, should they choose to do so.

Nice trolling by the BBC though. The article wouldn't have been nearly as interesting if they simply talked about the life expectancy disparity without trying to tie the health care debate into the life expectancy statistics.

Jul 18, 2011#3

@Li3n

stienman said:
So even though there is likely a connection between life expectancy and health insurance access, it's insignificant next to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc, etc, etc.

Actually that's what the article said up front... and i doubt they care about your health care debate seeing how most americans don't see to get their news from the BBC.

I just put in the NHS thing because this forum is read mainly by americans... and to make a point about how the US isn't doing very well health wise even when they have the best doctors (because the pay is better)... which is something i hear way to often (rich canadians comes here for treatment etc.)

All the information is in the article that tells you that life expectancy is not really related to health insurance

No, the article makes it clear that some factors that influence the life expectancy are related to insurance, like the ones caused by lack of access to treatment. But they mention all factors because they're actually trying to be objective about it.

Jul 18, 2011#4

strawman

@Li3n said:
No, the article makes it clear that some factors that influence the life expectancy are related to insurance, like the ones caused by lack of access to treatment. But they mention all factors because they're actually trying to be objective about it.

They have one quote by one doctor:

"It's likely not the quality of medical care itself that is the problem but access to it. Medical insurance for all might help."

Which suggests the possibility of a link, but even admist that if this link exists, more medical insurance might not actually help.

Or, in other words, show me the study that shows "some factors that influence the life expectancy are related to insurance" because the article only suggests that there might be a connection. It's not clear at all.

Jul 18, 2011#5

@Li3n

The study itself has stuff about it , do check it out...

Also, it points out how legislation can help with obesity etc...

Jul 18, 2011#6

Adammon

@Li3n said:
The study itself has stuff about it , do check it out...

Also, it points out how legislation can help with obesity etc...

Legislation can't help with obesity any more than it helped with the War on Drugs.

Jul 18, 2011#7

Chibibar

I think it is more of lifestyle choices.

People in the U.S. do have more choices (and poor choices) in type of food. Look at the popular type of eatery. Denny's, KFC, McD, Jack in the box. etc etc etc.

Jul 18, 2011#8

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
Legislation can't help with obesity any more than it helped with the War on Drugs.

Bringing back physical education programs, healthier school lunches, better public transportation, subsidies for vegetable and fruit growers, grants for opening groceries in food desserts better health education.

There are countless things that the government can do and should do to cut down obesity rates. It can't eliminate it surely but to say that legislation can't do anything is just ignorant blabber.

Jul 18, 2011#9

strawman

@Li3n said:
The study itself has stuff about it , do check it out...

I have, and you still seem to be of the opinion that the study says that the disparity is due, in part, to not having national health care similar to the NHS. However, the study says the opposite. Further, the study only measures life expectancy. If you look only at the results and conclusion, there is absolutely no conclusion about what to do regarding national health care, and further points out that one of the three legs of the national healthcare debate actually would have no significant effect on life expectancy:

the number of deaths attributable to lack of insurance is dramatically too small to explain much of the poor international performance and disparities in the US.

This study doesn't look into the other two legs of the national healthcare plan, perhaps life expectancy couldn't be said to improve or decline based on whether the other two are enacted or not.

It goes on to talk about a few other factors regarding the national healthcare program and concludes for each one that, "more study is needed" rather than reaching any sort of conclusion.

The national healthcare program notably does not include some of the suggestion of these authors - programs to reduce obesity, heart disease, etc through education, subsidies, and other means.

Further, the study itself acknowledges that "interpreting how the US came to be in this position and what to do about it will continue to be vigorously debated."

In short, the thread title and BBC article attempt to imply that a strong link exists between lack of national health care and low life expectancy.

The study absolutely does not back that implication up.

All it says is:

Hey, life expectancy is unusually low in the US given their spending on health care per capita is the highest in the world. Now that we're done with the results and conclusion of the study, we're going to opine on some of the factors we believe might come into play:
- Americans are fat smokers
- The government doesn't have much in the way of healthy education/subsidies
- The geographical distribution of the US means that even with health insurance, many people are still pretty far from good care - for instance in the appalacian mountains and deep south (this means that even Canada can't be readily compared because all these other countries that are doing better have a tighter geographical distribution than the US as a whole - and in Canada the inuit population, in fact, does significantly worse than even the worst place in the US in terms of life expectancy)
- We need to do a lot more study to even find out if the programs other countries have enacted are the reason for their relatively good life expectancy, or if it's due to social, economic, or other factors, before we even get close to suggesting that the same programs would work in the US

Jul 18, 2011#10

Chibibar

Dubyamn said:
Bringing back physical education programs, healthier school lunches, better public transportation, subsidies for vegetable and fruit growers, grants for opening groceries in food desserts better health education.

There are countless things that the government can do and should do to cut down obesity rates. It can't eliminate it surely but to say that legislation can't do anything is just ignorant blabber.

Sounds great but then those lobbyist for the "other side" won't allow it. It cuts into profit

Jul 18, 2011#11

@Li3n

Chibibar said:
People in the U.S. do have more choices (and poor choices) in type of food. Look at the popular type of eatery. Denny's, KFC, McD, Jack in the box. etc etc etc.

I don't know what 3rd world country you're thinking off, but fast food is everywhere in the developed world...

stienman said:
I have, and you still seem to be of the opinion that the study says that the disparity is due, in part, to not having national health care similar to the NHS. However, the study says the opposite.

No dude, like i said, the title was just meant to grab attention... i know correlation doesn't imply causation...it just implies i'll get more people posting here.

But really, you can't say the study say the opposite when you then say this yourself:

It goes on to talk about a few other factors regarding the national healthcare program and concludes for each one that, "more study is needed" rather than reaching any sort of conclusion.

stienman said:
In short, the thread title and BBC article attempt to imply that a strong link exists between lack of national health care and low life expectancy.

The study absolutely does not back that implication up.

The article doesn't imply a strong link, maybe a possible link at most... you're just reading it like that because of the title i gave the thread... (the power, the power... dance monkey, dance)

stienman said:
and in Canada the inuit population, in fact, does significantly worse than even the worst place in the US in terms of life expectancy

Oh, so you'll take the inuit (some of who are living like ) but ignore the parts about Australia in the article....
Added at: 19:24

Adammon said:
Legislation can't help with obesity any more than it helped with the War on Drugs.

So you're saying trans-fats are used by the CIA to fund black ops?

Jul 18, 2011#12

Chibibar

@lien: Well in China and Taiwan a burger from McD cost like 3x than in the states (I kid you not) it is actually one of the "nice" place you would take a date and it would be a compliment.

I remember McD in Shanghai a burger was like 2.5x the cost give or take (3x is the average) In Japan, it was insane!

So it is cheaper to eat regular healthy food (veggie and rice with some meat)

Jul 18, 2011#13

Covar

Australian population distribution as of 2006

source

Jul 18, 2011#14

Frankie Williamson

Canada the inuit population, in fact, does significantly worse than even the worst place in the US in terms of life expectancy

Life ain't easy in the arctic circle.

Jul 18, 2011#15

GasBandit

Would you guys shut up? I can't hear myself eat this triple thickburger with extra bacon over all your racket. Sheesh, you guys are so loud you're giving me shooting pains up my left arm.

Jul 18, 2011#16

strawman

GasBandit said:
Would you guys shut up? I can't hear myself eat this triple thickburger with extra bacon over all your racket. Sheesh, you guys are so loud you're giving me shooting pains up my left arm.

My shooting pains radiate from my right arm and jaw. Are you sure you're conservative?

Jul 18, 2011#17

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
Would you guys shut up? I can't hear myself eat this triple thickburger with extra bacon over all your racket. Sheesh, you guys are so loud you're giving me shooting pains up my left arm.

Can I have a bite? that sounds tasty!!

Edit: On a site note, look at the general population of the U.S. on what they are doing. Most of us (us = people that I know like IT folks) generally do sit down job. VERY few of us do active activities other than "work out" (1 hour a day 5 days a week for me) but I don't go out door often or do any physical stuff. I stay home and play video games or watch TV/movies/netflix/cable etc etc.

It is NORMAL in Asian country to actually go outside and work out (limited internet and all unless it is a job) but hey. It is a culture thing.

Jul 18, 2011#18

GasBandit

stienman said:
My shooting pains radiate from my right arm and jaw. Are you sure you're conservative?

All I know is this fried cheese is delicious, no matter how black my toes turn.

Jul 18, 2011#19

Necronic

Chibibar said:
@lien: Well in China and Taiwan a burger from McD cost like 3x than in the states (I kid you not) it is actually one of the "nice" place you would take a date and it would be a compliment.

I had heard that before. Someone told me that the attitude about McDs was that it was scientifically prepared which actually made it better. Considering that this is the exact same reason none of us westerners trust it (myself included) that's pretty interesting. Cultural differences are pretty neat.

Jul 18, 2011#20

Chibibar

Necronic said:
I had heard that before. Someone told me that the attitude about McDs was that it was scientifically prepared which actually made it better. Considering that this is the exact same reason none of us westerners trust it (myself included) that's pretty interesting. Cultural differences are pretty neat.

Heck. I remember when I went to Taiwan there was a steakhouse (I forgot which one) but man, it is like "uber high class" taking your date there. You would be paying like 60$ for a steak compare to 12$ here in Texas.

Jul 18, 2011#21

Necronic

There are definitely steak houses where you can shell out 60$ for a steak here in Texas. I mean hell, some cuts of beef cost almost that much just buying them at the butchers (like proper Kobe)

Jul 18, 2011#22

AshburnerX

You need to remember that most countries don't subsidize their meat industries like we do in the US. Meat's only inexpensive here because your paying part of the cost in your taxes.

Jul 18, 2011#23

Adammon

Dubyamn said:
Bringing back physical education programs, healthier school lunches, better public transportation, subsidies for vegetable and fruit growers, grants for opening groceries in food desserts better health education.

There are countless things that the government can do and should do to cut down obesity rates. It can't eliminate it surely but to say that legislation can't do anything is just ignorant blabber.

They do all those things already and it doesn't work as the ever increasing obesity levels show. You can't legislate people thinner, period. It's ignorant blabber to think otherwise.

You can't subsidize healthy foods because no matter how cheap a celery stalk is, it still tastes like celery - and a Big Mac will always taste better than celery.

To put it another way, you could create anti-smoking programs, ban smoking in schools, ban smoking in public and subsidize anti-smoking alternatives and people will still smoke. (And you can replace smoking with drinking, marijuana, cocaine, sex, monkey and it still holds true.)

The only solution for obesity is an individual choice to:

1) Avoid bad foods.
2) Eat good foods.
3) Exercise.

And to make these choices individually throughout the entirety of a population.

Jul 18, 2011#24

strawman

We could start putting pictures of morbidly obese people on every burger wrapper. If it works for cigs, it's gotta work for burgers.

:awesome:

Jul 18, 2011#25

Terrik

Chibibar said:
@lien: Well in China and Taiwan a burger from McD cost like 3x than in the states (I kid you not) it is actually one of the "nice" place you would take a date and it would be a compliment.

I remember McD in Shanghai a burger was like 2.5x the cost give or take (3x is the average) In Japan, it was insane!

So it is cheaper to eat regular healthy food (veggie and rice with some meat)

Big mac Value meal runs about 23RMB...which is about...$3.50...which is far less than an average restaurant in Beijing or Shanghai.

Thats about the same for the states, more or less no?

Average meal for 2 runs about 170-200RMB at your average restaurant. I sure do miss Shenyang sometimes.

Also I think my girlfriend would slap me if I took her to McDonalds on a date. LoL. (She prefers KFC).

But you are right about one thing--you CAN get healthier food at a cheaper price in China/Taiwan, which is one reason that I havent had McDonalds in quite some time and one of the things I like about living in China.

Of course sometimes you get what you pay for. Which is why I no longer eat at the smaller "country" restaurants.

Jul 18, 2011#26

Covar

stienman said:
We could start putting pictures of morbidly obese people on every burger wrapper. If it works for cigs, it's gotta work for burgers.

Just like ultrasounds before getting an abortion :ninja:

Jul 18, 2011#27

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
They do all those things already and it doesn't work as the ever increasing obesity levels show. You can't legislate people thinner, period. It's ignorant blabber to think otherwise.

We do none of those things. Public transportation is a joke, our subsidies go into corn and meat and not into healthy foods and whenever states try to make the school lunches healthier they run into huge opposition.

It's not about legislating people thinner it's about giving people the tools to live healthier lives. People want to eat healthier but America has spent years stripping those tools from the American public.

You can't subsidize healthy foods because no matter how cheap a celery stalk is, it still tastes like celery - and a Big Mac will always taste better than celery.

And in the current system it's cheaper to fill yourself with a burger than with celery. Which is just adding insult to injury.

To put it another way, you could create anti-smoking programs, ban smoking in schools, ban smoking in public and subsidize anti-smoking alternatives and people will still smoke. (And you can replace smoking with drinking, marijuana, cocaine, sex, monkey and it still holds true.)

There is a reason why I said there is no way that they would eliminate obesity.

The only solution for obesity is an individual choice to:

1) Avoid bad foods.
2) Eat good foods.
3) Exercise.

And to make these choices individually throughout the entirety of a population.

And is the current situation where you can buy a Big Mac for cheaper than a pack of cucumbers making this a realistic plan for America? Vegetables are expensive, fruits are expensive beef and sugar are cheap. You switch these ratios and obesity rates will fall. Seen in Italy which is suffering under an increasing obesity rates now that the Mediterranean diet of Vegetables and beans has become more expensive than beef and sugar.

Jul 19, 2011#28

@Li3n

Adammon said:
You can't subsidize healthy foods because no matter how cheap a celery stalk is, it still tastes like celery - and a Big Mac will always taste better than celery.

I never got why people like McD so much... compared to actual solid meat it's always left me unsatisfied...

And as i remember another study you can lose weight by eating only McD, if you eat just the right amount... which is where i'm guessing the problem really is... stuffing your face to feel satisfied.

Adammon said:
To put it another way, you could create anti-smoking programs, ban smoking in schools, ban smoking in public and subsidize anti-smoking alternatives and people will still smoke. (And you can replace smoking with drinking, marijuana, cocaine, sex, monkey and it still holds true.)

Didn't someone post at one time how smoking programs are actually working (obviously not so much that smoking is going away, but enough)...
Added at: 12:06

Chibibar said:
@lien: Well in China and Taiwan a burger from McD cost like 3x than in the states (I kid you not) it is actually one of the "nice" place you would take a date and it would be a compliment.

Well i did say 1st world countries... i'm sure in some places 1$ for a burger is twice as much as the entire dinner someone will have one day...

Jul 19, 2011#29

Chibibar

mr_thehun said:
T

There is a trustworthy restaurant here in Beijing that for about 50 yuan (9$) you can get two bowls of dan dan mian, a plate of baozi, jiaozi, la rou and vegetables and it's open 24 hours a day. It's pretty often that we end up here at 2-3 in the morning and thankful that we are eating something delicious and healthy. or you could get two big mac meals for about the same price and eat something that has the nutritional value of a pack of cigarettes.

prices here are going crazy. The government keeps sticking its fingers in cracks, I'm worried about the economy changing rapidly when the dam finally bursts.

that sounds delicious!!

My dad took me to a cool place in Shanghai which is all you can eat vegetarian restaurant which cost like 5$ (U.S. give or take. I think it was like 15 yuan) it was AWESOME!
We did manage to get to McD in Shanghai and KFC in Tokyo just to see the difference. The price is major difference.

Jul 19, 2011#30

Adammon

@Li3n said:
I never got why people like McD so much... compared to actual solid meat it's always left me unsatisfied...

And as i remember another study you can lose weight by eating only McD, if you eat just the right amount... which is where i'm guessing the problem really is... stuffing your face to feel satisfied.

Didn't someone post at one time how smoking programs are actually working (obviously not so much that smoking is going away, but enough)...
Added at: 12:06

Well i did say 1st world countries... i'm sure in some places 1$ for a burger is twice as much as the entire dinner someone will have one day...

Obesity, like poverty, is one of those 'negative effect' problems. You can't legislate an end to either because the root cause is an absence of effort. You can't legislate people to DO something that requires getting off their ass without trampling on all kinds of rights and freedoms. You can ban people from doing X, but it's much harder to ban people from NOT doing X (without changing society first).

I could get fat(ter) even if I just ate healthy foods - I could eat a tonne of carrots and not exercise to burn off those calories. This is the problem with legislating behaviours; at one point you're going to trample on intrinsic rights for a person to be happy with the way they are.

Jul 19, 2011#31

sixpackshaker

Also, is our crime rate and high highway accident rate figured into the article?

Jul 19, 2011#32

strawman

Adammon said:
You can't legislate people to DO something...

Your point is well taken, but there are examples of legislation that requires people to do something - taxes, selective service registration, and likely others. They aren't great examples - despite penalties, lots of people don't file taxes, and lots of men don't register for selective service. Further, as you indicate such requirements do trample on personal liberties, so there's a very high bar that has to be reached for the courts to allow such laws to stand.

However, there are ways to do this without impinging on freedoms.

Add tax rebates for those that participate in a qualifying fitness program. Tax unhealthy foods more heavily than healthy foods (similar to sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, etc). Provide funding for community fitness centers - make it so it's free if you maintain a regular schedule and are not disruptive to the operation of the fitness center.

Reduce taxes for those food manufacturers that comply with certain nutritional requirements in their products. Similar to the EPA fuel ratings, change those standards over time on a sliding scale so while it's easy to comply now (and thus easy to get use to the tax reduction) they will have a hard time leaving the program because they'll have to pay normal taxes again. Don't force them to make every product healthy - just that 80% of their total output has to meet certain standards. If people buy more unhealthy products (thus raising the 20% higher) they will have to force the cost of the healthier alternatives down and produce more of them just so they can maintain their ratio of healthy food. Account for food spoilage so that they can't sell something truly nasty, produce lots of it, knowing that it's merely going to be thrown away. If they can't make healthy foods that are attractive to consumers, they don't get the tax cut.

All of this wouldn't require participation - but manufacturers who do get the tax cut would be at a distinct advantage over those who don't.

And the only legal objection - that it might create an unfair market - is easily overcome with the public health responsibility the government has, in the same way they have a responsibility to environmental and public health and are forcing vehicle manufacturers to comply with EPA regulations. They aren't removing foods from the market, they are simply providing incentives for manufacturers to fill a public health need.
Added at: 11:44

sixpackshaker said:
Also, is our crime rate and high highway accident rate figured into the article?

They don't appear to account for that in the study.

Jul 19, 2011#33

@Li3n

Heh, just saw this omn the local news:

The first part is 3 days later at room temp, and the second is 6 months later, still at room temp... that's impressive.

Adammon said:
I could eat a tonne of carrots and not exercise to burn off those calories.

Yeah, good luck with eating that many carrots...

Jul 19, 2011#34

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
that sounds delicious!!

You should try the Double Baconator from wendy's.

@Li3n said:
Heh, just saw this omn the local news:

The first part is 3 days later at room temp, and the second is 6 months later, still at room temp... that's impressive.

Yeah, good luck with eating that many carrots...

I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere somebody did the same experiment and it remained largely unchanged for an entire year.

Jul 19, 2011#35

Necronic

Man I like those double cheeseburgers.....I'm getting one after work.

Funny thing is: I eat fast food, I drink, I like meat. I am also in good shape because I exercise and know how to moderate unhealthy inputs.

Jul 19, 2011#36

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Man I like those double cheeseburgers.....I'm getting one after work.

Funny thing is: I eat fast food, I drink, I like meat. I am also in good shape because I exercise and know how to moderate unhealthy inputs.

Obviously you don't like fast food ENOUGH.

Jul 19, 2011#37

Chibibar

you know what is bad?
The fast food contains a lot of SALT
That is why they preserve so well.

Jul 19, 2011#38

@Li3n

GasBandit said:
Obviously you don't like fast food ENOUGH.

The Laughing God obviously protects his love handles from trans-fats...

Jul 19, 2011#39

GasBandit

@Li3n said:
The Laughing God obviously protects his love handles from trans-fats...

I SAID MOAR BUTTER SOAKED LARD!

Jul 20, 2011#40

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
I SAID MOAR BUTTER SOAKED LARD!

that is all "water weight" (well more air weight heheheheh god I love that movie)

Jul 20, 2011#41

sixpackshaker

water weight... it reminds me of Jeff Foxworthy's bit about his fat cousin.

"my mother says that she is just retaining water..."

"I say yes, and so does the Hoover Dam."

Jul 20, 2011#42

Necronic