Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    ^ even if it was photoshopped it still gave you motivation, good for you, how long did the results take ?
    I'd say 2 years to go from normal to 'wow' but before I was well below normal. I couldn't even do a single pull-up so I had to start off doing negatives.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    I'd say 2 years to go from normal to 'wow' but before I was well below normal. I couldn't even do a single pull-up so I had to start off doing negatives.
    Great

    btw wasn't saying it was photoshopped ( I know of people who model irl ) but js that because it's what people normally use as an excuse to justify putting down/jealous of someones looks, ( instead of turning around and using motivation from these models, like yourself) regardless or whether it is or not (photoshoped). But thanks man, gave me some motivation too. Keep it up dude
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elmosandy)
    Great

    btw wasn't saying it was photoshopped ( I know of people who model irl ) but js that because it's what people normally use as an excuse to justify putting down/jealous of someones looks, ( instead of turning around and using motivation from these models, like yourself) regardless or whether it is or not (photoshoped). But thanks man, gave me some motivation too. Keep it up dude
    I don't mind if it was photoshopped, it worked.


    What I hate is modern attitudes people display, complaining that it's unrealistic or that they can be healthy at every size. We have a generation of kidults who instead of climbing to the top of a mountain would prefer to claim the mountain is under their feet the whole time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    That's just rubbish. Parents are not with their children at all times - what about at school for example? Sugar is a powerful addiction for many kids.

    You sound like one of those people who would be OK with drug dealers pushing smack to kids, on the basis that their parents should know better.
    How much freaking cash do you think British children are carrying?

    And honestly, let's not pretend candy bars are anything like doing heroin.

    It's the parents responsibility to feed their children and make sure they receive a proper diet. The government shouldn't be adding to the long list of things it bans in its moral crusade to control every aspect of people's lives.

    Businesses should have every right to advertise sugary junk just as you should have every right to consume said sugary junk if you so choose. And if your kids start getting fat because they just gotta get dat Hershey's high, put them on a diet and stop giving them so much money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    Lol, it kind of can. I used to be fat now I have a six pack and you know why, because I saw a picture of a shredded guy with a hot girl in the front of a magasine and said to myself these are the sorts of women I should be banging.


    Food can never match the taste of pussy
    Not sure what that has to do with the laxative effect of artificial sweeteners?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    Not sure what that has to do with the laxative effect of artificial sweeteners?
    You can choose not to eat processed foods and it eliminates the issue entirely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    You can choose not to eat processed foods and it eliminates the issue entirely.
    I can choose to buy sugary drinks rather than those containing artificial sweeteners and eliminate the issue and I reckon I still could if we banned advertising but after a sugar tax, not so sure and why should I pay for the fatties lack of control?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    I can choose to buy sugary drinks rather than those containing artificial sweeteners and eliminate the issue and I reckon I still could if we banned advertising but after a sugar tax, not so sure and why should I pay for the fatties lack of control?
    There shouldn't be a sugar tax either, because the governments needs to piss off, but if you're buying sugary drinks, you're one of the fatties, even if you're not fat so don't pretend you care about your health, because if you did, you wouldn't be buying that crap to begin with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    How much freaking cash do you think British children are carrying?

    And honestly, let's not pretend candy bars are anything like doing heroin.

    It's the parents responsibility to feed their children and make sure they receive a proper diet. The government shouldn't be adding to the long list of things it bans in its moral crusade to control every aspect of people's lives.

    Businesses should have every right to advertise sugary junk just as you should have every right to consume said sugary junk if you so choose. And if your kids start getting fat because they just gotta get dat Hershey's high, put them on a diet and stop giving them so much money.
    Of course parents should know about this and control their children's habits, but in the real world, millions of parents are harassed, ill informed and short on time and attention - not to mention that a great many were themselves brought up on sugar drinks and remain essentially unaware of the negatives.

    If a fraction of the huge sums spent on promoting junk food to the unwary were instead spent on informing them and educating about proper diets, this problem would go away. The truth is, this aspect of the liberal capitalist system is about the absolute right of the manufacturers of harmful foods to destroy lives at massive cost to everyone else (not least the NHS and the taxpayer) to make huge profits. The excuse that their customers are naive or easily duped is the refuge of the conman.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    There shouldn't be a sugar tax either, because the governments needs to piss off, but if you're buying sugary drinks, you're one of the fatties, even if you're not fat so don't pretend you care about your health, because if you did, you wouldn't be buying that crap to begin with.
    There's nothing unhealthy about an occasional sugary drink and our health isn't purely physical, we need pleasure and variety.

    Someone has to pay for the fatties, not sure why advertising shouldn't shoulder some of the blame, they're partly responsible for how much we consume or else we wouldn't have ads.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dingleberry jam)
    There's nothing unhealthy about an occasional sugary drink and our health isn't purely physical, we need pleasure and variety.

    Someone has to pay for the fatties, not sure why advertising shouldn't shoulder some of the blame, they're partly responsible for how much we consume or else we wouldn't have ads.
    It's unhealthy and just because you have a normal body weight does not mean you are healthy.


    If you're so concerned about how much money other people are wasting, how much income tax have you paid over the course of your life?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think both should have been done. We need to bring advertisements down to a bare minimum.*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Of course parents should know about this and control their children's habits, but in the real world, millions of parents are harassed, ill informed and short on time and attention - not to mention that a great many were themselves brought up on sugar drinks and remain essentially unaware of the negatives.

    If a fraction of the huge sums spent on promoting junk food to the unwary were instead spent on informing them and educating about proper diets, this problem would go away. The truth is, this aspect of the liberal capitalist system is about the absolute right of the manufacturers of harmful foods to destroy lives at massive cost to everyone else (not least the NHS and the taxpayer) to make huge profits. The excuse that their customers are naive or easily duped is the refuge of the conman.
    In other words: "People are just too busy and stupid to look after their children's health properly, so make the government ban businesses from advertising their products!"

    Children are taught about healthy eating in school and most people are already aware that long term, regular consumption of hamburgers and sugary snacks is unhealthy. But if you feel this education is still insufficient, you are 100% free to give your money to organisations which help promote healthier eating or lobby the government to better-allocate its resources in education.

    In fact, I consider the costs of unhealthy eating burdening the tax payer a better argument to further privatise the healthcare system and lower taxes. This way we don't have to pay for quite so many people's poor lifestyle choices and don't have to create an even more business-unfriendly environment with yet more government controls and regulations.

    Don't start blaming capitalism for the vices of individuals. If you see an ad for an unhealthy snack and you choose to go out and buy it, that's on you. No-one forced your hand. You knew what you were doing.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Good. I don't want the government deciding what media I can and cannot be trusted to be exposed to.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZeroFree)
    Why not both?
    Having both is simply impossible. There will be a point where one will feel the other is wrong. There is a serious moral dilemma there.

    (Original post by ZeroFree)
    Banning adverts helps to prevent people from being persuaded to buy junk food.
    Evidence?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Good, it was a stupid idea in the first place....

    It's all down to moderation, one can of Coca Cola is not going to ruin your health but if you're drinking 3 every day then there definitely is a problem. The adverts are telling you to buy the product, they are not forcing you to consume loads of it, that's the fault of the consumer. Besides, what is counted as unhealthy anyway, is it high sugar content or high fat content etc. A lot of products would not be able to advertise (sweets, fizzy drinks, takeaways, crisps) and they'll probably ban adverts like crazy and before you know it, no food will be allowed to be advertised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    It's unhealthy
    How?

    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    and just because you have a normal body weight does not mean you are healthy.
    Course not, you seem to spend an unhealthy amount of time on here for instance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Good. I don't want the government deciding what media I can and cannot be trusted to be exposed to.
    Tobacco ads? Prescription-only medicine ads? Crack ads? Bring back Press TV? ISIS propaganda? Free Anjem Choudary?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Having both is simply impossible. There will be a point where one will feel the other is wrong. There is a serious moral dilemma there.

    Evidence?
    Not really, at least not for something like this. While parents hold a lot of the responsibility for bringing up their children I don't see why the Government cannot impose measures that will help guide them in a better direction.

    Evidence? From personal experience I've found that the less people are exposed to something the less they'll want it. I'll also side with the BMA's recommendations about regulating junk food marketing and promotions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People should take responsibility for themselves.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.