Lurker > BoshStrikesBack

This easily.
Great game series that gets better as the trilogy continues > great game that only gets better with the second one though the third is still amazing

"Super Mario Bros. 2 > Super Mario Bros. 1"
"A game series is better if it improves with each successive game, for some arbitrary reason."

Joyrockpinions™

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Guys, guys. I love DKCR as much as the next guy, but there are two good reasons not to include it here:

1) It's not a part of the original SNES trilogy.
2) There aren't exactly a lot of four-parter platforming series to compare it with.

But it appears that this topic's title has reached a consensus. Good taste B8!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

guys please keep this dkcr talk out of my topic

this is strictly about the SNES trilogy

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Just a quick aside here:

People are terrible at evaluating benefits that happen a long time in the future, because of hyperbolic discounting, Neoclassical economics could not account for how people acted when a delayed time element was involved. So it was supplanted by behavioral economics.

You're a bit confused. It was the rationalist school that got displaced by the behavioral school. Neoclassical economics is more macro- and market-based, i.e. Keynesian economics; it doesn't really concern itself with individual behavior.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Can't think of one myself. Not to say that any one of them is the best platformer, necessarily (although DKC2 comes close for many people), but as a series, I'm not sure it can be topped.


and this topic was inspired entirely by that sweet Donkey Kong Country atlas i ran into a while back, which got me thinking

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

i want this game

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

checked his twitter and found this

he deleted the comment from his feed. bronies can be a nasty bunch

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I can't even find these comments on google

they're literally in the first post

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

make it rain foolmo

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

welcome to college

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

arkham city more like arkham ****ty am i right

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

topic creator just got warned

xmfd

That's what happens when you make risque posts, even if it's a quote. Dude should've known better.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

^Still, is it a bad thing to keep people informed by requiring restaurants to provide nutritional information on demand? I don't think so, and it can be great for those people who monitor their caloric intake carefully. I personally don't feel that constitutes an overreach of governmental authority!

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

more people need to see this comment

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

what an offensive comment

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

Long topic, not going to read it for a while.

Well, it doesn't say that advertising doesn't work, it says that there is no link between advertising and childhood obesity. In other words, perhaps the parents are doing what parents have always done, and have always been expected to do, and making these decisions themselves.

This was the one part of the article that really interested me, since the rest was basically common-sense (and not "distorted", as some of the comments would have you believe). Apparently, if the article is to be trusted, advertising for high-sugar cereals and the like isn't competing with healthy choices, but rather other high-sugar cereals. It's not Coco Puffs versus Chex, but Coco Puffs versus Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

Personally, I'm not sure how much I buy this, but that doesn't mean I want the government getting involved. At best, it'll have a marginal impact on the issue, and a major impact on freedom of expression. We're not dealing with tobacco, for example, where advertising plays a significant role. That one bowl of Frosted Flakes won't hook you for life, Congress.

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd

I actually haven't been reading the topic, I just saw Ulti post and then people argue with him, and figured it was more of them same.

Ah right. Well, I guess I can't blame you for that assumption!

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Saw this topic was still around and thought "oh there must be a pissing match going on." Looks like I was right.

We're literally having a civil discussion about nutrition. Any kind of personal attack is just the occasional spill-over from newbie and I being passionate people.

Christ, it's almost like it's impossible for people to talk about things here! No one's forcing you to read this topic, and there are plenty of non-confrontational topics around if those suit your fancy.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Episode 3 up online:



--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Pony rankings, based only on this season:

Rarity > Twilight > Fluttershy > Applejack > Pinkie Pie = Rainbow Dash

Rarity has been stealing the show for me so far.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

So far, Twilight has been confirmed as OCD, bipolar, and delusional this episode.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

so, about that "new opening"

lololol

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Man, all you kids hating on CMC. Yeah, Show Stoppers isn't great (but "dumb fabric" is classic), but those three have real chemistry. As a whole, they easily rival the lower parts of the mane cast.

And yeah, S2 is phenomenal so far! Pt.2 of the premiere is probably the funniest thing they've done.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Unfortunately, there's apparently another break between eps 4 and 5. But still! Fun times ahoy!

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

I like how you confidently assert that I'm portly and then completely not take the bet. I'm calling you an intellectual coward, who wouldn't put yourself out there for fear of looking dumb, which has nothing to do with what you look like and everything to do with what you think and type.

I'm employing a tit-for-tat strategy when it comes to the insults, newbie. Don't call me "stupid" (which you have no evidence for), and I won't call you "a fat asian man" (which I have no evidence for). All you could potentially argue based on the words I'm typing is that a) you disagree with my position, or b) you disagree with the form of my arguments. "Stupidity" doesn't enter the equation, and this discussion will go more smoothly if you'll lay off the insults.

On b) is there any reason to believe that the caloric burning wouldn't be balanced out by a slower metabolism elsewhere in the day?

It very well might be. Again, ceteris paribus, exercise would help the average American diet far more than no exercise.

As a quick aside, there very possibly could be an "optimal diet"- which I mentioned earlier- that casts aside entirely the folk wisdom I'm employing here. But I'm not concerned with the "optimal diet" (although I would encourage you to explain what, exactly, that would look like).

How does A) help, especially in light of the negative effects of "keeping your body active"...?

Too many studies to count have shown that a sedative lifestyle leads to greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and the like. Being moderately active is a good way to keep your body working properly in general. No universal axioms here; just good, clean, common sense that can help the struggling average man reach a healthier position.

1 is a tautology, how the hell does it actually serve as advice?

I'm not sure you know what a "tautology" is, then. "Taking in fewer calories than you consume" isn't some self-defining repetition; it's a simple recommendation that you... uh... take in fewer calories than you burn.

Where do you go to find out how many calories you burn?

Google. Seriously though, it's not difficult to find out a) how many calories are burned in a typical, non-intensive day, b) how many calories you burn during exercise, and c) how many calories are in the food you eat. Just chalk up a quick balance sheet.

It doesn't even mandate that you need to exercise or eat less (which seems to be your position)!

...which is why it's only one of the three points I made, yeah?

Why not do things which speed up your metabolism without exercise or eat less without making a conscious choice?

This is potentially good advice as well.

I'm not saying that's untrue, but how is that useful advice at all?

Because it gives us a starting point: when planning out your diet, make sure that your planned routine will burn off enough calories compared to what foods you plan to eat, and if things don't balance out (or, if you're trying to lose weight, tip towards the lower end), then make an adjustment on one side of the scale or the other.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

2) is half false and contradictory with what you've said in this topic. You claimed that more servings of fruits would improve your health, when a good portion of fruits have sugars rivaling sodas.

Healthy sugars vs. unhealthy sugars (but you know this already). I'm simply saying that, in making dietary choices, consistently making such choices as eating an apple (which has natural sugars) over apple pie (which has artificial sugars) will greatly enhance one's health. If you'd like to argue that, feel free.

And are you claiming that high fat diets cannot cause you to lose weight? I'll throw that on top of the study pile and would like a confidence interval there too.

They probably could, but would require a) an unusually high metabolism, and b) a good deal more exercise.

3) includes such a wide range of actions that it's nearly impossible to falsify too. Are you talking about walking more? Yoga? Kettleballs? Pushups? Free weights? What? Once again, I'm not going to disagree that this is technically true, but with no specific points on what types of exercises are needed, it just doesn't mean anything to anyone. Also I highly disagree with "a day" and I think results can be achieved off of less frequent intervals. Three times a week or less even.

Anything works, really. Again, I'm sure this will frustrate you, but I'm not making claims about the best possible diet. These are just small, simple steps that would make a huge impact in the overall health of our society. Just an hour a day is a good first start; certain people will learn they can do less, while others may have to do more. Either way, it can only help in the vast, vast majority of cases.

Except you can't tell me what the extremes are beforehand, which is the mark of a bad model.

I'm going to go ahead and define "extreme" on that end as "a Gold Medal athlete who burns literally tens of thousands of calories a day." Once the average American starts rivaling Michael Phelps in terms of exercise, then we can begin to rethink things.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

...A diet that doesn't work, for any reason is a diet you should shut up about unless you figure out an actionable solution for it. Sure there's a difference, but when you care about losing weight it's not a goddamn meaningful difference.

I'm sorry, who is this "you" we're talking about? You seem insistent on referring to specific people or groups, but I'm merely referring to the simplicity of the steps of the diet. "Making healthy choices and exercising" is a) very simple to understand, b) cost-efficient, and c) does not require a heavy investment in time or research, unlike most other elaborate dieting plans.

To say that a diet "doesn't work" because people don't follow the diet is highly misleading. If you want to argue that "making healthy choices and exercising" is some hugely difficult thing to adhere to, that's an entirely different discussion (although you'll have a hard time convincing people that "choosing an apple over an apple pie" is some stupendous sign of strength).

A starvation diet, or a diet of sawdust are both VERY EFFECTIVE means of losing weight, even better than 15% caloric restriction diets, why don't I hear about them then?

Actually, no, these are not healthy alternatives to lose weight. But you know this already.

Before i do it, I want to confirm that 1) You mean to say any low fat and high carb diet is "healthy" and that 2) ANY type of exercise does not lead to weight loss and 3) This all applies in the long term, as in 1+ years, correct?

1) No, what I mean to say is the following: take the typical American diet, remove the majority of high-fat/high-sugar options and replace it with healthier (yet still convenient) options, and I guarantee that obesity will drop dramatically. "High carb and low fat" isn't what I'm getting at; rather, it's approaching the right amount of carbs and the right amount of fats (and, needless to say, a healthier diet typically includes more complex carbs and fewer saturated fats).

2) Did you mean to say that "ANY type of exercise leads to weight loss"? If so, then I can't agree with this either. Exercise does burn off calories, however, and is safer (and easier!) than merely starving your body. Speaking generally, an hour or so of exercise a day helps keep the body active, healthy, and contributes to maintaining a good weight.

3) Of course.

I will also say that I will not offer studies with under 50~ people, but I will include rodent studies as weak examples of evidence. Is that good enough?

Sounds fine to me.

Also, I want you to state how confident you are that 1) You are completely right, 2) You are right in part and 3) That I'll post studies 4) That those studies will validate your point.

My position is extremely conservative and simple to understand, so yes, I'm confident I'm correct. And again, I'm always up for being proven wrong, so if you've got in your possession some miracle studies that prove "eat healthy and exercise" is some grand lie, then by all means, show me the way. But please, don't misrepresent my position or twist my words!

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

And yeah, Phelps is pretty much the textbook case of why the calorie model is way too oversimplified: It breaks down and cries when confronted with numbers like 12k calories. How are you supposed to explain that by only looking at a table?

It "breaks down" only at the extremes. Same with the BMI chart: though top-tier athletes may get false readings as "overweight," it's accurate for the vast majority of people.

You'd benefit if you'd stop making everything a universal. What's true of Michael Phelps isn't true for you, newbie boy. Sorry to say it.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

No. YOUR bottom line here is that you don't actually care about what makes people healthy. You care about moralizing, about lecturing to the world how corrupt and defiled it is, about giving up on everyone else because you refuse to see you might, even in theory be wrong.

I'm sorry, when did I talk about "moralizing"? Just as a matter of fact, proper dieting involves simple steps:

1) Don't take in more calories than you burn off.
2) Make healthy dietary choices, minimizing sugar and fat intake.
3) Try and keep your body active by exercising a little a day.

I can guarantee that if every American did this, the obesity rate would be a good deal under 5%.

It's not a matter of willpower whether YOU choose between dietary dogma and nutritional research; it's a matter of pride and signaling.

Nah, I don't claim to be an expert. What we're discussing, however, is more an issue of common sense than of nutritional erudition, so all the studies and alternatives you're trying to throw out are besides the point.

And while you may enjoy the junk information spewing uninhibited from mouths of housewives into your ears,

"Eat healthy and exercise" is apparently housewife junk now, eh? You're a funny dude.

please acknowledge that some of us pride ourselves on an all natural, high signal to noise, diet of research and fact.

burn

...sorry, what was this tirade supposed to accomplish, again? For someone who likes to graze on a "diet of research and fact," you sure do insult people and go off topic a lot.

Are you seriously talking about dietary issues when you don't even know that "obese" and "overweight" refers to different categories of fat people?

Again, reading comprehension seems to be a weakness of yours, so let me help you out. You said:

do you seriously believe that it's more likely that 20%~ of total Americans (that's the % obese) have "something wrong with them"...?

To which I responded: yes, but I'd go further than this, including those who are overweight into the something-wrong-with-them group. You'll probably call me out for "moralizing" or whatnot, so let me preempt you here by reminding you that losing weight is an incredibly simple-to-understand affair for the vast majority of people (those without legitimate physiological impediments).

Make sure you eat less calories than you burn off. Don't eat fast food all the time. Exercise once in a while. This stuff isn't complicated, and the (very real, I admit) fact that people struggle so seriously with this stuff tells me that either our society is full of shameless hedonists, or we're so collectively weak-willed that the choice between an apple and an apple pie really has become somehow a difficult one.

And you still haven't googled here!

Do you want me to Google your diet? Even though it's unrelated? Say please first!

...Yeah you're stupid.

An appropriate bookend to your diatribe.

I hesitate to ask this, given how predictable you are, but what kind of credentials do you have that make you an expert on nutrition? And what about you entitles you to your hilariously entertaining arrogance?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

...What? Even if you're using some different definition of "quality" taking only the health effects into account, it's simply stupid and foolish

Good job maintaining that respectful discourse, newbie.

to not include adherence into how often the diet would work. It'd be like talking about the lottery without considering the chances of actually winning. It's plain and simple fact that a diet which doesn't work... doesn't work, and it should be entirely immaterial whether it fails because of adherence, unhealthiness or divine intervention.

Nope. The distinction between effectiveness in diet and adherence to diet is a clear one. Saying a diet doesn't work if you don't follow it is much different than saying a diet doesn't work even if you follow it.

...Yes! It doesn't necessarily lead to weightloss! Do you have any evidence otherwise? I've told you that your diet simply doesn't *work* in the long term! Do you need me to start linking you to studies before you believe?

Yes, please. Link me to studies that suggest that eating healthy and exercising does not lead to weight loss for any significant percentage of people.

Again, I'm not making universal claims here. Certain people have genuine health conditions that prevent traditional diets from working properly. They constitute the smallest of minorities, however.

Whenever the Gym is closed obv.

You've missed my point. An hour a day is an incredibly modest investment, especially considering the average amount of time Americans spend, say, watching television.

Also the bet is equally open to you as to ulti. Willing to take it coward?

What, you mean the bet about betting your BMI? I really don't care. From what I've gleaned from this topic, you're a short asian man who's likely rather portly and almost certainly socially awkward. A lack of financial success seems likely as well. But feel free to keep calling people "cowards" on the internet. That's the beauty of anonymity, after all!

The rationalization of a fat man: playing video games is just as good for my health as running on the treadmill.

The bleating of a dumb sheep: what my mom told me is true.

Congratulations on responding to an actual point with an ad hominem. Your original point- that running on the treadmill and playing video games are the same in terms of health benefits- is just the most hilariously stupid thing I've ever read from you. Calling me a "dumb sheep" shouldn't satisfy you as a rejoinder.

Again, do you have any actual evidence that running on a treadmill is an effective long term intervention, especially at the rate of once per day? I'm not confident enough to claim this, unequivocally (because I admit my ignorance on this field) but doesn't cardio also damage your muscles similarly to lifting free weights when you do it?

The most obvious benefits to running on the treadmill are a) it keeps your body active, and b) it burns calories, which is the most immediate way to lose weight. Is it the optimal way to exercise? Maybe, maybe not. Is it a lot better than sitting on your behind playing video games? No ****.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

...Except that this is the precise diet with low adherence

"Low adherence" has nothing to do with the quality of the diet.

and much less effective weight loss.

Haha, what's that now? Eating right and exercising isn't "effective" at weight loss?

Even if we do take you at your word that it's a healthy diet, did you have any evidence of 1) adherence 2) weight loss for the majority, or large minority of people going on that type of diet without also restricting calories?

Tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're joking.

An hour per day? That sounds like a ridiculous time commitment. I could probably learn a foreign language off of that amount of extra time in the day!

How many hours a day do you spend trolling GameFAQs?

Not all exercises are the same. My understanding is very spotty on it, so if LW calls me out on something I'm wrong and he's correct, but my belief is that anything on a treadmill is so grossly inefficient that you might as well spend that time playing video games and getting a nicotine patch. Whereas you can get more weightloss in a third of the time with LW's aforementioned HIIT

The rationalization of a fat man: playing video games is just as good for my health as running on the treadmill.

...Did you not pay attention or what? It's not "energy" so much as "willpower exerted". Since it's been experimentally verified that willpower is used up for certain tasks and that one of the tasks where willpower is used on is making dietary choices.

You have this incredible ability to use so many words when saying nothing at all. There's a distinction between "What kind of diet works?" and "What kind of diet are people more likely to adhere to?" I'm not bothering with the second one.

My bottom line here: what it takes to be healthy is a very simple thing to understand. The reason diets fail is because the great majority of people are weak-willed, and a choice as simple as apple vs. apple pie requires commitment and practice. Not really my concern.

Also, do you seriously believe that it's more likely that 20%~ of total Americans (that's the % obese) have "something wrong with them" than you just being bad at predicting how normal people behave, considering you haven't tried looking?

Oh dear, just 20%? I'd put it at a much higher number than that, factoring in all those who are overweight.

Many people are impressed by your sharp and detailed prose,

Thanks!

Once again do you admit the world's normality and your insanity is likelier than the world's insanity and your normality?

...No?

This is a diet for weight loss and not muscle gain. You'd think that after the second minute you'd actually try and google it instead of assuming it's for body builders.

Reading comprehension, brah. No one's talking about the diet you mentioned earlier.

(ps terrible writing is the #1 reason not to get into a technical field)

Are you talking to yourself here, or what?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

I like anime too but if cable TV is your argument then you really don't have one

Maybe I'm misreading you here, but I'm saying that there are tons of great non-anime shows on cable. I personally hate anime (except for Death Note, which is good, and Gurren Lagann, which is so-bad-it's-good).

Would Subway/Quiznos be considered eating healthy? Assuming you choose whole wheat bread, and dont add extra bacon/cheese to everything. Say a typical BMT with lots of veggies?

I doubt Subway alone would be able to get you all the nutrients you need, but it's certainly a healthy choice for a snack, lunch, or dinner. Just make sure to complement it with other healthy options.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Because you're confused by the sentence eat healthy and exercise. Just because it's a simple sentence to verbalize doesn't mean that the performing the actions are equally simple.

Completely true; it's possible that the sentiment "eat healthy and exercise" is very complicated, and it's also possible that it's very simple. Let's explore, shall we?

For example, what is meant by "eating healthy"...? Low Fat? Low Carb? Gluten and casein free? Are Red Meats acceptable? What types of vegetable oils are harmful? Are supplements needed? What's a good way to keep track of my progress?

On exercise: What type of exercise is acceptable? Do different types of exercises have different rates at which they assist in weight gain? Does this type of exercise require a different diet in order to help speed recovery time? Should I be worried about pulling muscles?

Speaking generally, we all know what constitutes a healthy diet: about five servings of fruits and vegetables daily, lean meats, low quantities of fats and sugars, and a total caloric intake no greater than 2000-2500. When it comes to exercise, most people can maintain a healthy weight with an hour or so a day, focusing on low-risk exercise that won't likely pull any muscles; for those who want to lose weight, an hour might be on the low side.

Now, I will grant that there is a difference between a healthy diet and an optimal diet, the latter presumably requiring a lot of work and nutritive understanding. But just keeping the weight off, looking good, and feeling good? Simple.

And for both of them: How the heck do I plan to stick to an exercise/diet plan? is there any way for me to do both by default instead of using cognitive energy each time? How am I going to balance the costs of each against my limited time and money?

"Using cognitive energy" each time? If a person considers the choice between an apple and an apple pie to be one that requires too much energy for them to bother, then something's wrong with that person. As for the choice between health and convenience? This might have been a legitimate complaint a couple decades ago, but now most fast food joints serve healthier options. Plus, there's always a Subway close by.

Of course, and then the masses assume that merely because it's easy to chant a four word slogan like they're supporting a political party that the mechanisms involved to succeed are similarly simple. Except that when their model clearly deviates from reality they postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence instead of thinking that just maybe, since they've never studied or read or researched anything about how and why such failures happen, they might be wrong.

They "postulate a mass neurosis and pathological indolence"? I'm glad you're a science type, because you would make an awful writer. Few people are impressed by overwriting.

Also, what I find hilarious is that Jaffar commits the error twice by referring to the Shangri-la diet as complex, then, because he sees a dark, murky, shapeless void where the definition of the diet should be, assumes that the diet is similarly confounding in its complexity.

I actually know nothing about that particular diet, nor did I pretend to. It's besides my point, which, as a reminder, is that maintaining a reasonably healthy weight involves the simple and winning combination of healthy diet and exercise. Now, if you want to be a body builder? Different story.

It's hard not to like anime when the only decent things on TV were anime, the Simpsons and live action kungfu/sitcom/historic drama.

Completely unrelated, but get cable. You're missing out on too many amazing programs!

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Personally, I still don't understand what's so difficult about "eat healthy and exercise." All of these complicated dieting plans seem so unnecessary.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Meis have you entertained the possiblity that 'willpower' is simply too abstract a concept for a shaky science like psychology to accurately measure? I mean, you're undermining the power of willpower to the point where you make it sound like nobody has ever succeeded in losing weight by way of diet and exercise so it's not even worth it to try, when this clearly isn't true. You see healthy people every day (if you go outside...)

"Willpower," as the name suggests, implies free will, and science types like newbie reject this concept altogether (as do I, for the record). It's simply a combination of nature and nurture, and nothing can change that. Some people can, in the blink of an eye, radically alter their eating habits. Some people, like newbie, are destined to remain fat the rest of their lives.

Sad, but the universe is indifferent, right newbie?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

The protesters were instructed that they couldn't use the second piece of land, as it's a public park that closes at 11:30. They strategically positioned people to this spot, most importantly putting those "Veterans For Peace" guys there. They also taunted and goaded police, and there is one reported incident of an unprovoked assault on a cop.

Link? This is shocking if true.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Of course, but telling all the people who simply lack self-control that it's not their fault, they have a disease, is kind of counter-productive, don't you think?

Probably, though I could say this about a lot of things (making attention-troubled kids dependent upon medication, etc.).

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

What? As if obesity is some sort of disease?

I do know that studies show how crazy addictive high-fat foods are. Calling obesity a disease isn't too much of a stretch.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

MF GARY OAK

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

..

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

...

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

I see. But still: given how chock-full of sugars and calories regular soda is, how many diet drinks would you need to consume before they evened out? Three? Five? Twenty?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

lalala

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

..

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Well, your first problem is going strictly by calories. Calories aren't the only thing to account for at all.

Then what should we account for? Fat? Salt? Aspartame, for whatever reason? (I'm pleading ignorance here; someone fill me in!)

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Feel free to enlighten me about other models of weight gain, newbie.

Pretty sure fool doesn't care about diet soda, just the stupid ignorant people who drink it to excess because it's "not so loaded up with sugar" as if diet soda is suddenly healthy.

The only reason it'd be "unhealthy" is that it displaces more nutritionally beneficial drinks from one's diet, like sodas and juices.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

Obviously drinking anything of the such in excess is going to make you gain more weight than if you didn't.

I'm sorry, but going strictly by calories, five servings of zero is still zero. That newbie guy's asking a good question: what specifically is responsible for the posited weight gain of diet soda?

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

..

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

I assume we're talking OWS protesters, right? Finally, the city's taking some action!

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)

...What kind of cancer, in what forms and which artificial sweeteners?

Obviously I was being facetious. Surely you've heard of the "aspartame is linked with cancer" myth, right? It's all over the damn place.

And reasonable sources? Name three.

Couldn't give you specifics, but I've seen it mentioned in passing on credible sites and in credible periodicals. The cancer link? Not so much.

--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)