It's a cliche that illegal immigrants are fleeing starvation. Yet, Mexico has more overweight residents than even notoriously fat America. From The Economist in 2010:
SEVENTY metres (230 feet) long and slathered with cream and cheese, the world’s biggest enchilada was cooked up in a suburb of Mexico City on October 17th. The 1.4-tonne lunch was certified by Guinness World Records,* then devoured.
If Mexico is not careful, Guinness may soon award it another title. In the obesity stakes, the United States takes the cake. But Mexico comes a close second, and has a higher proportion of merely “overweight” citizens than do the gringos. Seven out of ten Mexican adults are overweight, and three out of ten are obese, according to a recent study by the OECD. In Chile and Brazil, the two other Latin American countries in the 40-country survey, just 22% and 14% fell into the chubbiest category.
Moreover, the problem is expanding. In 2000 some 20% of Mexican primary-school girls were overweight; by 2006 27% were. Diabetes is the top cause of hospital admission after childbirth, and the second-biggest cause of death.
* By the way, former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda complained about Mexico's obsession with getting in the Guinness Book of World Records. From my review of Castaneda's book Manana Forever?
Castañeda points out that Mexico’s main distinction in international competition appears to be concocting, with government support, pointless new feats for the Guinness Book of World Records, such as Most People Dancing to Michael Jackson’s Thriller. He quotes another Mexican political scientist, Carlos Elizondo: “Why such an obsession with this? For the same reasons we dislike competition. These records are based on noncompetition. … Nobody else in the world cares.”
For Mexican women, its probably more like 90%
ReplyDeleteIs there a BMI index for different races? Of course not, races do not exist.
ReplyDeleteThe Masai of Kenya and the Nubians of the Horn of Africa are just more calorie conscious.
Gilbert P
Steve, do you remember the daily comic strip Gordo by Gus Arriola?
ReplyDeleteIt was only Americans' intense racist hatred of Mexicans which kept that syndicated strip from appearing in more than 270 US newspapers simultaneously.
Lord save us from Marco Rubio.
ReplyDeleteOn Fox News the other night, during the "Fox All Stars" segment, they discussed Obama's imposition of the DREAM Act. The neocons' problem with it? Obama stole the idea before Rubio could finish crafting his own DREAM Act bill and get it through the senate. Not fair!
America's obesity stats haven't been juiced by Mexican immigration have they?
ReplyDeleteRubio has a left wing racial spoils prism perspective on every issue. This is the new conservatism in the USA. He will run for POTUS in 2024 with the Mexican son of Jeb Bush as VP and the platform will be thinly veiled: Latinos Uber Alles! Go back to Europe evil boring Anglos! This country is a spicy tangy hot salsa nation now! Much much much better than your white trash nation - which never did anything anyway. We are so vibrant! So full of life!
obsession with getting in the Guinness Book
ReplyDeleteI remembered seeing this years ago but didn't make the connection at the time:
World's Largest Sandwich
Talk about a worthless record; it doesn't even work as performance art
(1) Should America really be proud that it has the fattest people in the world, with Mexico coming in second? USA! USA! USA!
ReplyDelete(2) Is it really smart to attack Rubio for (falsely) implying that Mexicans are starving, and that's why their immigration should be supported? Obviously, Mexicans aren't starving, and Rubio is just talking nonsense, like ignorant politicians always do. But anyway the net Mexican immigration to America is around zero or even negative---so they're not immigrating either. And since the Mexican fertility fell to just replacement a few years back, they won't immigrant in the future either.
But take Sub-Saharan Africa. It's population is still growing at an enormous rate, and will account for almost all net global population growth over the next fifty years. I think even just Nigeria alone will be up to 600M or so. And lots of the Africans *are* starving, and given those growth rates, will be starving much more in the future.
So presumably these last two posts by Steve means that he would be happy if Rubio (or maybe Allen West) proposed bringing in 100M starving Nigerians or Congolese in the next couple of decades....
BTW the Mexican blonde Oprah lady you've seen countless times just cut an ad endorsing Obama, so we really can't neglect the all-important Sally Jesse gap
ReplyDeletere: Mexican Sally Jesse
ReplyDeleteIt's better than that--she's actually a Cuban native and ensconced in Miami society. It was a nice cost-effective swipe at Rubio, whose veep stock fell through the floor shortly thereafter (oh yeah, the whole Rose Garden heckler bit too). The national GOP remain laughably amateurish at the ethnic-totem-of-the-week game. Just waiting for some goon like Rove/Wehner/Mike Murphy to pronounce that this helps lasso some "Asians"
"SEVENTY metres (230 feet) long and slathered with cream and cheese, the world’s biggest enchilada was cooked up in a suburb of Mexico City on October 17th."
ReplyDeleteWho says Mexicans aren't creative?
"Contra Marco Rubio, 70% of Mexicans are overweight."
ReplyDeleteSo what? There are 80 million Mexicans. Total caloric output of a country is not distributed symetrically but asymetrically. This means there are still 24 million Mexicans who are not overweight, and of those at least a couple million get less than enough calories a day to survive. For these Mexicans, immigrating to the U.S.A is their only way to avoid death by inanation.
You keep bringing up these stupid arguments to justify stopping immigration based on poor logical ability to interpret data. Good for you(pun inteded) that I am here to interpret the data for you.
Obama has been very good for hispanics. He appointed the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and now the Dream Act.
ReplyDeleteWill Romney counter with choosing Rubio as his running mate? Will Rubio then promise more than Obama, like total amnesty a la Reagan? Will that make the anglo Tea Party blow it's collective fuse?
So what? There are 80 million Mexicans. Total caloric output of a country is not distributed symetrically but asymetrically. This means there are still 24 million Mexicans who are not overweight, and of those at least a couple million get less than enough calories a day to survive. For these Mexicans, immigrating to the U.S.A is their only way to avoid death by inanation.
ReplyDeleteThat makes zero sense. Yes, somewhere in Mexico there must be somebody suffering from malnutrition. But it's equally true that somewhere in 300 millions strong America there must be someone suffering from malnutrition. Presumably "immigrating" to Mexico is their only way to survive!
You keep bringing up these stupid arguments
You keep making the same vapid arguments and pretending not to notice when the stupidity of what you say is pointed out to you.
Obama has been very good for hispanics. He appointed the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and now the Dream Act.
ReplyDeleteDamn, you're stupid. Neither of these things are "very good for Hispanics".
Is it really smart to attack Rubio for (falsely) implying that Mexicans are starving, and that's why their immigration should be supported?
ReplyDeleteYes, it is.
the net Mexican immigration to America is around zero or even negative
By talking a small select snippet of a graph, you can always "prove" any contention. Viewed from a slightly more sensible timescale, Mexican immigration to the US is massive and ongoing.
And since the Mexican fertility fell to just replacement a few years back, they won't immigrant in the future either.
That makes no sense. Mexican immigration to the US is driven by the fact that most Mexicans can get a very sizable jump in standard of living (in areas other than food) simply by crossing the border, legally or illegally. It has nothing to do with Mexican fertility rates.
@anonymous 9:01 PM
ReplyDelete"That makes zero sense. Yes, somewhere in Mexico there must be somebody suffering from malnutrition. But it's equally true that somewhere in 300 millions strong America there must be someone suffering from malnutrition. Presumably "immigrating" to Mexico is their only way to survive!"
That makes perfect sense if the person reading it is not stupid.
Let me make it more clear for you: just because 70% of people from Mexico are overweight, it does not mean that those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are getting enough calories. Those 30% might be getting less calories than what is necessary to maintain metabolic function.
You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival.
You guys are so stupid.
ReplyDeleteSo because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that means those other 30% are getting enough food?
Great logic at interpreting facts, geniuses!
De gustebus non est disputandum.
ReplyDeleteLest we forget that Mexicans were very skilled farmers and horticulturalists before European invasion/conquest. Unlike other third world peoples, it is likely mexicans never straved or went short of food in their history, so we have a population used to abundant food.
ReplyDeleteMr Sailer,
ReplyDeleteWhom should I believe? You, or a possible future Vice President of the United States of America?
On second thought...
On third thought, I would pay to see Biden v Rubio on 'Jeopardy'. Not a lot, but something anyway.
Curiously the article seems to think people get fat by eating fat. They don't. They get fat from sugar and carbohydrates. The cure would be to put down the tortilla and pick up chorizo.
ReplyDeleteRubio comes across as being pretty dumb. We seem to have a lot of politicians that are out of touch with reality and are embarrassingly dumb.
ReplyDelete"That makes perfect sense if the person reading it is not stupid.
ReplyDeleteLet me make it more clear for you: just because 70% of people from Mexico are overweight, it does not mean that those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are getting enough calories. Those 30% might be getting less calories than what is necessary to maintain metabolic function.
You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival."
- For someone who likes to issue blanket statements about the stupidity of people reading a website based upon a lone point, you'd think you'd bother to think through what you were writing a bit more, what with the "glass houses" principle in effect.
No one is claiming all 30% of those are getting enough to eat. But you are making an error in suggesting that it is likely that many of those in the 30% non-overweight category are deprived of food. Sure, there probably are SOME who are malnourished, but what % are these? 10%? 5%? We don't know, and frankly neither do you.
What we do know is that the percentage of overweight and obese is quite high, and the GDP of Mexico is pretty good when compared to the world, so it suggests that the most people have no problems meeting (and exceeding) their nutritional requirements. In other words, food is readily available to the masses so even those on the lower end of the earnings can get it if they want.
People have differential rates of metabolism due to innate physiological differences and due to differences in exercise regimen. Some people can eat like a horse and still stay slim, while others can eat like a normal person and become obese. Neither group is deprived of food. In other cases you have people who selectively choose to eat less, often for physical appearance, sometimes for sports requirements. These people are not deprived of food, but are often also slim. Others choose to forego food to pinch a penny for other uses- college students and drug users commonly fit in this category. Food is readily available to these slim people as well, but they choose to spend their money on beer, pot or whatever. Finally, there are governmental and charity groups providing food for the poor in Mexico as well, meaning its there if they truly need it.
Sure there are some people who are deprived. There are some in the US who are also deprived, despite these things mentioned here. But its not logical to assume that most of that 30% in Mexico who are a "normal" weight are deprived of food.
You can be malnourished and obese, as anyone who read Good Calories, Bad Calories can attest.
ReplyDelete"Lest we forget that Mexicans were very skilled farmers and horticulturalists before European invasion/conquest. Unlike other third world peoples, it is likely mexicans never straved or went short of food in their history, so we have a population used to abundant food."
ReplyDeleteSo let all the True Mexicans kill all the Mexican "Europeans" and take their land back. The True Mexicans can then reclaim their lost heritage and celebrate their roots. They can reopen Teotihuacan for business and start chopping the hearts out of their own poor folks again. A return to traditional time-honored pre-Columbian Mexican cannibalism would solve the starving Mexican problem (instead of exporting it to America) and also permit Mexicans everywhere to celebrate their historic culture. It shouldnt be that hard. Their Gangstas are head-chopping and lynching all over Mexico anyway. What's not to like?
Anon @8:19
ReplyDelete-
If "a couple million get less than enough calories to survive", then how are they surviving?
----
Also:
Let me make it more clear for you: just because 70% of people from Mexico are overweight, it does not mean that those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are getting enough calories. Those 30% might be getting less calories than what is necessary to maintain metabolic function.
So, in your world, someone who is not overweight is presumed to be starving/malnourished due to lack of access to food? What a simplistic, ridiculous view. First of all, there's a middle ground between obese and malnourished. There is such a thing as having a healthy BMI.
"But anyway the net Mexican immigration to America is around zero or even negative---so they're not immigrating either. And since the Mexican fertility fell to just replacement a few years back, they won't immigrant in the future either."
ReplyDeleteSorry there, pal. Mexican fertility in the USA is more like 3.5 TFR. In Mexico fertility is around 2.0. Mexicans come to the USA to live large, buy a king cab and squirt out a bunch more than they can actually afford to raise, hence the 53% Mexican bastardy rate in America, as compared to less than half that in Mexico. Mexican señoritas know that Uncle Sammie make a much better and more reliable Papi than José.
As Steve mentioned a few years ago, Mexican fertility exploded after the last amnesty. You can expect it to explode with Obama's recent amnesty, too.
If you are dumb enough to feed them for free, they are smart enough to breed right up to the limit of the welfare check and EBT card.
I immediately thought of the Pima Indians. These people have the highest diabetes and obesity rates. It is clearly genetic. Could all native American people have something similar?
ReplyDeleteBTW I once asked a Park Ranger at the Grand Canyon about obesity and the Pimas. He was outraged. He didn't know, he sputtered, but he was sure that if they were fat it was the white man's fault.
Albertosuarus
One of the arguments that nutrition writer Gary Taubes makes in his books is that central and south Americans are as obese as they are due to the quality of their diet. People there eat few calories, are hungry, and yet are some of the largest people in the world. Their diet is largely made up of corn and other starchy plant foods. The argument being that if a similar number of calories where given in protein sources, the people of Mexico, and elsewhere in south America would be slimmer.
ReplyDeleteIn essence calories count when it comes to a persons weight, but there is more to obesity than simply calories in, calories out.
And since the Mexican fertility fell to just replacement a few years back, they won't immigrant in the future either.
ReplyDeleteCitation, please?
Anonymous:"You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival."
ReplyDeleteIf 30% of Mexicans actually were "getting less food than required for survival," Mexico would be experiencing a famine of breathtaking proportions;the death toll would be staggering. As yet, I have seen no evidence of massive starvation in Mexico, no footage of children dying in the streets with swollen, distended bellies, etc.
Curiously the article seems to think people get fat by eating fat. They don't. They get fat from sugar and carbohydrates.
ReplyDeletePeople get fat by consuming too many calories, regardless of whether those calories come from protein, sugar, carbohydrates, or fat.
Third World countries are caught in "demographic trap", the population grows beyond the economy and infrastructure capabilities.
ReplyDeletejust because 70% of people from Mexico are overweight, it does not mean that those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are getting enough calories. Those 30% might be getting less calories than what is necessary to maintain metabolic function.
ReplyDeleteThey might? Well, considering that 30% of Mexico's population failed to starve to death last year, we can state with absolute certainty that those 30% did in fact obtain sufficient calories to maintain metabolic function.
You lefties are the most silly and irrational people on Earth. In spite of your tendency to say comically absurd things, you persist in the belief that you're really very intelligent!
You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival.
ReplyDeleteIf those 30% are getting less food than that required for survival, than those 30% should be .... what's the word? ... dead.
This is an elaborate con, right? You're not really this stupid.
"For these mexicans immigrating to the USA is the only way to avoid death..."
ReplyDelete@anonymous 9:01
Wrong answer! HOw about instead of foisting the cost to feed them on middle class Americans, tha Upprer & middle class MexicAns take care of them instead? Clearly the nation itself has enough food they need to take care of their peasants better - not us
"This means there are still 24 million Mexicans who are not overweight, and of those at least a couple million get less[sic] than enough calories a day to survive. For these Mexicans, immigrating to the U.S.A is their only way to avoid death by inanation."
ReplyDeleteIf these Mexicans aren't getting enough calories each day to survive, how is it that they have the strength to journey to the US?
As a someone who used to be extremely thin, I know how exhausting travel is even by car or plane when you are thin. I can't imagine having the physical strength to walk any distance, no matter what the incentive.
And what argument--other than a specious "humanitarian" one--is there for the US to have to take in people simply because they are starving? Is not the starvation of Mexicans a Mexican problem requiring Mexican solutions--particularly in light of that assymetrical distribution or resources you cite?
"You keep bringing up these stupid arguments to justify stopping immigration based on poor logical ability to interpret data."
No, actually many here--and elsewhere--believe the only argument needed to justify stopping immigration is that the US is a sovereign nation and its citizens should decide its immigration policy.
"Good for you(pun inteded)[sic] that I am here to interpret the data for you."
Agreed. If you made any sense, you might be a formidable opponent. As it is, you are merely amusing, albeit in a drearily predictable way.
"You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival. "
ReplyDeleteWhich of course brings up the obvious question, how are they surviving exactly? Surely you don't mean to say that such widespread obesity exists in Mexico because the thinner herd is aggressively culled away?
And if these Mexicans are starving, how come they don't stand a better chance at fighting for food from their obese countrypeople than first crossing the border into another (hostile)country and then fighting for survival?
Or if their countrypeople are so heartless then US has a responsibility to invade Mexico and throw these overweight food terrorists, with the world-record-level extravagance, out of power.
"Good for you(pun inteded) that I am here to interpret the data for you."
This capricious universe with its multitude of possibilities can be summed up in two simple words of the English language.
Might be.
Take that statistics!
Mexico and mexicans should have no qualms about accepting mass immigration from africa, given how big their hearts must be to not want anyone to starve.
ReplyDeleteAs an East Coaster, I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how unattractive physically most Mexicans are. Mexican women do seem to be almost 100% overweight. It makes you wonder if they could reproduce without cerveza.
ReplyDeleteI can spend a week in LA and see no attractive Mexican women. Try that with Puerto Rican women in NY.
Overweight goes with malnourished.
ReplyDeleteLooking good & fit goes with great nutrition.
Being overweight is a sign of missing important nutrients. All too ordinary here in mass-production civilization, but we shouldn't see it as normal or okay.
This is not political. I'm one of the a biggest (...not fattest) reactionaries around here.
The biggest nutritional disaster to hit Mexico in the last 30 years isn't the tidal wave of American corn from NAFTA but the cheap ramen noodles from Japan that have become a staple in the Mexican diet.
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/21/business/fi-ramennation21
You even see the Mexican love of ramen here in LA, where day laborers come in to the local Cambodian doughnut shop to get boiling water to pour over their noodles.
Mexico (the geographical location) is wealthy.
ReplyDeleteAbundant natural resources: gold, silver, oil, gorgeous weather, sunny beaches, rainforests.
By rights Mexico ought to be just about the wealthiest country in the world.
That it is not, that Mexico is mired in poverty, is not due to lack of resources with which a resourceful people can make a good country.
What is wrong with Mexico is, it's full of Mexicans.
Importing the problem with Mexico (Mexicans) into U.S. on a grand-enough scale will undoubtedly fix Mexico's problems. Unfortunately, then it will be U.S. mired in poverty.
this just points out the stupidity of it all. there actually are indian and chinese people starving in india and china. but they can't simply walk across a border to come to the US. they have to cross an ocean. so screw them.
ReplyDeleteliberals can't even connect the dots here and realize they are discriminating against everybody who is not mexican. why do indian and chinese peasants deserve to come to the US any less than mexican ones? liberal racism should be pointed out on this issue over and over. they should be hammered on the head relentlessly.
a good strategy would be for republicans to bring legal immigrants with a decade of success behind them up into the spotlight, and have them bash the democrats for letting illegal aliens from mexico jump the line in front of everybody else for no good reason at all except race. it's a very expensive and time consuming process to immigrate legally if you're not mexican. it takes 8 or 10 years of bureaucracy, lawyer's work, and thousands of dollars in expenses and fees. why mexicans should get to avoid all that is the height of racism, and aren't democrats staunch watchdogs always on the lookout for "institutional" racism?
You lefties are the most silly and irrational people on Earth. In spite of your tendency to say comically absurd things, you persist in the belief that you're really very intelligent!
ReplyDeleteA couple of other examples from the last few days:
Rape
(...)
I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual.... And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape.
(...)
Pop culture and education
(...)
On the contrary, conservatives understand something liberals don't, which is that if you get people while they're young, you usually have them for life. This is also, incidentally, why conservatives pay more attention to pop culture than liberals. Liberals are great people---I'm one of them!---but we have a tendency towards preening individualism and therefore discount the importance of things like what's in the classroom and what's on TV because we personally feel we're iconoclasts who aren't affected by it. Which can, as in this case, cause us to neglect to remember that in fact this is the air most people breathe, and the quality of that air matters.
(...)
People like Rubio are more likely liars than fools. He's probably smart enough to know that Mexico treats its souther-border-jumpers like invaders. He's certainly in a prominent enough position that he or his aides have been so informed by American patriots.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the harsh treatment of poor, starving immigrants is really Rubio's windmill here, he should be tilting at Mexico, not his own country.
But American patriots aren't greasing Rubio's palms, so...
We are so vibrant! So full of life!
That "so full of life" thing was always my dad's favorite line about "latinos." He spent years living in Mexico.
So presumably these last two posts by Steve means that he would be happy if Rubio (or maybe Allen West) proposed bringing in 100M starving Nigerians or Congolese in the next couple of decades....
Yeah, like I said over at OD, I don't care if Mexicans (or anyone else) are starving, not enough to turn my country into Mexico (or anywhere else), anyway. And "curing" Mexican (or any other foreign) starvation by importing their starving people here is like "curing" a child's flu by constantly wiping his nose and refusing to give him antibiotics. Marco Rubio, the Christian Scientists' answer to starvation.
If Mexican starvation really is a problem in Mexico (it isn't), then we should bomb the Mexican gov't until it starts feeding its people.
We didn't solve the Serbian problem by importing all the Albanians, did we? Why should Mexico be any different?
For these Mexicans, immigrating to the U.S.A is their only way to avoid death by inanation.
That's inanition. But thanks for the new word, anyway.
If there really are millions of people in Mexico who will die if they don't come to America, then that's all the more reason to install a border fence. Just like I'd be more likely to buy a gun and install a security system in my home if I knew there were hordes of people out there who could only survive by breaking into and occupying my home.
You keep bringing up these stupid arguments to justify stopping immigration based on poor logical ability to interpret data.
ReplyDeleteI reject the premise of the statement; we need no arguments to justify stopping immigration. It's automatically justified. Why are you such a nation-wrecking fanatic, btw?
So because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that means those other 30% are getting enough food?
Great logic at interpreting facts, geniuses!
Well, yeah, actually, it does imply that. Since the dirt poor ones all seem to be overweight. Btw, is English a second language for you? You bring in words like inanition (not that I'm not grateful, mind), then use (very) clumsy constructions like "great logic at interpreting facts" - just curious.
Mexican life-expectancy isn't far off American life expectancy, either. 78.24 years in the US vs. 76.68 years in Mexico, according to the World Bank. If you just look at Hispanics in the US the two numbers are probably even closer.
Hear that? It's the sound of a nail being driven into the coffin of Rubio's stupid ideas. The other sounds you hear are chains being wrapped around it, just before it's dropped into the sea.
Don't worry, we packed a couple of gorditas in there first.
the GDP of Mexico is pretty good
Bingo. That was another of my big points at OD. Mexico is rich in global terms. There are many countries poorer than Mexico. Every fat, (relatively) rich Mexican who jumps the border into the USA is taking a spot that could have been filled by a person from a much poorer country who might actually be starving. But Rubio doesn't actually give a shit about starving people. He's just vomiting up excuses for the Mexican immivasion after the fact.
BTW I once asked a Park Ranger at the Grand Canyon about obesity and the Pimas. He was outraged. He didn't know, he sputtered, but he was sure that if they were fat it was the white man's fault.
I never let these people escape without calling them racists. There is no company "polite" enough to ward this one off.
"You guys act like just because 70% of Mexicans are overweight, that 100% of Mexicans are getting sufficient nutrition. That might not be. Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival. "
ReplyDeleteThen it is up to Mexicans who are so well fed to take care of other Mexicans who are not so well fed. If 70% of Mexicans can eat too much, surely Mexico has the means to take care of those who don't have enough to eat. Why is it up to America to fix the problems.
How about 70% of Mexicans eat less and give some food to the other 30%? But then, I'm sure a good number of 30% aren't hungry but merely fit. So, the percentage of Mexicans who are really hungry may be less than 10%.
People get fat by consuming too many calories, regardless of whether those calories come from protein, sugar, carbohydrates, or fat.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people.
Jeb The Traitor Busheron just addressed a Latin business conference in Spanish and English.
ReplyDeleteThese NWO skunks want our future Presidents to address the nation in two languages protocall as is done in Canada.
DIVIDE & CONQUER to infinity. That is the policy.
Entry from a future encyclopedia:
ReplyDeleteIn 2024 Mexico and India went to war over a Guinness Book of World Records dispute over the most people simultaneously tossing coins...
Even if Mexicans were starving why would that negate the right of America to defend itself? I'm sure lots of wild carnivourous animals are starving from time to time, and no, it doesn't please me to think about sentient life suffering, but I think we all have the right to defend ourselves against hungry carnivores. OTO I don't claim that the carnivore would be committing any type of sin by attempting to eat me. I realise that it may have its reasons. I only claim that I'll attempt to defend myself, *JUST AS IT WOULD DO WERE I ATTEMPTING TO EAT IT*.
ReplyDeleteThe US started forcing World Bank loans and the invariably concomitant contraception policies on Mexico in the late ‘60s which undermined peasant agriculture in that country and started the proletarianization of the population which lead to the northern migration. Those policies were aggravated by GATT and NAFTA, which, while robbing the American worker of industrial jobs, at the same time flooded Mexico with cheap grain and agriculture from the Midwest which made farming economically unfeasible. That, in turn, created even more migration.
ReplyDeleteMatt said...
ReplyDeleteOne of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people.
ROFL. You perhaps have heard of thermodynamics? Or perhaps have seen photos of concentration-camp survivors? Obesity is always and only caused by over-eating and always correctable by eating less.
(It is true that once someone becomes fat, she may remain fat while eating only a little more each day than a normal person, because her basal metabolism won't require much more fuel and she needn't exercise much. However, there is truly no doubt that obesity results from excessive consumption of food, and may always be corrected by the simple expedient of eating less over a period of time. "Willpower" may be a problem, but thermodynamics never are.)
The only thing Slim in Mexico is a billionaire named Carlos!
ReplyDeleteOne of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people.
ReplyDeleteX-Y=Z
X=calorie intake
Y=calorie burn
Z=stored fat
"Mexico (the geographical location) is wealthy.
ReplyDeleteAbundant natural resources: gold, silver, oil, gorgeous weather, sunny beaches, rainforests."
The third Bush in office should declare war on Mexico to save 30%(might be a little less or might be a little more) of its population from indirect cannibalism and then they can be called refugees.
Sorry there, pal. Mexican fertility in the USA is more like 3.5 TFR. In Mexico fertility is around 2.0. Mexicans come to the USA to live large, buy a king cab and squirt out a bunch more than they can actually afford to raise, hence the 53% Mexican bastardy rate in America, as compared to less than half that in Mexico. Mexican señoritas know that Uncle Sammie make a much better and more reliable Papi than José.
ReplyDeleteActually, the TFR of Mexicans in the U.S.A. is down to 2.6 as of 2009, and given the overall TFR for Hispanics in 2010, will likely be measured at about 2.4 in 2010. Admittedly it hit a recent peak of 3.1 back in 2006 and 2007, during the peak of the housing bubble and Jorge Boosh amnesty fight. Before that, it was usually about 3.0. (Source: www.cdc.gov/nchs)
For Mexicans in Mexico, the TFR is 2.3. (Source: www.prb.org. Don't use the CIA Factbook; it's crap.)
As Steve mentioned a few years ago, Mexican fertility exploded after the last amnesty. You can expect it to explode with Obama's recent amnesty, too.
There might be a slight uptick, but it won't be lasting. Reason being, the U.S.A. is no longer considered an attractive destination for Mexicans. (Those Latino day laborers you still see around are Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Ecuadorians.)
@Anonymous 7:58 AM
ReplyDelete"If those 30% are getting less food than that required for survival, than those 30% should be .... what's the word? ... dead.
This is an elaborate con, right? You're not really this stupid."
Who said that they are NOT dying from inanition? So there are no Mexicans who starve to death? You really ARE this stupid. LOL!
Just for fun, I took a quick look at the per capita Mexican GDP, and sure enough it's reasonably high by world standards. For example, it's 300% *higher* than India's per capita GDP, even though the media constantly talks about India being such an economic superstar. With respect to income, Mexicans are also doing twice as well as Ukrainians, are above Serbians, and are approximately the same as Russians.
ReplyDeleteNow nobody claims that Serbia, Ukraine, or Russia are the richest nations in the world, but they're not exactly starving either. Interestingly enough, hundreds of millions of Indians may indeed be not too far from starvation, but you'd never hear that from the MSM.
(Google Public Data is very helpful for quickly gettting these sorts of numbers).
One of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people.
ReplyDeleteIt's a scientific fact that if you put more calories into your body than it burns up, your body will get fatter. This is true regardless of where the calories in question come from - if you burn 1600 calories a day and you consume 2000 calories a day, you're going to get fat. It makes no difference if those 2000 calories come from eating butter or sugar or beef or bread.
If you burn 2100 calories a day and you consume 1800 calories a day, you're going to lose weight - even if you get your 1800 calories by eating Twinkies and doughnuts.
I reject the premise of the statement; we need no arguments to justify stopping immigration. It's automatically justified.
ReplyDeleteThank you for making that point.
It's a scientific fact that if you put more calories into your body than it burns up, your body will get fatter.
ReplyDeleteSurely you know this is wrong; some "calories" pass through your body undigested.
Also, one source of "calories" can be turned into muscle, making you heavier without making you fatter, even if the "calories" consumed exceed those burned.
If you burn 2100 calories a day and you consume 1800 calories a day, you're going to lose weight - even if you get your 1800 calories by eating Twinkies and doughnuts.
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating weight and fatness. On this diet, you would cannibalize your muscle but quite possibly gain fat at the same time and thereby become fatter.
Their diet is largely made up of corn and other starchy plant foods.
ReplyDeleteHow does Rick Bayless stay so thin?
RKU makes an important point. Mexican immigration to the US is really not a long term threat to civilization. Sub-Saharan Africa is what will destroy us. Both Europe and the US are going to start drowning in a sea of Nigerians and Congolese within the next decade.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you cannot infere from the fact that 70% of Mexicans are overweight that the other 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are not starving.
ReplyDeleteIf you say 70% are overweight, it does not follow that the remaining 30% are malnourished. It also does not follow that if a portion of the Mexican population is malnourished, that it is the moral duty of the United States to allow them to immigrate, rather than the Mexican government and society examining their policies on agriculture.
To most commenters here, immigration is a privilege and a gift, not a right, and immigration policy needs to be structured based on the interests of a country's established population, not the interests of potential immigrants. Malnutrition in Mexico should properly be addressed by the Mexican government.
"30% are not dead, well, starvation does not imply being devoid of calories beneath what is required to SURVIVE."
ReplyDeleteUmm yeah, but they latched onto it because in your own words
'Those 30% might be getting LESS food than required for survival.'
"People who die no longer are factored in statistics of total population size, hence they are not factored in statistics of people who are dying of starvation."
But surely the death rate accounts for them? Mexico should be showing some drastic negative population growth in this case, or do they turn into the undead masters of chupacabras?
"My point is that you cannot infere from the fact that 70% of Mexicans are overweight that the other 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are not starving."
Which makes for a cute "look ma! me did some logic!" but this sort of discontinuity is absurd in practice and an example of "let's split hairs, since I don't have an argument".
For one, unless mexicans are born overweight, there are going to be some who are still in middle of their journey to lardishness.
Secondly, a nation of only the emaciated and the overfed would have already had a guinness for it.
Anonymous:'Furthermore, a lot of Mexicans DO die every year of starvation."
ReplyDeleteReally? How many Mexicans die every year from starvation? Please, give us a figure, as it seems that the bleeding heart media have been oddly derelict in reporting this national tragedy.
Anonymous:"People who die no longer are factored in statistics of total population size, hence they are not factored in statistics of people who are dying of starvation."
Actually, people who die of starvation are "factored in the statistics of people who are dying of starvation." That's how we determine that people are actually, you know, dying of starvation.
Anonymous:"Those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight might all be getting enough calories to survive comfortably, or they might be starving. My point is that you cannot infere from the fact that 70% of Mexicans are overweight that the other 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are not starving."
Actually, one can infer from the fact that 70% of the population is overweight that sufficient food exists to ensure that no one should be starving.
Syon
"Those 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight might all be getting enough calories to survive comfortably, or they might be starving. My point is that you cannot infere[sic] from the fact that 70% of Mexicans are overweight that the other 30% of Mexicans who are not overweight are not starving."
ReplyDeleteAnd our point is that this is a Mexican situation, not an American situation, and as such, we Americans are under no obligation to step in and remedy it.
"That is frankly retarded, and constituted a brutal self-ownage by Steve Sailer."
Ouch. You can't read or write, can you? I'd bet a year's worth of food that you are a college punk, full of self-importance and leftist indoctrination--a diet of junk food for the brain.
RKU makes an important point. Mexican immigration to the US is really not a long term threat to civilization.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is. Mexican immigration to the US is a long term threat to our civilization.
There is something you could call call "civilization" in Honduras and in Mexico. But it's not a civilization we have any desire to live in. And obviously it's not a civilization which the people of Mexico and Honduras have much desire to live in either.
RKU is a member of the "people are fungible" brigade.
"If you burn 2100 calories a day and you consume 1800 calories a day, you're going to lose weight - even if you get your 1800 calories by eating Twinkies and doughnuts."
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating weight and fatness. On this diet, you would cannibalize your muscle but quite possibly gain fat at the same time and thereby become fatter.
No, you would not. A human body which is consuming more calories than it takes in does not "cannibalize muscle" while adding fat.
What is wrong with you people?
"One of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people."
ReplyDeleteI find this plausible.
And I think it has to do with, not "exercise" per se, but how many minutes per day you spend standing.
I know an elderly couple well.
He is rail-thin. She is obese.
I've shared many meals, so I've seen what they eat.
He eats like a horse, often has seconds. Always says yes to pie and ice cream. She carefully takes small portions, refuses dessert.
They are both retired, neither does much that could be called exertion.
The difference? He is the sort to pop up out of his chair and cross the room, jiggle his foot, just general fidgetiness.
She *sits.*
"If you burn 2100 calories a day and you consume 1800 calories a day, you're going to lose weight - even if you get your 1800 calories by eating Twinkies and doughnuts."
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating weight and fatness. On this diet, you would cannibalize your muscle but quite possibly gain fat at the same time and thereby become fatter.
No, you would not. A human body which is consuming more calories than it takes in does not "cannibalize muscle" while adding fat.
What is wrong with you people?"
Nothing.
Yes, a diet inadequate in calories WILL cannibalize muscle.
At the same time, the inadequacy of calorie intake will make you lethargic, so you soon cease to burn 2100 calories a day.
If the poor diet continues long enough, (which is not very long at all) the 1800 calories will be MORE than is burnt per day and you WILL get fat.
ROFL. You perhaps have heard of thermodynamics? Or perhaps have seen photos of concentration-camp survivors? Obesity is always and only caused by over-eating and always correctable by eating less.
ReplyDeleteI am a working physicist. (calories in) - (calories out) = (fat gain) would work as a simple weight loss strategy if all the relevant variables were independent. But people are complicated machines, and they're not.
Some foods can make you hungrier or less hungry. Some foods can increase or decrease your resting metabolic rate and thus calories burned. Both the input and output sides can be influenced by the composition of foods you eat. Raw calorie count does not and cannot by itself tell you how those nonlinear factors will affect you. Thermodynamics is perfectly true, but that fact does not imply that what you eat has no effect on how much you want to eat, or how much your body will naturally tend to burn.
As it happens, there's very good evidence that calories from sugar and carbs tends to influence those factors in the bad direction.
guys, i'm kind of an expert on this subject from sports science, and although it's appealing to think it's merely matter of calories in versus calories used, it's not that simple.
ReplyDeletewe have mountains of experimental evidence that you can feed two different groups of people the exact same foods and calories, control for and match their exercise and effort levels pretty closely, and one group will lose weight faster than the other. it's called metabolism, and it is NOT the same for all humans.
some people can eat tons of crap garbage food and gain almost no weight, while other people have to very carefully adhere to a salmon, skinless chicken, brown rice, broccoli diet, or they begin metabolizing food into fat quickly.
you should see how badly some of the european and african jocks eat, while remaining lean. versus the flabby gym-going women who now occupy half of america. except for the east asians and indians, they all struggle to lose weight even when sticking to careful exercise and diet regimen. many african, mestizo, and pacific islander women can barely lose weight no matter what they do.
As a friend of mine used to so eloquently say:
ReplyDelete"There were no fat people at aushwitz."
If the poor diet continues long enough, (which is not very long at all) the 1800 calories will be MORE than is burnt per day and you WILL get fat.
ReplyDeleteUm no. The average man burns about 1800 calories in 24 hours of sleep.
Matt, you seem to be hung up on desire/hunger instead of consumption. All those (not really very) "nonlinear" factors you want to consider surely do affect the quantity of food(s) it takes to make an individual fat or not (a big Maori, for example, could remain skinny on a diet which would load the pounds, relative to optimum, onto a little Filipina). That's all beside the point. For every individual, given any set of food choices, eating more or less will determine whether that individual becomes or remains obese. Sure, many people prefer to eat too much; that is a very popular personal choice and given the easy availability of food many people will eat until they can hardly move. Also, social pressures likely affect appetites-- it looks like a feedback loop of social obesity-acceptance has been operating for a while (the larger the fraction of a social group which is already fat, the more likely that group's young people will become fat).
ReplyDeleteJody, it is sheer myth, or sometimes self-delusion, that any people "cannot" lose weight. The correct statement is that some people would rather eat than not eat, so those people fail to lose weight (the bird-like diets many fat people aver they consume are often fantasies-- independent monitoring commonly reveals that fat people "snack between meals" or otherwise consume many calories in fact which they mentally discount when self-reporting food intake). When food intake is unavoidably restricted (or when appetite fails, e.g., due to grief in some people) weight loss invariably follows.
I can understand why fat people rationalize that obesity is inevitable and ineluctable, but I really don't know why anyone claiming a scientific outlook would repeat such nonsense, damaging their own intellectual reputation.
we have mountains of experimental evidence that you can feed two different groups of people the exact same foods and calories, control for and match their exercise and effort levels pretty closely, and one group will lose weight faster than the other. it's called metabolism, and it is NOT the same for all humans.
ReplyDeleteYour metabolism is not a constant. It increases with exercise and decreases too much sitting on couches. It also increases with a decrease in food intake and decreases with excessive food intake.
Yes, a diet inadequate in calories WILL cannibalize muscle.
ReplyDeleteIt will, eventually. But it will cannibalize fat first.
If I took you people seriously I'd expect to find that people could die of starvation (as opposed to poor diet) while carrying fifty pounds of excess fat. And in real life such people do not exist.
"One of the most striking and reproducible findings in the history of the scientific study of obesity is that fat people don't eat more calories on average than lean people."
ReplyDeleteIt's completely irrelevant whether they "eat more calories on average than thin people".
What matters is their calories in/calories out. If this is greater than or equal to one, they'll gain weight or not lose it. If this is less than one they will lose weight.
Exercise creates a virtuous circle - you don't just burn more calories while exercising, you burn more calories while sitting watching TV.
Exercise properly and enough and you can consume ten thousand calories a day and not get fat. People have done this. Exercise improperly and not enough (and aerobic exercise counts as improper in this context) and you can get fat on remarkably few calories.
The belief that you can make yourself thin by eating as much as you want, but of the "right" foods, is a species of magical thinking.
Sure, calories count, but the type of calories matters, too. It's simply much easier to get fat on 3,000 calories a day of sugar & starch than it is on 3,000 calories a day of fat & protein. If you want to lose weight, you're much more likely to succeed if your diet consists almost entirely of fat & protein rather than carbohydrates. Yes, there are exceptions, outliers, etc.
ReplyDeleteSure, calories count, but the type of calories matters, too. It's simply much easier to get fat on 3,000 calories a day of sugar & starch than it is on 3,000 calories a day of fat & protein. If you want to lose weight, you're much more likely to succeed if your diet consists almost entirely of fat & protein rather than carbohydrates. Yes, there are exceptions, outliers, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat squares with my personal experience. I lost a ton of weight since going on a low carb diet (avoiding sugar and starch). OTO I haven't bothered calorie counting so I'm sure there's been a bit of calorie reduction too. Anyway I am skeptical of this idea that obesity is a purely a function of caloric intake coupled with excercise. That could be true for some people because it turns out that people do have different physiologies, but on the whole I'd reccommend simply trying a strict low carb diet if you want weight reduction.
It's simply much easier to get fat on 3,000 calories a day of sugar & starch than it is on 3,000 calories a day of fat & protein.
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not. Fat contains twice as many calories per unit weight as does protein or carbs. if you want to put on weight in a hurry, the easiest way to do it is to ignore the starch and eat lots of fatty foods.
I gotta disagree with the comments about the ugly hispanic chicks. Sure there are some, but there are not only a few that are downright smokin'!
ReplyDeleteNah, the easiest way to get fat fast is to eat starch, fat, and sugar together (e.g., Cinnabons or Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip cookies). It's delicious!
ReplyDelete"if you want to put on weight in a hurry,"
ReplyDeletedrink large amounts of water and hold your pee in.
"It's simply much easier to get fat on 3,000 calories a day of sugar & starch than it is on 3,000 calories a day of fat & protein."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not. Fat contains twice as many calories per unit weight as does protein or carbs. if you want to put on weight in a hurry, the easiest way to do it is to ignore the starch and eat lots of fatty foods.
*ahem* Which weighs more: a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
Your schoolboy howler aside, you're still using the inadequate CI/CO model and completely neglecting endocrinology.
Nah, the easiest way to get fat fast is to eat starch, fat, and sugar together (e.g., Cinnabons or Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip cookies). It's delicious!
ReplyDeleteExactly. Not to mention that the kinds of fats (easily oxidized seed oils) used in those snack foods are the worst for your health.
"if you want to put on weight in a hurry,"
ReplyDeletedrink large amounts of water and hold your pee in.
Ha ha - you are right. I remember losing 6 pounds between 1:30 and 7:30 a.m. as the beer passed through.
"Nah, the easiest way to get fat fast is to eat starch, fat, and sugar together (e.g., Cinnabons or Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip cookies). It's delicious!"
ReplyDeleteA pint of Ben & Jerry's has, depending on the flavor, roughly 1200 calories.
Preidction: Mayor Bloomberg will never never ever ban Ben & Jerry's. There'd be a lynching on the Upper West Side if he even tried.
Mexicans need gene therapy.
ReplyDeleteThe ones that leave aren't starving. Mexico's economy is booming.
ReplyDelete