|
Author
|
Topic: Obesity is not a Moral Judgement!
|
yorik
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2364
Member Rated:
|
posted October 28, 2010 13:55
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
The bodybuilder will know little beyond how to eat and take care of a body that's being strenuously exercised for several hours every day.
That actually makes them sound pretty darn smart to me.
--------------------
"It's never too soon to start beefing up your obituary." The Most Interesting Man in the World
Posts: 17 | From: Orlando | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted October 28, 2010 15:13
Steroid abuse is not a sign of intelligence, but virtually all competitive bodybuilders do it. The ones who don't simply can't build the muscle mass needed to compete with the ones who do.
(yes yes, testing blah blah... some steroids are undetectable after as little as a week of abstention, which makes testing pointless)
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6290 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
yorik
Maximum Newbie
Member # 2364
Member Rated:
|
posted October 28, 2010 17:57
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Steroid abuse is not a sign of intelligence, but virtually all competitive bodybuilders do it. The ones who don't simply can't build the muscle mass needed to compete with the ones who do.
(yes yes, testing blah blah... some steroids are undetectable after as little as a week of abstention, which makes testing pointless)
blah, blah, blah...The really fit people use anabolic steroids...blah...blah...blah...That's why I can't look like them...blah...blah...Might as well eat this Twinkie...chew...chew...chew...
--------------------
"It's never too soon to start beefing up your obituary." The Most Interesting Man in the World
Posts: 17 | From: Orlando | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
zesovietrussian
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 1177
|
posted October 28, 2010 19:53
What makes absolutely no sense to me is the fact that people have absolutely no problem plonking down $8 for a super-size double crapburger combo at McDonalds, but they would never go to a restaurant serving real food, even if the said restaurant has good, healthy lunch options for well under $8. There's plenty of good restaurants next to my place of work with sub-$8 lunch specials, yet they're usually half-empty while McD and Wendys always have a line out the door. Even higher-end places where one would normally leave $30+ for dinner, not including drinks, are doing $10 lunch specials and they're still empty most of the time. Whiskey tango foxtrot people???
Posts: 1092 | From: Boston | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dragonman97
SuperFan!
Member # 780
Member Rated:
|
posted October 28, 2010 21:45
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
What makes absolutely no sense to me is the fact that people have absolutely no problem plonking down $8 for a super-size double crapburger combo at McDonalds, but they would never go to a restaurant serving real food, even if the said restaurant has good, healthy lunch options for well under $8. There's plenty of good restaurants next to my place of work with sub-$8 lunch specials, yet they're usually half-empty while McD and Wendys always have a line out the door. Even higher-end places where one would normally leave $30+ for dinner, not including drinks, are doing $10 lunch specials and they're still empty most of the time. Whiskey tango foxtrot people???
Actually, the really criminal bit is the $1 menu thing.
Those burgers are the real artery clogging specials...and the price point tricks people into turning it into a 'cheap habit.'† The $8 burger is an 'upgrade.' :/ I still remember some times in college when I had to politely nudge/prod a bunch of friends into a very reasonable, but nice, Chinese restaurant to find something at least a grade above McDonalds, as there was no way I was treating the latter as 'dinner.' I'm sure we spent a few dollars more, but it was certainly worth it to me. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
&dagger Of course, a black Hefty bag is /really/ a cheap habit. [groan]
--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...
Posts: 9037 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 28, 2010 22:05
Yeah, but can you get into that restaurant and out again with food in under two minutes? That's the real draw of "fast food" places. That, and the $1 menu, where you feel like you're not wasting money for something to tide you over until you can go home and cook a balanced meal.
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 28, 2010 22:06
Also, wanted to post this link: http://www.bigfatfacts.com/
Thought you might enjoy chewing on the analysis posted there.
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dragonman97
SuperFan!
Member # 780
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 06:11
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Yeah, but can you get into that restaurant and out again with food in under two minutes? That's the real draw of "fast food" places. That, and the $1 menu, where you feel like you're not wasting money for something to tide you over until you can go home and cook a balanced meal.
...except that last step just keeps getting pushed off when the 'fast' option exists.
Few people really need 'food' that quickly. Just because you /can/ do something, doesn't mean you /should/.
--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...
Posts: 9037 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
zesovietrussian
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 1177
|
posted October 29, 2010 07:12
I did not see too many people getting the $1 menu items, it was mostly the $8 supersize, superfat combos. Funny thing is, there's a cheap sushi restaurant right next door where one can get an infinitely healthier lunch combo (6 pieces nigiri and an avocado roll) for $7 and a slightly more expensive one with $10 combos (4 pieces nigiri, soup, salad and main entree - more than enough food even if one happens to be really hungry.) There's also two Indian restaurants nearby offering lunch buffet for those who don't want to wait - $7 at mid-range one and $10 at higher-end one. A great Thai restaurant - once again, $8 or less. For those craving something less healthy, there's Uno's with their $6.99 lunch combo. All of the above healthier AND sometimes quicker than McD, since you don't have to stand in a huge line, yet I have never seen them more than half-full during lunch. Instead, everyone is spending their hard-earned money on oily burnt potatoes, ground-up skin and cartilage and high-fructose corn syrup. And then they wonder why they're so fat...
Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.
Posts: 1092 | From: Boston | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashitaka
SuperFan!
Member # 4924
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 07:35
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Also, wanted to post this link: http://www.bigfatfacts.com/
Thought you might enjoy chewing on the analysis posted there.
I like this page, she is being very scientific, she makes claims that can be tested and then proposes evidence to back up her claims. I don’t have tim to go into all her claims but lets do the first one.
bold is my response, Conclusion, The papers referenced do not contain the information the author says they do!! or to put it anouthre way, the page contains bold faced lies as evidence
THE CLAIM: U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona stated that "Obesity is a greater threat than terrorism."
William L. Weis, a management professor at Seattle University, says that the obesity industries, including commercial weight-loss programs, weight-loss drug purveyors and bariatric surgery centers, will likely top $315 billion this year, nearly 3 percent of the overall U.S. economy.
they forgot to mention that the 315 billion includes all money spent at fast fod restaurants ( Washington post Jan 22 , 2006) , 315 bil is 2% not 3% of the 14.5 trillion GDP
The government, politicians, media, journalists, scientists, universities, medical establishment, sociologists and social commentators, claim that obesity is an epidemic, a plague, a crisis, an outrage, a catastrophe, a time bomb responsible for killing 400,000 overfed Americans every year, while ringing up over a $100-billion in health care costs.
I won’t fight this but there is no ref.
THE TRUTH: We are experiencing mass moral outrage over fat. Nearly all the warnings about obesity are based on statistical conjecture made by those with the most to gain from the claims. Lets see if specifically this statement is backed up below. ( FYI, it is not)
Weight is not a barometer of wellness. More Americans die every year from weighing too little than from weighing too much. An estimated 25,000 people die from obesity. Moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight. (Flegal, et. al.) (See reference notes at bottom of report)
the abstract from the quoted paper states, and I quote: “obesity (BMI 30) was associated with 111,909 excess deaths (95% confidence interval )” ( year 2000) Oh and from the conclusion: “obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category “
The researchers who estimated that obesity is costing us more than $100 billion a year in medical costs came up with this figure by calculating ALL expenses associated with treating type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gallbladder disease, and cancer. They ASSUME that if we get heart disease or breast cancer, it is because we're fat.
YOU DON’T SAY WHO THIS RESEARCHER IS!
Organizations like the International Obesity Task Force (which authored many of the World Health Organization's obesity reports) and the American Obesity Association (which actively campaigns to have obesity officially designated as a disease) are largely funded by pharmaceutical and weight loss companies. Nearly every prominent obesity "expert" has received financial support from the $50-billion weight loss industry.
where is the proof the Obesity task force is largely funded by pharma?
The "obesity epidemic" is worth billions to the pharmaceutical, diet, weight loss, media, and government agencies fueling it.
References?
• For pharmaceutical companies the obesity epidemic justifies the release of new drugs and inflates stock prices.
I’ll give you that.
• For weight loss companies and surgeons performing bariatric surgery, the "obesity epidemic" funds their fees paid by health insurance providers and Medicare.
You could also truthfully state that doctors that treat children with cancer are also funded by fees paid by health insurance providers and Medicare
• For women's magazines the "obesity epidemic" fattens ad revenue and readership with false and misleading weight loss propaganda.
WTF
• For government agencies the "obesity epidemic" inflates budgets and programs allegedly aimed at preventing people from getting fatter. The Bush administration has earmarked millions of federal dollars for anti-obesity initiatives.
WTF
--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"
-Assif Mandvi
Posts: 3004 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted October 29, 2010 11:37
Boring day at work is boring. Fact checking isn't much better, but it passes the time.
The government, politicians, media, journalists, scientists, universities, medical establishment, sociologists and social commentators, claim that obesity is an epidemic, a plague, a crisis, an outrage, a catastrophe, a time bomb responsible for killing 400,000 overfed Americans every year, while ringing up over a $100-billion in health care costs.
I won’t fight this but there is no ref.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/10/1238
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-jama-study-challenges-cdcs-400000-obesity-deaths-figure-54349482.html
The 400k figure still gets quoted a lot, despite having been shown to be flawed. Not that 112k deaths from obesity is much more acceptable.
Weight is not a barometer of wellness. More Americans die every year from weighing too little than from weighing too much. An estimated 25,000 people die from obesity. Moderately overweight people live longer than those at normal weight. (Flegal, et. al.) (See reference notes at bottom of report)
the abstract from the quoted paper states, and I quote: “obesity (BMI 30) was associated with 111,909 excess deaths (95% confidence interval )” ( year 2000) Oh and from the conclusion: “obesity, particularly higher levels of obesity, were associated with increased mortality relative to the normal weight category “
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/293/15/1861
"Overweight was not associated with excess mortality"
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020171
Deliberate weight loss in overweight individuals without known co-morbidities may be hazardous in the long term. The health effects of weight loss are complex, possibly composed of oppositely acting processes, and need more research.
These two bits don't entirely support what the Big Fat Facts page says, but they do support at least some elements of it and they refute the idea that being overweight will cause you to die early. The reality is that people who are overweight, but not obese, should make sure they get enough exercise and sleep and stop worrying about their weight.
The researchers who estimated that obesity is costing us more than $100 billion a year in medical costs came up with this figure by calculating ALL expenses associated with treating type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gallbladder disease, and cancer. They ASSUME that if we get heart disease or breast cancer, it is because we're fat.
YOU DON’T SAY WHO THIS RESEARCHER IS!
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct10/ObesityCosts.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.219v1/DC1
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html
I can't find a $100 billion figure, but here's a $168 billion figure and a $78 billion figure. The methodology larger figure sounds pretty suspect, though (using the weight of relatives, not subjects, statistically adjusting reported weight because people lie about their weight and a variety of other dubious sounding techniques). Of course there's also a $27 billion figure in there too. You'll probably be just as accurate if you pick a random number between 27 and 168 and use that for how many billions are spent on medical costs due to obesity.
The second $78 billion figure study mentions "the association between obesity and many chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer (endometrial, postmenopausal breast, kidney, and colon), musculoskeletal disorders, sleep apnea, and gallbladder disease" which is almost certainly where the above comment came from. The study did not identify individual health problems, however, and compared the total medical expenses by obese people to the total medical expenses by people of normal weight (or at least I think that's what it says... the methodology language is pretty opaque).
where is the proof the Obesity task force is largely funded by pharma?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/04/health/main3904243.shtml?source=RSSattr=Health_3904243
"According to the task force's most recent available annual report, more than 70 percent of their funding came from Abbott Laboratories and F. Hoffman La-Roche"
This one is hard to verify. I can't find the yearly report, but a variety of reasonably neutral news agencies mention the funding by drug companies so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
The "obesity epidemic" is worth billions to the pharmaceutical, diet, weight loss, media, and government agencies fueling it.
References?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS107630+21-Apr-2008+PRN20080421
"Research suggest that between $33 billion and $55 billion is spent annually on weight loss products and services"
This is now too boring to research further.
kthxbai
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6290 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashitaka
SuperFan!
Member # 4924
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 11:54
The statement they were trying to defend was : quote:
Nearly all the warnings about obesity are based on statistical conjecture made by those with the most to gain from the claims.
Both quotes from the one paper referenced are correct, which means, that a BMI > 30 is associated with an increased mortality over pepole with a BMI 18 - 25, but not with ecsessive mortality.
THe fact is the increased mortality is not statistical conjecture, and even if it was, I don't think that the authors were those with the most to gain.
I reject thier defence and therfore their conjecture.
--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"
-Assif Mandvi
Posts: 3004 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Serenak
Member # 2950
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 14:19
OK people I been a reading this thread... and I getting bored so out of nowhere here is my totally unscientific and unsupported by fsck all but my one paltry experience...
Being REALLY BIG is bad for you - your body systems weren't built to handle 300lbs+ in excess weight, and I don't think ANYONE is going to argue against that...
Being REALLY SKINNY is not good for you either - your body has mechanisms to try and keep you going in dire starvation events.... but it will do you long term damage.
Being a "bit over the optimum" - well that is most of us in the western world whether we think so or not - our primal ancestors were built to live like greyhounds - unless you are totally "ripped" and live on 1500-2000 calories a day I suspect your weight is above "optimum"
Where a bit heavy turns into "too heavy" is open to debate... but I suspect a happy "bit too podgy" is at no worse risks than a depressed "bang on target"
Fast food isn't the work of the devil... as long as you don't expect to live on it of course...
Disclaimer - I am 5'4" and weigh about 140lbs and try to eat fairly healthy - but if I want steak, or fatty chinese or indian, or a King Coronary burger/Kentucy Fried Coronary I bloody well have one (ok so that is probably once every 2 months or so...)
HUGE disclaimer... I also drink alcohol - probably too much (my Dr would definitely say I exceed the "healthy guidelines" and then by some) and I smoke - oh yes the demon weed... hand rolling not the chemical filled sticks... but I doubt in the long run it makes a lot of difference.
One of these things will kill me I am sure - eventually - and something will kill us all in the end, sure as eggs is eggs...
Being totally flippant for a moment - know what happens if you give up smokes, booze and unhealthy lifestyle habits? You don't live to 100+ It just bloody feels like it!
OK - seriously now, being huge will kill you (sooner rather than later), being super skinny will shorten your life by over stressing your body, smoking will kill you (possibly later rather than sooner... but you never can tell - it is a roulette wheel), drinking "too much" will kill you too (what exactly is too much of course is again debatable)... Being miserable and depressed will quite likely a) ruin your life, b) possibly lead to a number of self destructive behaviours that may or may not include any of the above vices... c) can lead to suicide...
Prescription - try and enjoy life as best you can - avoid excess if you can within reason, but don't get depressed if you can't manage to fit the "perfect" template - happy people normally live longer than those who spend their lives worrying about everything.
Now I prepare for the flaming - pour a good glass of Shiraz, and roll a cigarette... and am happy in my life as best I can be... (anonymous donations of £10K+ always welcomed ![[Wink]](wink.gif) )
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"So if you want my address - it's No. 1 at the end of the bar, where I sit with the broken angels, clutching at straws and nursing my scars..."
Posts: 1918 | From: Suffolk England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 14:36
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
Prescription - try and enjoy life as best you can - avoid excess if you can within reason, but don't get depressed if you can't manage to fit the "perfect" template - happy people normally live longer than those who spend their lives worrying about everything.
Amen.
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 14:43
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.
Um, I have a blog? I used to write at two sites, but as far as I know, they were discontinued over a year (and maybe two years by now) ago. I've never had any health issues related to being fat, with the exception of having a breast reduction. However, I HAVE had plenty of problems with stupid people thinking I should be dead by now (which is why other people my size and I have adopted the term "death fat") and that I shouldn't exercise in public until I lose weight, etc. Like I said, stupid stuff.
And you must be part of the privileged upper class to have a long lunch break. My husband has no break, and I have just 30 minutes, but only if I'm not on the road for assignments, at which point I only have time to eat while driving. So enjoy your life of skinny luxury. We fat people have to work for a living.
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted October 29, 2010 14:52
Serenak wrote:
Fast food isn't the work of the devil
What about devil's food cake? Huh? Didn't think of that, did ya? Where's your god now? Eating angel's food cake?
God I'm bored.
And Ozzy Ozzbourne is part Neandertal:
"I was curious," he wrote in his column. "Given the swimming pools of booze I've guzzled over the years—not to mention all of the cocaine, morphine, sleeping pills, cough syrup, LSD, Rohypnol…you name it—there's really no plausible medical reason why I should still be alive."
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6290 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xanthine
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 15:34
Um, am I the only person here who doesn't buy lunch more than, like, once every three months? I hate the lines. I hate spending the money. I hate the time spent just leaving my building to seek out the food. And I really, really, totally and completely hate the mystery: when I buy food someone prepared for me, I don't know jack shit about how it was prepared and what's in it. I can't make any conscious choices about what I'm eating if I didn't make the meal. I ate something loaded with milk and cheese for lunch today, but I knew it was loaded with milk and cheese because I put the milk and cheese there. When I buy something, I lose that level of control.
Usually, I eat dinner leftovers. There's a microwave available to me, as well as a fridge. However, that hasn't always been the case for me and isn't always the case for everyone else...which is why an infamous Earl gave mankind the Sandwich. Sandwiches are wonderful. You don't necessarily need to refrigerate them, nor do you need to reheat it. Same with carrot sticks and apples and so on. You can eat them wherever, whenever. At your desk. In your car. At your workbench (not that that's necessarily safe). And because you made it, you know what happened to it.
Also, if you're lacking a fridge but really just have to keep your lunch cold, invest in one of those insulated bags and a cold pack. Or put it on your Christmas or birthday list.
I learned that cold pack trick in elementary school, by the way. Seriously. This is pretty basic stuff.
I'm not sure what the official lunch policy at my job is. I just eat it when I feel like it. I've gotten more relaxed about lunch since becoming a post-doc. When I was a grad student I'd take about ten minutes. Now it's usually 30-45 and I spend part of that time just vegetating and gossiping.
--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists
Posts: 7665 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
zesovietrussian
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 1177
|
posted October 29, 2010 15:37
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
quote:
Originally posted by zesovietrussian:
Rhonwyyn: before directing everyone to Kate "fat nazi" Harding, I strongly suggest you re-read your own blog. According to your favorite fat nazi, all the issues you've been having are not obesity-related and just came out of the blue, correct? Also, why would anybody need their food in "under two minutes?" Last time I checked, lunch break was between 45 minutes and one hour, which is plenty of time to sit down and eat.
Um, I have a blog? I used to write at two sites, but as far as I know, they were discontinued over a year (and maybe two years by now) ago. I've never had any health issues related to being fat, with the exception of having a breast reduction. However, I HAVE had plenty of problems with stupid people thinking I should be dead by now (which is why other people my size and I have adopted the term "death fat") and that I shouldn't exercise in public until I lose weight, etc. Like I said, stupid stuff.
And you must be part of the privileged upper class to have a long lunch break. My husband has no break, and I have just 30 minutes, but only if I'm not on the road for assignments, at which point I only have time to eat while driving. So enjoy your life of skinny luxury. We fat people have to work for a living.
I don't know where you two work, but isn't there a law mandating 15 minute breaks per every 2 hours worked? We're 9 to 5 with one hour lunch, and that is fairly standard in the industry. Oh wait, what industry? I forgot, I'm skinny privileged upper class and therefore I don't work, I must be making things up. Excuse me while I step out into my 100 acre backyard and water my money trees with some Dom Perignon
PS: Constantly falling asleep at work isn't obesity-related? Joint pain and extreme fatigue after any kind of strenuous physical activity isn't obesity-related? Inability to ride a bike up "even a slightest incline" isn't obesity-related? I wish I was making those up, but I'm just quoting your blog. Should I go on?
Posts: 1092 | From: Boston | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashitaka
SuperFan!
Member # 4924
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 15:55
amen ZSR, breaks are mandatory, unless they work less than six hours per 24 hour time period.
I don't know the rules if you are a salaried worker, but I think you have to be able to take a break.
I did have a job though where I was not allowed to leave the premises per contract, but there was good reason. In this case I just brought my lunch and ate on the clock ( if I can't leave the premises, I am on my boss's time) this was in IN, USA,
--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"
-Assif Mandvi
Posts: 3004 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 18:02
yup, do the packed lunch thing with sandwich or leftovers, but you can't preplan for everything.
Why are fast food places plentiful on the turnpike? 'cause people just want to get in, refuel, and get on their way. There's nothing wrong with doing it once in a blue moon.
Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state. My husband works at a sit-down restaurant where he pylls 8 to 10-hour shifts, with the only breaks for quick bathroom use. So even packing a meal wouldn't do him any good. (and please don't insult our intelligence by insisting he should eat a balanced meal during a bathroom break. We might be working class, but we do have SOME standards!)
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Famous Druid
Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 19:15
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state.
**speechless**
--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.
Posts: 10312 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rhonwyyn
Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 20:08
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Re: lunch breaks. They aren't mandatory in our state.
**speechless**
Yeah, I was pretty shocked when I learned about that three years ago. If you're under 18, you have to take a 30-minute break for every five hours you work, but that does not apply once you reach the age of majority.
--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!
Posts: 3821 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GrumpySteen
Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170
|
posted October 29, 2010 20:44
The Famous Druid wrote:
**speechless**
Fewer than half the states have any law that requires employers to give employees a lunch break. Of the states that do, most don't extend the break requirements to all types of employees.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htm
It's just one more example of the invisible hand of the free market providing UFIA to the people.
--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.
Posts: 6290 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
dragonman97
SuperFan!
Member # 780
Member Rated:
|
posted October 29, 2010 21:46
WTF?!?! That's appalling!
$DEITY bless our blue state. (I would /love/ to see an argument about how bad the gov't intrusion is for granting us this. )
/me has an hour lunch, and doesn't work a damn minute of it.
I LOVE NEW YORK! ![[hearts]](graemlins/hearts.gif)
--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...
Posts: 9037 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
