The simplistic view you share with Michelle Soetoro, and one that, for many, erroneously assigns cause and effect to an observed correlation  beware that fallacy.
Your gratuitous insult shows you to be a jerk and just negated anything your post might have been correct about.
Simply put, one's if one's caloric intake exceeds the consumption rate then one will put one weight and I don't care who shares that viewpoint.
Mankind has only had a few generations where lack of nutritious food wasn't the main enemy, and even that is not universal as much of the world still still struggles with food or dietary shortages and associated illnesses.
Look at TV from the 60's or 70's and see how slim the people were and that was because they didn't eat hugh portions and were more physically active. Simple enough for even you to understand it.
48 posted on 01/02/2011 5:00:33 PM PST by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)
The simplistic view you share with Michelle Soetoro, and one that, for many, erroneously assigns cause and effect to an observed correlation  beware that fallacy.
Your gratuitous insult shows you to be a jerk and just negated anything your post might have been correct about.
Simply put, one's if one's caloric intake exceeds the consumption rate then one will put one weight and I don't care who shares that viewpoint.
Mankind has only had a few generations where lack
 of nutritious food wasn't the main enemy, and even that is not universal as much of the world still still struggles with food or dietary shortages and associated illnesses.
Look at TV from the 60's or 70's and see how slim the people were and that was because they didn't eat hugh portions and were more physically active. Simple enough for even you to understand it.
48 posted on 01/02/2011 5:00:33 PM PST by Eagle Eye (A blind clock finds a nut at least twice a day.)