The Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) was passed in the U.S. Senate in middle of the night in just before Christmas, December, 2009. It was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. And yet, health care costs continue to rise — despite the best efforts of the masterminds in Washington, D.C.

Given the complexity of the issue, it’s no shocker that different groups are singled out as “bad” guys and “villains” who need to be brought to justice. However, I was a bit surprised when the folks at open-access medical journal PLOS opened the door for the “social justice” crowd to demonize Americans who exercise daily.

Writing for the Bioethics Forum blog, David B. Resnik lays the foundation for rewarding smokers and the obese for their unhealthy behavior with lower health insurance rates.

Charging smokers higher health insurance rates is popular and legal, but is it ethical?  A close examination of the arguments for and against this policy reveals that it is not. …

Mr. Resnike first demonstrates two reasons why one would argue in favor of charging smokers more for health insurance:

  • “According to the utilitarian argument, charging smokers more will encourage them to quit, which will improve public health and reduce society’s smoking-related costs.”
  • “It is actuarially fair [to charge smokers higher rates] because individual insurance rates should be based on expected payouts. Insurance is collective protection against risk. Charging individuals rates based on their risk helps to ensure that money paid out from the pool will not exceed money paid into the pool. Charging people rates based on their personal risks protects insurance companies against ‘moral hazard,’ people taking risks without bearing the consequences. By charging smokers higher health insurance rates, insurance companies can make people pay a price for the risks they take.”

Then, Mr. Resnik links to National Institutes of Health, which uses the PLOS study’s findings: Healthy people actually incur more health care costs because they live longer. In short, the medical needs for a person who lives into his 90’s are generally more expensive than the guy who drops dead of a heart attack at 50.

[E]ven if charging smokers higher insurance rates encourages them to stop smoking, reducing smoking may not save society any money. Van Baal and colleagues compared the lifetime health care costs of three groups: smokers, obese individuals, and healthy individuals.  Until age 56, obese people had the highest health care expenditures, but in older age groups smokers had the highest costs. However, because smokers and obese people die younger than healthy individuals, healthy individuals had the highest lifetime health care expenditures. 

The authors concluded that reducing smoking and obesity will not save society health care costs.

Makes sense, right? We can have a debate about what those findings mean for hours. We can also have a debate about whether or not we should craft public policy that punishes the individual for living a healthy responsible life. However, that task gets tricky when the phrase “social justice” enters the equation. When ‘fairness’ undefined comes into play, you almost always know you’re dealing with someone who believes his ideological allies should be able to use coercive power of government (i.e., force) to achieve their vision of “fairness.”

The arguments against charging smokers higher insurance rates appeal to considerations of social justice and fairness. This practice may lead many people to forego health insurance even though they may have to pay a fine under the ACA. Since smokers tend to have significantly lower incomes than non-smokers, they could be especially vulnerable to increased health insurance costs.

If smokers opt out of health insurance this could have a detrimental impact on their access to health care and negatively impact their health and well-being. Most insurance plans cover smoking-cessation programs. It would be ironic–and tragic–if charging smokers higher health insurance rates prevented them from accessing services that could help them stop smoking. To avoid this unfortunate outcome, rate increases should be kept low enough that they do not lead smokers to forego health insurance. However, if rates are too low they may not provide a sufficient financial incentive to stop smoking.

Cloaked within a seemingly neutral academic paper are the telltale signs of a man who sees more meddling into your life — not less — as the “answer” to any number of problems. These academics are the people our elected representatives turn to for the “solution” to any number of problems the media is demanding they solve.

Take the following passage for a better glimpse into the mind of the author:

[S]ome might argue that incentivizing smokers to quit is unjustified, paternalistic interference in personal autonomy. Smokers should be allowed to make lifestyle choices free from coercion from employers, insurers, or the government.  This objection is not very persuasive, however, because financial penalties do not significantly limit personal freedom.  Charging smokers higher health insurance premiums is no more objectionable than imposing taxes on tobacco products, alcohol, guns, or gasoline. Taxes do not prohibit people from engaging in behavior, but they can help to ensure that individuals bear the costs of their behavior.

Actually, financial penalties are one way in which statists try to attack freedom and liberty. It is objectionable for the federal government to say, “Yes, the Second Amendment exists, but we’re going to tax your right to defend your life, liberty and property into oblivion so as to render the Second Amendment moot.”

It is objectionable for the federal government to say, “You can have your car, but I’m going to tax gasoline so much that you will never think of owning an SUV, let along go on a cross-country road trip, because I find fossil fuels distasteful to my green sensibilities.”

Why is it that over and over again it is the responsible person who seems to get screwed over by those with their hands closest to the levers of power?

Did you take out a mortgage you could barely afford during strong economic times and can’t pay your bills now that things have gone sour? No problem! Did you take out $100,000 in student loans for a degree in underwater basket weaving that isn’t panning out? Let’s see what we can do about that. Do you put s**t into your mouth all day long for years on end and now wonder why you have liver disease at 30? Let’s see if we can lower your health care costs and maybe jack them up on the guy who eats sensibly and exercises.

How is the current system of governance supposed to stand when well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens keep getting the shaft? It can not.

I can run longer, harder and faster than person ‘x’ because I exercise while he stuffs his face with chips and soda in front of a video game console on a daily basis. I have a job because I work my butt off and I try to continuously improve at what I do.

When one studies a specific aspect of life and sees inequality it does not always mean that there is also an absence of “fairness.” In fact, sometimes the existence of inequalities means that equality (of opportunity) is being taken advantage of in spades. That is not a bad thing.

If you are a free-thinking and honest member of society who hasn’t been paying attention to the political landscape, I highly suggest surveying the terrain. With each passing day the dependence peddlers make it less attractive to do what is right. The behavioral dregs of society are elevated to something more, while the man who lives his life in accordance with time-tested recipes for greatness is politically thrown in the stocks and pummeled until he adopts the hunched-back and hobbled posture of his sheepish peers.

I do not smoke. I do not make a habit of decadence. I exercise my mind, body and spirit. Hopefully, that will be enough to be an advocate for freedom and individual liberty for years to come. Since I’ll need a hand, I invite you to join me.


  1. Very interesting post Doug. I’ve always found it intriguing how badly bureaucracy wants to crush smoking. Take one of America’s oldest and most successful agricultural industries since colonial times – tobacco – and fast-forward to 2013. I wonder what the old yeoman farmers of Virginia, the Carolinas, etc. would think.

    Personally speaking, people should be free to do anything they want to themselves. They just have to accept the consequences of their actions. If you do heroin, for example, you’ll likely become an addict and risk overdose for an hour or two of indescribable physical pleasure. I don’t want that, but who am I to say you shouldn’t have it if you do?

    The next year or two will be very interesting as the ACA reignites debates on things like smoking, obesity, etc. I enjoy your posts on the intersection of ethics and health like this. My guess is you’ll have tons of material until the next presidential election, if not longer.

    1. Thanks for the input, Mark. In general, I wish the government would just get out of the medical business (among many other sectors of the economy). I’d love it if buying health insurance was more like a trip to the grocery store, where I get to pick and choose the “brand” of services I want from an endless stream of competitors. Some insurance companies would decide they want to charge more to guys like me, who exercise regularly. Cool. I’m fine with that. Others would cater specifically to my lifestyle.

      What I don’t like is some weird fiat from masterminds in Washington, D.C., that targets you or me or someone else because they decided soda is bad one day, but front squats and 500m rows are the enemy of cost-savings the next. Even worse, when these perpetual busy-bodies do get involved in our everyday life, they seem to bend over backwards to help society’s screw ups. The guy who does the right thing is always demonized. “Successful? Oh, you must be ‘greedy.’ You must have exploited x, y and z along the way.”

      This post was admittedly dry … but I love physical fitness. I had to write it.

  2. Interesting, had no idea this was happening or even that this was the case in the unhealthy vs healthy.

    But it goes to show that we do not live in fact in a economy in the true sense of the word. That theres a good chance our monetary system is far outdated in its rules and methods. Its easy to say that we’ve gotten ‘off track’ from what our economy was 40-60 years ago. But thats only because of the entire global system of globalization and the things we love have required this track.

    It is safe to say though, if we do not something that is truly economic of our resources, health, and world, we will continue to see more hypocritical, backwards things like this.

    Growth for sake of profit as seen above cannot be infinite, or we will perish.

  3. no one can escape dependency to medical professionals. the status quo is unsustainable. those who want to destroy ACA should explain what their ideas are to replace it.

    1. A good rule of thumb should be that if a politician says, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it,” then that bill probably needs to go back to the drawing board. I fail to understand why Congress needs to pass massive overhaul legislation when the more logical approach would be to break things down into manageable components. I would rather pass ten smaller, more concise and effective bills than one monstrous pile of red tape that confuses so many people that chunks of it have to be delayed for a year before roll-out.

    2. 1. There is a difference between state and federal government mandates. If I don’t like what Maryland does, I can move to Texas. That is a BIG difference.
      2. If you’re talking about “Heritage’s part in crafting Romney’s policy ideas for Massachusetts, I don’t particularly want relive that debate. I will say Heritage is sometimes wrong, just like they are wrong now about getting involved with this “defund Obamacare” crap idea.

      I don’t feel like disclosing things to you that would reflect poorly on my former employer. It’s a bit more complicated than you’d like to portray it here. (I’m sure you know that, but you’ve always had a thing about proving how smart and witty you are in the comments section.) I would suggest you read the following piece. It’s very insightful.

    3. I don’t want to relive that debate either. there’s actually no point to any of this debate, and by any I mean all of it. it’s going to get much worse for a lot of people. no person, group, or country can redirect where this is all going.

  4. I hope your readers take the time to read the original (and not long) article so they can see for themselves that the author does NOT argue for charging exercisers more, but just makes the argument that charging smokers more would not be logical or effective.

    1. Jen,

      I provided multiple links for them to follow if they desire. I also think they’re smart enough to read and comprehend the following: “However, I was a bit surprised when the folks at open-access medical journal PLOS opened the door for the “social justice” crowd to demonize Americans who exercise daily.” The author, whether consciously or not, has provided statists with all the intellectual ammunition they need to find a way to get into another group’s pockets.

      It also makes it harder to defend Mr. Resnik with passages like this:

      “[S]ome might argue that incentivizing smokers to quit is unjustified, paternalistic interference in personal autonomy. Smokers should be allowed to make lifestyle choices free from coercion from employers, insurers, or the government. This objection is not very persuasive, however, because financial penalties do not significantly limit personal freedom,” (David B. Resnik).

      Yes, they do limit personal freedom — and sometimes the goal is to do so “significantly.” The author might understand medicine, but he apparently has a more difficult time grasping individual liberty.

      Speaking of people who like to use the tax code to punish people: “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant they can, but it will bankrupt them…”

  5. Look Douglas, let’s just agree to let the issue of what constitutes a Hero in the most absolute sense of the word and forget the whole should fictional characters all be recidivists like you and I are and let’s focus on socialized medicine.

    Now, my parents and, indeed, my two younger brothers and sisters think that Obamacare is going to make things affordable for everyone.

    In as little words as possible, what do you suggest I do to convince them otherwise and WHICH side here is, without a doubt, true or truer than the other side because I fear that I broke my rule of never trust a politician and may be letting biased Right Winged news sights like Townhall and The Blaze get the better of me and though I am indeed a conservative, I would like to be a well informed one and be able to defend my views without other people thinking I’m stupid or crazy or both.

    So, please, can you describe to a low information person why socialized medicine is so bad?

    1. First off, if you’re reading news sites, I wouldn’t refer to yourself as a low-information voter. Generally, I try to read news from across a wide spectrum of sources and then try to filter out the politics…

      If your parents won’t believe you on Obamacare, will they believe … the agencies tasked with rolling out Obamacare? Go directly to the source — the government — and their own numbers tell a very different story than what you hear coming out on the campaign trail.

      You can keep your doctor — maybe. Your rates won’t go up — perhaps. Nothing is going to change — except when it does.

      Can your parents name one government program that ever came in under budget? That ever actually completed its task and then closed up shop? That didn’t grow and grow and grow over the years, only to slightly slow down during economic downturns?

    2. Probably not, but they’ll think those programs help too! In fact, I think food stamps and medicaid, they think ARE WORKING!

      Maybe it would help if I knew where they were getting their numbers from. I’ll ask them when they get home.

      On a similar note, what do you think about Immigration? Note: I’m Puerto-Rican and I’m against Illegal Immigrants being granted citizenship, yet I feel bad about it, sometimes as though Illegal Immigrants own my skin color.

    3. I think my piece on Mr. Manuel Martinez best encapsulates how I feel about immigration.

      I don’t believe immigrants should be punished for something our own federal government encouraged them to do — by not enforcing immigration laws. They sent out word (without speaking) that they should come here, and now we’re supposed to deport millions of people? Ridiculous.

      My wife’s family came to the U.S. from China years ago, and they did everything by the books. I don’t believe people who follow the rule of law should be shoved to the back of the line because others want to break the law. No country has a completely open immigration policy. In fact, the U.S. immigration policy is incredibly generous.

      The problem with immigration today is that the welfare state exists. Prior to 1914, immigrants came for jobs and they were given jobs. Now? They come here and they’re actually encouraged to get on welfare, food stamps, etc. You know what happens from there (e.g., fast forward in time and you have 2nd and 3rd generation kids who are still on food stamps).

    1. Townhall is a great resource. Always has been. I started reading Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams there years ago. Its ‘news’ section pulls from AP, Reuters, etc. so you can always just get straight news if you want.

      The Blaze covers stories no one else will touch. I like that. I don’t like that Glen Beck is overdramatic and kind of weird. He hurts his cause when every other day he has a story that he claims will change the course of history… He’s often philosophically correct, but he undercuts his case with the delivery on many occasions.

    1. The problem is that Congress isn’t filled with adults. In a sane world people would say: “Okay, these guys have been here for decades. They have kids who grew up here who are 100 times more American than Mexican or Russian or Chinese … or whatever. How do we figure out a way to make this person pay some sort of legal penalty for breaking the law while still putting them on a path to citizenship?”

      Well, first of all you’d need some sort of semblance of control over your borders. You’d need to actually enforce immigration laws that are on the books. You’d have to boot known criminals out of the country. (Heck, give them a parachute and throw them back over their country via airmail if they’re a violent criminal and their country of origin won’t take them…) Then, you could talk about a path to citizenship.

      Personally, I’d probably trade a completely open immigration system if you could do away with the welfare state (but that’s not going to happen).

      It’s a tough issue. I just think that conservatives needlessly come across as cold and heartless. They’re logical. They understand basic math (unlike the people who could look at $17 trillion dollars of debt and not see a disaster on the horizon). But conservatives often don’t understand how their actions are perceived on an emotional level. There is a way to be compassionate without compromising on principles. It’s just a lot more difficult when the people you’re negotiating with act like immature children.

    2. I’ve laid out the blueprint in my previous answer.

      1. Enforce existing laws.
      2. Secure the border.
      3. Figure out a “path to citizenship” for those who are here once some sort of predetermined criteria for success have been met for 1 and 2.

      I’m not an immigration lawyer, but I think the broad brushstroke answer is that those who are here go to the back of the line. At least they’re then officially in “the line.” As I said, my wife’s family went through the process legally. I’m not cool with someone who ran over the border cutting.

      Also, any violent criminals, like I said — see ya. Gang member? Gone. I was the only white guy at the Target overnight shift in college and the immigrants who worked with me worked HARD. Really hard. They were good people. I think adults can figure out a way to make it all work. Sadly, there aren’t many in Congress right now.

    1. Well, if someone is here illegally and they’re a violent criminal, gangbanger, etc. I don’t really care what they take kindly to. Every time people complain about our immigration laws I tell them to look at how Mexico treats immigrants from South America…

      I don’t own any guns, but the house I live in has enough to survive the zombie apocalypse. It would be a really bad idea to try and break into this house… I’m familiar with most rifles, having been in the military. However, I’m not into handguns.

  6. How DOES Mexico treat immigration from the rest of Latin America?

    Also, what’s the ultimate argument to people who say that, “Congress is “exempt” from Obamacare in the same way the approximately 81% of Americans who already have acceptable insurance coverage are. Congress, like all federal employees, is covered by an employer-paid health insurance plan, and thus already has acceptable coverage under Obamacare,” like the youtube commentator who wrote this in response to something I said, said?

    1. Mexico boots illegals without thinking twice. I’d have to look up the specifics, but they often have all sorts rules (e.g., can’t run for local office) for new immigrants that people would melt down over if it happened here. Long story short: As always, the U.S. is held to a completely different standard. We’re supposed to just accept everyone who walks through the door (and give them benefits), while other countries do what sovereign countries do: control their borders.

      The difference between Congress and your local mom-and-pop shop is that the smaller businesses are dumping employees because they can’t afford Obamacare, its regulations, the uncertainty it creates, etc. Congress doesn’t have to change its plan because they can always vote themselves more funding — from you and me and anyone else with pockets. Like I said, you can keep your current plan — if you a.) don’t lose your job or b.) your employer doesn’t dump existing plans because of costs.

      Whenever members of Congres have issues that affect them or their staff, they just turn the taxpayer money hose back on themselves. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could do that, too? I can’t believe there are people who don’t see how Congress has one standard for themselves and another more onerous standard for the rest of us. When you’re blinded by ideology, you can’t even see that the people you defend are the ones stealing your individual liberties. Sad…

    1. Eh. Instead of spending time and energy fighting the NSA, I think politically active people should spend time and energy a.) reading the best and brightest who have written about freedom and liberty throughout history and b.) working to elect representatives who actually represent their values.

      We don’t need more laws. We don’t need more apps. We need to change the culture. And you do that by working at it one person at a time. You educate yourself so that you can apply the principles you live by to any situation, and then you find a way to influence the people who you come into contact with on a daily basis. The approach you use to convince your mom will be different than the approach you use with a coworker or friend. Electing a new president every four years with the right letter next to his name won’t change anything. Change starts at the local level and builds from there.

  7. Really? Wow…the illegal immigrants of Mexico come from a place where the Government has some pretty strict immigration laws…yet move up North and expect things to be easier on them because this is America…what a bunch of hypocritical c***s…assuming that the people moving North aren’t low information types.

    Also, what do you think about this?:

    1. First off, let me say that while I don’t mind answering questions from readers, I do mind when people use language that immediately lowers the level of discourse. Please refrain from doing that. The way to convince people you’re right is not by calling other people “hypocritical c***s” or randomly throwing out expletives. If you want others to take you seriously, you must first take yourself seriously.

      Wit that said, I don’t care what local law enforcement agencies spend their money on if they’re using funds that are raised locally. I do have a bit of an issue with small-town cities finding ways to use federal funds to get all sorts of high tech equipment that, in all likelihood, they will never use. Chicago? Dallas? New York City? Okay, I get it that they face legitimate threats to security. There’s a proper balance in all of this. I’m not sure exactly what it is, but I think preventing state and local agencies from turning to the federal government every time they want something shiny is a good place to start.

    1. The question isn’t whether or not the U.S. government would ever turn against its own people, but whether or not we as a society are setting the stage for it to occur. In many respects, we are. If we put all the pieces in place for tyranny (in the traditional sense) to flourish, then we shouldn’t be shocked when we wake up one morning and realize that the Orwellian nightmare is real.

      I don’t think people are consciously plotting and planning to turn the U.S. into North Korea, but it’s hard to deny that architects of tyranny have been laying the foundation for decades.

      We have $17 trillion in debt. When is the Jenga tower going to collapse? What will happen to U.S. cities when it does? Good question.

      Will it crash at $20 trillion? $25 trillion? $30 trillion? We are on a trajectory that can only end badly, and anyone who understands basic Math knows it. You have to be in complete denial to see that the debt we are raking up is going to cause pain and suffering on a scale we have never seen before. There is not a lot of time to right the ship. Barring some sort of weird technological breakthrough that changes the course of history … or an epiphany by Congress, future generations are in a heap of trouble.

    1. Hmm. Looks interesting. I wouldn’t mind checking that out.

      I got to speak with Ed Meese on quite a few occasions when I worked at Heritage. He’s a good man…

    1. Don’t thank me! Thank the poster on the blaze who first linked the free video to me during a discussion taking place on a story they ran about the HORRIBLE STORY involving a Marine and His Wife engaging in sex with their about 3 to five year old son and daughter and…yeah…I think I need to burn my fingers for writing that again and I think I need therapy to repress that story again…

      God, I hate Orlando and wish I didn’t live so close to it…

  8. Me and my dad just had a conversation about the badness of Obamacare and he made some crappy metaphor about Obama having to buy new seats for the senate because the previous administration took those seats even though those seats will cost more and quicken the deficit because those seats are ‘necessary’ and said he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t…so he should do the thing that hastens our doom faster…

    I’m confused.

    Oh yeah, he also said that the idea of “death panels” by Government Stooges is pretty much what HMO’s do now…only he didn’t realize that this was not an excuse, but rather, it was an admission of how bad The Stooges would be…only on a freakin’ NATIONAL LEVEL.

  9. Hello Douglass. I was wondering if you had any idea about communism–err…—“socialism” in Sweden and if it works or not there. The reason is because I once got into an argument from a social democrat who was a self-described ‘Dane attending College in Sweden who was studying Etymology’ about it and I admit, I was fighting in the dark with my pants down and flaying my fists around wildly (though she herself was of the breed that thought people who were against sodomite marriage were ‘old people that she was glad were going to die off soon,’ which is a mindset that frightens me, even though I’m barely out of highschool and younger than her) and, next time, I’d like to be armed with good information in case I ever get into a scenario like that again.

    1. I know it sounds weird, but awhile back I saw or read an interview with Dolf Lungren, where he talked about why he left Sweden. It might be online or on YouTube somewhere. Regardless, he basically said that he wanted to become great, and that staying in Sweden would have prevented him from achieving his full potential. People flock to America because the combination of political and economic freedom is like no other place in the world. When someone has big dreams, where have they historically turned? Sweden? Umm, no. Another famous immigrant came here who had big dreams named “Arnold.” Perhaps you’ve heard of him?

      I guess it all depends on what arguments she was making as it pertains to Sweden’s greatness. I’d also mention that much of the world complains about the U.S. and its military while simultaneously leeching off the security we provide. Many countries don’t spend squat on self defense (instead funneling it into their socialist or pseudo-socialist welfare states), knowing full-well that they are in essence abdicating a chunk of their own sovereignty to America.

      I would advise you not to “fight in the dark.” It’s a dangerous game. True story: I once had a fight in the dark with my brother and I’m pretty sure I broke his nose. There was a big crack, a lot of blood, and his nose was never right since then. He always challenged me to a rematch as a kid … but I knew he was planning for payback. Anyway, do your homework. Flailing about on YouTube or wherever if you’re not adequately prepared is going to leave you intellectually bloodied more often than not. I spent most of my early twenties devouring books. Yeah, some of them are a bit dry … but in the end you’ll be a pretty formidable opponent. It’s worth it.

  10. The argument we had was specifically regarded towards the well fare/socialized medicine state of Sweden.

    1. A good primer on Sweden can be found over at NRO. It’s titled: Sweden’s Quiet Revolution.

      Like I said before though, there are many countries that are able to fund their welfare states precisely because they count on the U.S. being there to provide them with a blanket of security. For all the whining and moaning from certain parts of the world on U.S. defense spending, deep down they know that a.) we’re a morally just country and b.) we wouldn’t let countries rooted in the best traditions of Western Civilization get steam-rolled by foreign aggressors. That calculus has changed since 2008…

      Certain politicians wish America was an “exceptional” nation. They wish we were just one of many on the world stage. Well, they’re getting their wish. If it all plays out like they want it to, we should be in for an interesting show.

  11. Hey Doug, how do you maintain your energy levels? I always have low energy and feel like I wanna crash even though it’s mid-day.

    1. Actually, many people get tired around the middle of the afternoon. That’s normal. Some of it has to do with your body’s general rhythms, and then it also has to do with your blood sugar levels. If you eat a big meal, that triggers insulin to be released into the body. Along with the insulin comes other factors that make you drowsy.

      Without knowing how much sleep you get a night, how much you exercise, and what you eat during the day it’s really hard to tell you how to keep high levels of energy. If you eat smaller snacks throughout the day, each a couple hours apart (instead of 2 or three big meals a day) that might help.

      I exercise in the morning and work up an appetite, eat a healthy breakfast, shower and then head out the door for work. Usually that keeps me going for awhile. I get a little tired around 3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., but I’ll have a protein bar around then, maybe get up and stretch my legs, etc. I also drink a lot of water throughout the day. I haven’t looked into whether or not that helps, but I’m a water nerd. I don’t think most people drink enough. You would think they would considering that … we’re basically all water. Isn’t it 85% or something like that? I’d have to look it up.

      Hope that helps.

  12. Well…to be honest…my diet consists mostly of spaghetti with spam chunks instead of ground beef, macaroni with cheese, white rice, yellow rice with Vienna sausages, and, of course, fast food (mainly Taco Bell and Burger King).

    1. Well, given the amount of high glycemic foods you’ve mentioned right there, I can see why you get spells of drowsiness. With all due respect man, in the long run that’s a recipe for diabetes. Did you read my post on the food pyramid. Check it out. “Mike” knows what he’s talking about.

      Good post man. You know this has been my pet issue for years. The food pyramid should be damn simple. Half meat, 3/8′s plants and the other 8th low GI/low glycemic load carbs.

      You can get away with your current diet given that you’re a young guy, but that’s going to catch up with you. Change your diet and, in many ways, you change you life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: