The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

No. No it isn't. But let's just say I'm not surprised that the level of discourse with you has sunk this low.

OK. Then tell me when you think personal responsibilty end and social intervention starts.

And if the later, how do.judge the responsibility of the person to fix themselves before they mess up their kids? Or just die lying in a pool of sweat and lard?
 
I could probably have phrased that better.

When do become disabled. 100kg? 150,200?
 
When do become disabled.

I would refer you back to the working definition of the term 'disabled'

...to such a degree that he or she is seriously limited in the extent to which he or she can engage in the activities, pursuits and processes of everyday life.
 
I was hoping someone would challenge this, as I'm confident I can back the argument up with both science and economics.

http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/apec406/poverty_obesity_diet.pdf

Many health disparities in the United States are linked to inequalities in education and income. This review focuses on the relation between obesity and diet quality, dietary energy density, and energy costs. Evidence is provided to support the following points. First, the highest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education. Second, there is an inverse relation between energy density (MJ/kg) and energy cost ($/MJ), such that energy-dense foods composed of refined grains, added sugars, or fats may represent the lowest-cost option to the consumer. Third, the high energy density and palatability of sweets and fats are associated with higher energy intakes, at least in clinical and laboratory studies. Fourth, poverty and food insecurity are associated with lower food expenditures, low fruit and vegetable consumption, and lower-quality diets. A reduction in diet costs in linear programming models leads to high-fat, energy-dense diets that are similar in composition to those consumed by low-income groups. Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit. The association between poverty and obesity may be mediated, in part, by the low cost of energy-dense foods and may be reinforced by the high palatability of sugar and fat. This economic framework provides an explanation for the observed links between socioeconomic variables and obesity when taste, dietary energy density, and diet costs are used as intervening variables. More and more Americans are becoming overweight and obese while consuming more added sugars and fats and spending a lower percentage of their disposable income on food.
 
Like a power cut.

Awesome.

Not long ago I was disabled

No. A power cut is not a physical or mental disability, as is the requirement of the definition you were provided:

(The Act) defines a person with a disability as any person who suffers from physical or mental disability to such a degree that he or she is seriously limited in the extent to which he or she can engage in the activities, pursuits and processes of everyday life.
 
Your argument is my disability is the motivation with the lack of power to fix it
Mine is a lack of motivation where there is the power to fix it

That probably came out wrong sorry
 
If you're exercising, you can eat enough (of healthier foods) to feel full? If you never move, you won't burn many calories.

I don't understand what's so wrong with saying that diet and exercise are both important components of weight loss. Especially if a person is obese and therefore accustomed to eating much more.

Or with saying that weight loss takes work. More work than weight gain. Those 2 statements are controversial? GMAB.

There has been a lot of research into what is more effective in losing weight, diet, exercise or diet and exercise.

The most effective is diet and exercise, then diet, then exercise.

As long as a calorie deficit is created, it doesn't really matter what combination people use.
 
When has evolution chosen to make people obese and die young?

It is an oxy moron

It is a highly advantageous trait to be able to store energy in the form of fat so that the organism survives times of famine.

Fat is also required for fecundity in most mammals.

It doesn't matter what age an organism dies at, as long as they have reproduced, it is considered to be successful.

It doesn't matter if an organisms dies young, it may be considered a type of selection.

No offense, but from reading a few of your posts now, you seem to use opinion far more than any sort of science or logic.

Opinion always loses to science.
 
I was hoping someone would challenge this, as I'm confident I can back the argument up with both science and economics.

Fat-causing foods are more expensive than healthier foods. I proved this in a study over a month last year where I fed my entire family on a limited budget to show that it is possible to eat healthy food in near-poverty conditions. http://charman.co.nz/poverty/povertynz2.htm

Factor in things like sugared drinks bought at ridiculous cost against almost-free water and it becomes very obvious that it is easier and cheaper to eat healthily than unhealthily.

Please feel free to post evidence to support your position.

All foods can be stored as fat if you eat in excess of the requirements of the body.

You can get fat eating healthy food.

You can lose weight eating junk food.

You haven't backed up your argument with anything but a dodgy looking web page.
 
There has been a lot of research into what is more effective in losing weight, diet, exercise or diet and exercise.

The most effective is diet and exercise, then diet, then exercise.

As long as a calorie deficit is created, it doesn't really matter what combination people use.

There is evidence that exercise is particularly important for people genetically predisposed to obesity:
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n1/full/ijo2008258a.html

Exercise also has direct health benefits even if it does not result in weight loss.
 
There is evidence that exercise is particularly important for people genetically predisposed to obesity:
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n1/full/ijo2008258a.html

Exercise also has direct health benefits even if it does not result in weight loss.

Very true.

But as the discussion has been about weight loss, which can be separated from any sort of health issue, it doesn't change the most effective way to lose weight.

Diet and exercise, then diet, then exercise.

Diet alone can result in weight loss.

Exercise alone can result in weight loss.

Weight loss often improves health outcomes.

Exercise alone can improve health outcomes.


I have been trying to find a recent study about obese individuals and weight loss from low intensity exercise alone.
 
Last edited:
Tatyana

Unless you are saying evolution is trying to get us to start hybernating, your point is a bit silly IMO

Of course some of my posts are opinion.

Would be rather boring if everyone posted off a spreadsheet and needed to produce slides
 
Tatyana

Unless you are saying evolution is trying to get us to start hybernating, your point is a bit silly IMO

Of course some of my posts are opinion.

Would be rather boring if everyone posted off a spreadsheet and needed to produce slides


No, you are just scientifically illiterate.

It also appears you have some issues with reading comprehension and logical fallacies.

Fat is an evolutionary advantageous trait.

Please stop with the strawman arguments and slippery slope.

And no, calling you scientifically illiterate is not an ad hominem when it is factually true.
 
Not sure how that menu can be considered healthy or not fattening. Seems to me there's a lot off sugar and refined starches being consumed there.

Just goes to show how easy it is to be fooled into thinking things aren't healthy by nature. There's nothing wrong with sugars and refined starches, in the right proportions.

Either you didn't read past the first paragraph or your terminally dishonest.

Now you're just being silly. I agreed with you that the same number of calories don't necessarily work the same way, but maths is maths and 1+1 still equals 2, and the utterly certain fact is that if person uses 8000 kj/day but only ingests 7800, they cannot gain weight.

Unless you can convince me humans are capable of photosynthesis, that cannot change.

I've already mentioned hormones/metabolism. What my wife eats would make an Olympic marathon runner fat. She does no exercise whatsoever and is absolutely not bulimic, yet looks amazing.

A couple of years back, our christian neighbour asked her how she had "such amazing abs". My wife told her, with 100% veracity, "By eating a Big Mac and large fries every lunchtime and doing no exercise." At that stage she was working next to a Macdonald's and did indeed have that for lunch every single weekday. Plus a large chocolate thickshake.
 

Repeating nonsense does not work, sorry.

Your link says:
Such diets are more affordable than are prudent diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables, and fruit.

That is woefully wrong.

You know, this is what makes me laugh about this entire debate, and the cost one is I've had hundreds of times over many decades now.

It's funny because it reinforces and indisidious myth - that poor people are fat because they eat crappy food because it's cheaper.

That is a lie.

I can prove it any way you like. Yes, it will take more time and planning than buying some crud and shoving it in the kids' faces, but these are parents we're talking about - people who had kids so they could invest some time in their kids.

Blaming the food is dumb, counter-productive and is a condescending cop-out.
 

Back
Top Bottom