The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

Tatyana said:
You haven't backed up your argument with anything but a dodgy looking web page.
Click to expand...

That was about cost, not value. It works for my family, but wouldn't work for all, nor do I make any claims about calorific value of it if you have a look back.
 
Ok, can we turn this about a little.

Those who want us meanies to stop saying fat people should lose weight, what do you propose?

Doing nothing is not an option, and that has been well-signalled by every health agency on the planet.
 
The Atheist said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...


The case study on your wife would be interesting, but it isn't really evidence of anything.

As well, unless she is actually tracking and recording what she is eating, we know that self reported diets from memory and perception is flawed.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/08/18/aje.kwq216.full
Measurement Error of Dietary Self-Report in Intervention Trials

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/tutorials/dietary/Advanced/ModelUsualIntake/Info1.htm
However, there is no perfect dietary assessment tool to measure usual intake; all self-report dietary assessment instruments are prone to error.

http://www.nutrition.org/asn-blog/2...-diet-data-good-enough-for-nutrition-science/
Is Self-Reported Diet Data Good Enough for Nutrition Science?

Allison highlighted a recent paper by Archer and colleagues that looked at energy intake of respondents in NHANES from 1971-2012, finding that 67.3% of women and 58.7% of men were not physiologically plausible - i.e. the number of calories is “incompatible with life.”
Click to expand...

There are a phenomenal number of these studies, what they have basically found is that people are terrible at estimating what they eat, so please forgive me if I take your claim about your wife with a huge grain of salt.



As well, as far as the whole impact of hormones and metabolism goes, again, there is variability, but it isn't this huge magical thing that allows some people to defy the laws of physics and eat in excess of the calories they require day after day.


http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people.html


So, great for your wife, but it really isn't anything we could derive public policy from.
 
The Atheist said:
Ok, can we turn this about a little.

Those who want us meanies to stop saying fat people should lose weight, what do you propose?

Doing nothing is not an option, and that has been well-signalled by every health agency on the planet.
Click to expand...

1. Only 20% of people are going to lose approximately 10% of their body weight and maintain that for more than one year. If people can do this, it does get easier year after year, for these individuals, provide things like free gym memberships and cash incentives to lose weight and maintain weight loss

2. For those that are unable to lose weight or maintain a weight loss, bariatric surgery

3. Prevention, including cash incentives for parents to have their children fall in normal weight categories.

4. In countries with a social health care system, if people fail in the above three categories, then their access to some health care that is directly related to being obese will entail an extra payment.

Unfortunately, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I think we are going to lose a generation or two.
 
The Atheist said:
Well, thank you for that! I was beginning to think there'd been some new scientific advancement I was unaware of.



Which makes the irony all the more delicious that obesity reduces fertility.
Click to expand...

I did state fat, not obese.

Obesity does appear to be an adaptive trait that is no longer advantageous as the majority of the planet does not encounter famines anymore.

We are not going to undo ten of thousands of years of selection in a generation or two.

The 'obesigenic' environment has only existed for 100 years at a maximum.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_baggage

As well, that post was not directed at you, so I am uncertain as why it was necessary to comment in a sardonic manner.
 
Last edited:
If obesity is going to be considered a disability, and there's a ready cure available (which there is), then I would be less than moral if I didn't seek to help those in need.

That's a simple rationale for both intervention and prevention.
 
marplots said:
If obesity is going to be considered a disability, and there's a ready cure available (which there is), then I would be less than moral if I didn't seek to help those in need.

That's a simple rationale for both intervention and prevention.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem your ideas have managed to helped with the alcohol or drug addiction problems, nor the poor people problem.

Perhaps you should declare a war on fat and throw offenders into jail. Oh yeah. Thst idiocy was slready suggested by your cohorts. :rolleyes:
 
Tatyana

It does matter how old organisms die if now days people are having kids in their 50s.

It doesnt take a million dollar study to work this out.

Unless you think 300 year old turtles have evolved for fun
 
marplots said:
If obesity is going to be considered a disability, and there's a ready cure available (which there is), then I would be less than moral if I didn't seek to help those in need.

That's a simple rationale for both intervention and prevention.
Click to expand...

Just make sure nobody is stigmatized.
 
The Atheist said:
Repeating nonsense does not work, sorry.

Your link says:

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.
Click to expand...

OK, prove it using data NOT from NZ - where it is probable access to fresh produce is cheaper and easier than many other places. I would also say that a peer-reviewed paper from an actual expert in their field is eminently more convincing than your blog - just sayin'.
 
And evolution is survival of the fittest. Not who breeds best and dies young.

Unless your a fly
 
Shiner said:
Just make sure nobody is stigmatized.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to actually help people who suffer from obesity then, yes, make sure you don't stigmatise because otherwise you will probably do more harm than good. If your goal is to just feel smug and superior then, by all means, stigmatise away.
 
Suppose a person cuts off their own leg on purpose. Are they disabled? Yeah, I suppose so. But do they deserve special benefits as a result? (That's the real question here right?) Not if the disability is the result of an intentional choice by the same person.
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

As unconvincing as your personal anecdote is, has she had her visceral fat levels levels checked? She could very well be internally obese, and at risk of all the same health problems as an outwardly obese person, and you'd be none the wiser.
 
Puppycow said:
Suppose a person cuts off their own leg on purpose. Are they disabled? Yeah, I suppose so. But do they deserve special benefits as a result? (That's the real question here right?) Not if the disability is the result of an intentional choice by the same person.
Click to expand...

Define "intentional choice" - do you believe that people become obese with a conscious intention or do you think it is more likely that structural factors at play and that we as a society exist in an obsogenic environment?
 
Because people engaging in socially and self destructive behavior shouldn't admit that to themselves.

Positive reinforcement?

Why quit?

Dancing around the problem doesn't achieve anything.

Why does 'fat shaming' have any effect on people?
 
This thread reminds me of an article I just came across:

What 2,000 Calories Looks Like

It shows how at a lot of American restaurants, it is very easy to consume about 2,000 calories in a single meal; in one case, in a single beverage. One of the unfortunate facts of life is, the yummier it is, the more calories it has. I don't blame the restaurants here. They are just offering consumers what they want: yummy food and lots of it at a reasonable price.

I myself am obese, I admit it (I am not "morbidly" obese though). But I have a job and don't consider myself disabled yet. It's an interesting question though in today's world. It gets easier and easier to become obese every decade as food becomes cheaper and technology does the jobs we used to rely on our muscles to do.
 
Shiner said:
Because people engaging in socially and self destructive behavior shouldn't admit that to themselves.

Positive reinforcement?

Why quit?

Dancing around the problem doesn't achieve anything.

Why does 'fat shaming' have any effect on people?
Click to expand...

As much as I hate to contradict your feelpinions on the issue, there is actually a wealth of evidence gathered over decades that shows why stigmatisation is counterproductive to dealing with addictive behaviours:

Here, why don't you spend the morning exploring the literature for yourself? Hell, if you want to go deeper than the abstract of any particular paper then I'll even unlock the paywall and email the PDF to you.

http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...&sa=X&ei=lpGcVOuSFYOgNsaEhKgD&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...a=X&ei=o5KcVK-YI5OAgwTyj4SgAQ&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

In a nutshell, stigmatisation leads to lower self-esteem, which can result in mental and physical health problems, it generates health disparities, it discourages people from seeking treatment, it interferes with intervention efforts - just to name a few.

There is nothing good that comes from making people feel **** and hopeless about their situation - despite what your gut instincts might tell you. That's why there are entire fields of behavioural therapy associated with addiction treatment that involves trying to reverse the pernicious effects of self and social stigmatisation.
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
As much as I hate to contradict your feelpinions on the issue, there is actually a wealth of evidence gathered over decades that shows why stigmatisation is counterproductive to dealing with addictive behaviours:

Here, why don't you spend the morning exploring the literature for yourself? Hell, if you want to go deeper than the abstract of any particular paper then even unlock the paywall and email the PDF to you.

http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...&sa=X&ei=lpGcVOuSFYOgNsaEhKgD&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

http://scholar.google.com.au/schola...a=X&ei=o5KcVK-YI5OAgwTyj4SgAQ&ved=0CBoQgQMwAA

In a nutshell, stigmatisation leads to lower self-esteem, which can result in mental and physical health problems, it generates health disparities, it discourages people from seeking treatment, it interferes with intervention efforts - just to name a few.

There is nothing good that comes from making people feel **** and hopeless about their situation - despite what your gut instincts might tell you. That's why there are entire fields of behavioural therapy associated with addiction treatment that involves trying to reverse the pernicious effects of self and social stigmatisation.
Click to expand...

You assume ignorance whenever someone strays from the righteous path?

If you feel 'good' about being obese, where is the motivation to change?

It's as good as denial. We all know how self destructive denial can be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom