The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[The Don]

Well which is it, sad or not sad ?

I'm not gleeful at all, in fact I find it bloody sad that an entire group will be discriminated against..

If I allowed myself to feel sad over discrimination against fat people....<snip>

It's a big, nasty world out there and I only have so many ***** to give.

 

[Checkmite]

Again, whether anyone feels "sorry" for a person's disability, or whether or not the disability is permanent or only temporary, or was "self-inflicted", is completely beside the point for determination purposes.

All that matters: is a person physically or mentally incapable of performing required tasks, and is this condition expected to last a prolonged period of time? If the answer to both is yes, then the person is disabled as a simple matter of fact. Not sure why any person's private repulsion to obese people is important enough to be relevant.

 

[bit_pattern]

Again, whether anyone feels "sorry" for a person's disability, or whether or not the disability is permanent or only temporary, or was "self-inflicted", is completely beside the point for determination purposes.

All that matters: is a person physically or mentally incapable of performing required tasks, and is this condition expected to last a prolonged period of time? If the answer to both is yes, then the person is disabled as a simple matter of fact. Not sure why any person's private repulsion to obese people is important enough to be relevant.

Yup. My position exactly.

 

[marplots]

Again, whether anyone feels "sorry" for a person's disability, or whether or not the disability is permanent or only temporary, or was "self-inflicted", is completely beside the point for determination purposes.

All that matters: is a person physically or mentally incapable of performing required tasks, and is this condition expected to last a prolonged period of time? If the answer to both is yes, then the person is disabled as a simple matter of fact. Not sure why any person's private repulsion to obese people is important enough to be relevant.

Yup. My position exactly.

It kind of ruins the meaning when you define it that broadly. Both a newborn babe and my dead grandmother meet those criteria.

 

[Walter Ego]

Just browsed through this thread... wow. Fat-Shamers R Us?

I've nothing against lard-butts except when they take the last cripple cart at the super market. I'm handicapped and need to use it.

 

[bit_pattern]

It kind of ruins the meaning when you define it that broadly. Both a newborn babe and my dead grandmother meet those criteria.

The legal definition is pretty clear and can be found on page 4.

 

[marplots]

The legal definition is pretty clear and can be found on page 4.

Well played. I went back and read page 4 and, as I should have suspected, it's not there (posts #121 - 160). Shows me for a gullible fool, huh?

But, supposing you have some legal definition that says obesity is a disability - case closed, yes?

 

[bit_pattern]

Well played. I went back and read page 4 and, as I should have suspected, it's not there (posts #121 - 160). Shows me for a gullible fool, huh?

But, supposing you have some legal definition that says obesity is a disability - case closed, yes?

Page 5, #173 - it's a legal definition of disabled, based on the international convention (or something like that - whatever, you'll find it is pretty universal) on disability, that fits quite well with Checkmite's argument.

 

[marplots]

Page 5, #173 - it's a legal definition of disabled, based on the international convention (or something like that - whatever, you'll find it is pretty universal) on disability, that fits quite well with Checkmite's argument.

Here's the US version: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102

Note that the definition revolves around what can and cannot be done as an activity, not necessarily simply a medical condition. So, for example, I can be a diabetic but not disabled, so long as the condition doesn't interfere with major life functions. This would imply that obesity, qua obesity, wouldn't necessarily be a disability, but if it interfered with "normal" activities, might.

It might not if the condition is considered "transitory" instead of "chronic."

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's the US version: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12102

Note that the definition revolves around what can and cannot be done as an activity, not necessarily simply a medical condition. So, for example, I can be a diabetic but not disabled, so long as the condition doesn't interfere with major life functions. This would imply that obesity, qua obesity, wouldn't necessarily be a disability, but if it interfered with "normal" activities, might.

It might not if the condition is considered "transitory" instead of "chronic."

I agree wholeheartedly, it's a point I made numerous times earlier in the thread - obesity is only a disability if an individual is disabled by the condition. I think that was the crux of Checkmite's point above too.

 

[marplots]

I agree wholeheartedly, it's a point I made numerous times earlier in the thread - obesity is only a disability if an individual is disabled by the condition. I think that was the crux of Checkmite's point above too.

With similar definitions in two countries, I'd be surprised if this hasn't made it to court a few times. Feel like researching?

 

[The Atheist]

Do you have any evidence to support this ? In the UK there seems to be no let up in the growth of obesity:

USA seems to have shown a flattening of the fattening, and I think UK is still in catch-up mode.

Obviously not everone will become obese, so it must end somewhere.

http://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/obesity1.png?w=595&h=446

http://blog.commpsych.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Obesity-Graphic.jpg

Not sure why any person's private repulsion to obese people is important enough to be relevant.

Repulsion has nothing to do with it - the problem is all about who pays for it.

Plus, this:

I've nothing against lard-butts except when they take the last cripple cart at the super market. I'm handicapped and need to use it.

Well said.

That is exactly the point.

 

[blutoski]

Because they're not physical or mental impairments?

Well, they might be, and we'd have to consider them on an individual basis.

We have a colleague who is tone deaf (5% hearing), so was unable to distinguish the different ring tones in the building alarm system even though he could hear them.

Rather than have him evacuate the building every time the alarm sounded, we gave him a pager that was rigged into the alarm system and provided a text version of the alert.


We have many employees with severe social anxiety disorders who we've supported with home office option.

 

[casebro]

.............


We have many employees with severe social anxiety disorders who we've supported with home office option.

Aaah, that explains a LOT about one of the neighbors. I guess her problems are obvious at work too, I'm not the only one that noticed.

 

[bit_pattern]

A couple of things I've read recently that relate to arguments had throughout this thread:

First, on the notion that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie - I tried arguing that The Atheist's menu on his blog wasn't particularly conducive to weight loss because it contained a lot of processed foods. I was successfully argued down on the notion that there's no such thing as a fattening food, that it all comes down to a simplified calorie-in calorie-out model. However, this article from academic biologists argues that a calorie is not always just a calorie because the more you process a food the more calories can be absorbed by the body. It makes for some fascinating reading and puts forward a very good case for eating whole and raw foods if you want to lose weight:

https://theconversation.com/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories-35081

Secondly, the notion that being fat is the primary risk factor in heart disease. This article is written by an academic health scientist and looks at the problems associated with BMI. One section that caught my eye was the following excerpt that argues that being lean and unfit puts one at greater risk that being fat and fit:

https://theconversation.com/does-my-bmi-look-big-in-this-and-does-it-really-matter-35156

Remember that being lean and unfit is worse than being fat and fit. In one study, men who were lean but unfit had almost twice the risk of dying compared to men who were overweight but fit. And all the rest, from crossfit to core training, from carbs to quinoa, all the rest, as Verlaine says, is just literature.

I don't post these as a definitive 'AHA!' gotchya type argument but only to share material that I thought was relevant to previous discussions

 

[Modified]

First, on the notion that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie - I tried arguing that The Atheist's menu on his blog wasn't particularly conducive to weight loss because it contained a lot of processed foods. I was successfully argued down on the notion that there's no such thing as a fattening food, that it all comes down to a simplified calorie-in calorie-out model. However, this article from academic biologists argues that a calorie is not always just a calorie because the more you process a food the more calories can be absorbed by the body. It makes for some fascinating reading and puts forward a very good case for eating whole and raw foods if you want to lose weight:

Forget absorption. Eating 1000 calories of key lime pie (1/4 pie) in a sitting is easy and most people would have room for more and/or be hungry an hour later. Eating 1000 calories of ribeye steak (about 1 lb) in a sitting is not so easy and for most people that would be it for half a day. Eating 1000 calories of cucumbers (about 60 cups) in a sitting is impossible.

 

[bit_pattern]

Forget absorption. Eating 1000 calories of key lime pie (1/4 pie) in a sitting is easy and most people would have room for more and/or be hungry an hour later. Eating 1000 calories of ribeye steak (about 1 lb) in a sitting is not so easy and for most people that would be it for half a day. Eating 1000 calories of cucumbers (about 60 cups) in a sitting is impossible.

While I appreciate the point you are making, I certainly would not discount absorption. We're not just talking about raw vegetables - we're talking about the level of processing. For instance, a steak grilled rare is going provide fewer calories for absorption than a steak that has been slow cooked for 12 hours. Read the article, it's interesting.

 

[The Atheist]

Secondly, the notion that being fat is the primary risk factor in heart disease.

I don't believe anyone made that claim. The position was correctly stated as "obesity is a leading cause of heart disease."

 

[marplots]

A couple of things I've read recently that relate to arguments had throughout this thread:

First, on the notion that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie - I tried arguing that The Atheist's menu on his blog wasn't particularly conducive to weight loss because it contained a lot of processed foods. I was successfully argued down on the notion that there's no such thing as a fattening food, that it all comes down to a simplified calorie-in calorie-out model. However, this article from academic biologists argues that a calorie is not always just a calorie because the more you process a food the more calories can be absorbed by the body. It makes for some fascinating reading and puts forward a very good case for eating whole and raw foods if you want to lose weight:

https://theconversation.com/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories-35081

The problem I see is one of adding an unneeded ambiguity. Everyone knows that eating sawdust isn't going to add to your metabolic budget - even though we could burn wood to extract the calories and heat our houses. So the idea of a "calorie" already assumes it's something available to the body and should account for the "cost."

The reason nutritional labels are simplified is to allow a reasonable comparison between products. Your article mentions the difficulty in giving an actual, valid number, not just as it relates to food processing, but across a population with variable absorption.

Interestingly, the same is true at the other end. I may walk a mile and burn significantly more calories than someone else walking that same mile - how should we calculate the "outs?"

I think the whole kerfuffle springs from the idea that the numbers given provide a level of accuracy which misleads us. However, the solution wouldn't be to abandon the numbers altogether, but to recognize the inherent variability.

On a side note, food processing is a boon when the objective is to get as many calories from your environment with the least effort possible. We should consider abandoning unprocessed foods as a primitive and less effective method of providing sustenance.

 

[Elaedith]

A couple of things I've read recently that relate to arguments had throughout this thread:

Secondly, the notion that being fat is the primary risk factor in heart disease. This article is written by an academic health scientist and looks at the problems associated with BMI. One section that caught my eye was the following excerpt that argues that being lean and unfit puts one at greater risk that being fat and fit:

https://theconversation.com/does-my-bmi-look-big-in-this-and-does-it-really-matter-35156



I don't post these as a definitive 'AHA!' gotchya type argument but only to share material that I thought was relevant to previous discussions

Yes, here are some more examples of studies addressing that issue :

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/3/373.full

http://www.isdbweb.org/app/webroot/documents/file/1758_22.pdf

http://g-se.com/uploads/biblioteca/fitness_vs._fatness_on_all_cause_mortality_a_meta_analysis.pdf

This study showed that the obesity paradox (where obese cardiac patients survive better) also depends on fitness :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2813818/

Fitness is also a more important predictor of functional limitation than BMI :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21297181

The study showed that the association between BMI and functional limitation was no longer significant after controlling for cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), while the association between low CRF and functional limitation remained after controlling for BMI.

The point is, not exercising is one way that people become both fat and unfit, therefore fatness and unfitness are confounded. However, it is possible to be thin and have low CRF through not exercising, or be fat and have high CRF through exercising without losing weight. Despite that, current weight guidelines are based on studies that correlate increasing BMI (or body fat) with increasing morbidity and mortality and do not control at all for fitness (the fact that higher BMI samples contain a higher percentage of unfit people). Many do not even control for physical activity, or do so only using very poor self report measures. Recent studies that do measure fitness find that many of the associations between BMI and mortality are reduced or become non-significant when fitness is controlled for.

If people were really interested in health rather than appearance, they would promote a healthy diet and exercise as ends in themselves rather than just as means to weight loss. That way you would have not such absurd things as thin people saying they don't need exercise because they are not overweight, or fat people saying they may as well give up exercise because it didn't result in weight loss, or people saying that it doesn't matter whether you use diet and exercise or diet alone, just as long as you lose weight and do it as fast as possible. The fact is, fitness through exercise unequivocally improves health and functional mobility and reduces mortality risks for everybody who is capable of exercising safely, whether or not they lose an ounce. The same cannot be said of merely losing weight without improving fitness; there is a lack of evidence that weight loss per se actually benefits longevity for people who are not severely obese and do not currently have any obesity related health problems:

http://www.iedar.es/pdf/informes/so...e-effect-of-weight-loss-on-mortality-risk.pdf