• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

marplots said:
I was being a stats pedant, that's all.

But it looks like you've answered my question about whether or not people want to be fat. Plainly, they don't want to be.

Which brings me back to this part: Do we, as a society, then have a duty to help them achieve a better state, a state they say they want, and to help them quit harming themselves?

We could do it without necessarily withholding benefits or treatment, but in the game of "harder" there are two dials to tweak - make the thing you want to happen "easier" or make the thing you don't want (obesity) harder than it is now.
Click to expand...

And there are two targets for the tweaking as well: the individual and the environment.

In both situations, there are challenges:
  • Learning what tweaks will work
  • Getting the tweaks passed. The opposition will argue that a) the tweaks will not work, and b) ok fine, fine, even if they will work, tweaks are unethical because they limit choice through coercion. Example: limiting the size of soda containers.
 
Nihilianth said:
That doesn't change the fact that is it HARDER to lose weight than to gain it for an awful lot of people!
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding your point here.

It's a matter of priorities. For many people, gorging on a daily basis is more important than their long term health. For some, losing limbs to diabetes is preferable to the slight discomfort that comes from not constantly being stuffed.

Should we enable self-destructive behavior? How much do we owe our fellow citizens to encourage their health?

It's also hard to quit smoking, but the shame and stigmatization involved with being a smoker have done wonders to reduce the rates.
 
rustypouch said:
It's also hard to quit smoking, but the shame and stigmatization involved with being a smoker have done wonders to reduce the rates.
Click to expand...

One key difference is that as a nicotine addict I can elect not to smoke at all. The same isn't possible for eating disorders. Another difference is that nicotine is a chemical addition and so the psychological factors in the addiction are likely to be less complex than an eating disorder.
 
The Don said:
So should an overweight person be compelled to have a medical procedure which has a significant risk of death in order to continue to receive their benefits ?
Click to expand...

Which procedure are you talking about?

Gastric Banding carries a risk of death of 1 in 2000. Is that the level of significance you mean?

There is, of course, the choice available that has exactly zero chance of surgical/post surgical death: eating less.

Guybrush Threepwood said:
Johann Hari (for those unfamiliar, he's a lying plagiarist.) and the Daily Mirror, you do love your reliable cites don't you?

To be fair the Hari article was interesting, I'd have preferred something by a trustworthy author in a less golly gosh tone though.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder what your point is here. You decry the reliability of the article, but state that it was interesting.

That was the entire point.

Whether plagiarised, incorrect or biased, it is an interesting piece that is related to the subject matter.
 
The Atheist said:
Which procedure are you talking about?

Gastric Banding carries a risk of death of 1 in 2000. Is that the level of significance you mean?

There is, of course, the choice available that has exactly zero chance of surgical/post surgical death: eating less.



I have to wonder what your point is here. You decry the reliability of the article, but state that it was interesting.

That was the entire point.

Whether plagiarised, incorrect or biased, it is an interesting piece that is related to the subject matter.
Click to expand...
The level of risk is unimportant, although it is present.

When dealing with people able to give consent, medics should only give them treatment with their informed consent.
 
Woman Becomes Obese After Fecal Transplant From Overweight Donor

One woman suffering recurrent C. difficile infection was recently successfully treated with this procedure, but interestingly, she also rapidly went from normal weight to becoming obese after receiving the transplant. While the weight gain could be due to a variety of factors, the donor was also overweight, and the recipient had never struggled with her weight before. Researchers are therefore speculating whether something in the transplant could have played a role in her weight gain, and have described the intriguing case in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
And the next diet fad? Skinny-poo transplants.
Click to expand...

It could be a possibility - or, a less extreme take on the issue, perhaps tailoring diets to promote particular bacteria. But if elements of obesity can be explained through a microbial model then why not treat the condition in the way other conditions are being treated via fecal transplants? Maybe obesity, in some cases, really IS a medical problem and not just an individual moral failing that must be judged?
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
It could be a possibility - or, a less extreme take on the issue, perhaps tailoring diets to promote particular bacteria. But if elements of obesity can be explained through a microbial model then why not treat the condition in the way other conditions are being treated via fecal transplants? Maybe obesity, in some cases, really IS a medical problem and not just an individual moral failing that must be judged?
Click to expand...

What's involved in swapping poo? I imagine you'd have to clear out the unwanted flora before establishing the new garden. Then, I suppose you'd want to monitor things to make sure the wild-type didn't once again dominate.
 
marplots said:
What's involved in swapping poo? I imagine you'd have to clear out the unwanted flora before establishing the new garden. Then, I suppose you'd want to monitor things to make sure the wild-type didn't once again dominate.
Click to expand...


Yes I think it's more complicated than some people having fat flora and some having lean. Experiment on mice described here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23970219
 
lonepinealex said:
Yes I think it's more complicated than some people having fat flora and some having lean. Experiment on mice described here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23970219
Click to expand...

Well, at least they have a mechanism for the varied calorie count, and one that doesn't depend on human metabolism, but on different bacterial species in the gut. It's a step forward.

It also makes sense that the bacteria you have would more or less match the diet you already consume. I'd expect to see large differences between a vegan and a meat-o-phile.
 
marplots said:
Well, at least they have a mechanism for the varied calorie count, and one that doesn't depend on human metabolism, but on different bacterial species in the gut. It's a step forward.

It also makes sense that the bacteria you have would more or less match the diet you already consume. I'd expect to see large differences between a vegan and a meat-o-phile.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, so there would still need to be a dietary change for anyone hoping to use a faecal transplant to help them lose weight. Still, if such techniques are cheap and easy to do (are they? I don't know) and could be of major assistance in a weight loss effort, then it's all good.
 
lonepinealex said:
Yes indeed, so there would still need to be a dietary change for anyone hoping to use a faecal transplant to help them lose weight. Still, if such techniques are cheap and easy to do (are they? I don't know) and could be of major assistance in a weight loss effort, then it's all good.
Click to expand...

Plus, there's the commercial possibilities. Buy your favorite thin-celebrity's poo in a capsule, along with the ubiuquitous advice: "Our poo works best with the enclosed diet and exercise plan."

I'll have to withhold judgement on this one, although I got thoroughly burned when I thought H. pylori couldn't possibly be the cause of ulcers. I live to be wrong.

ETA: I have this strange image of the bacteria demanding, "Who run colon town?"
 
Last edited:
rustypouch said:
I'm not understanding your point here.

It's a matter of priorities. For many people, gorging on a daily basis is more important than their long term health. For some, losing limbs to diabetes is preferable to the slight discomfort that comes from not constantly being stuffed.

Should we enable self-destructive behavior? How much do we owe our fellow citizens to encourage their health?

It's also hard to quit smoking, but the shame and stigmatization involved with being a smoker have done wonders to reduce the rates.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing data regarding how successful shaming actually is. My experience may be out of the norm but the people around me that quit seemed to do it for their own personal reasons--usually cost, fear, or self improvement. In my experience, shame increases anxiety which increases the likelihood of seeking out and reverting back to self medicating behaviors.
 
sgtbaker said:
I would be interested in seeing data regarding how successful shaming actually is. My experience may be out of the norm but the people around me that quit seemed to do it for their own personal reasons--usually cost, fear, or self improvement. In my experience, shame increases anxiety which increases the likelihood of seeking out and reverting back to self medicating behaviors.
Click to expand...

It's virtually non-existent. While there are one or two contrary studies suggesting it could be useful, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes against the idea. It was discussed at length early in the thread.
 
bit_pattern said:
It's virtually non-existent. While there are one or two contrary studies suggesting it could be useful, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence goes against the idea. It was discussed at length early in the thread.
Click to expand...

Caught reading the first page then skipping to the last :o
 
bit_pattern said:
It could be a possibility - or, a less extreme take on the issue, perhaps tailoring diets to promote particular bacteria. But if elements of obesity can be explained through a microbial model then why not treat the condition in the way other conditions are being treated via fecal transplants? Maybe obesity, in some cases, really IS a medical problem and not just an individual moral failing that must be judged?
Click to expand...

Maybe, in this case, her C. diff problem screwed her digestion, causing her to need to eat more. Then when she was cured she went on eating in the same way and put on weight?

Digestion can only ever approach 100% efficiency, so for certain gut flora to cause obesity doesn't sound right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom