Childhood Obesity May Be Caused by Missing DNA

[Uncayimmy]

I think bigotry has a slightly different definition.

How hard is it for you to know instead of just think something is true?
"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

I haven't seen you linking to scientific research.

It's not my fault that you can't keep up with all the citations so far, many of which are by KellyB. Too bad she fails to interpret them properly.

You haven't shown evidence that there is such a benefit.

I have pointed out plenty of examples. Am I going to be able to cite a study? No.

I haven't even made that argument! I don't think you are reading very carefully.

Maybe it was KellyB.

Some of these are much easier to voluntarily control, and the others are generally treated as disorders for which a person needs support, not rejection.

The two are not mutually exclusive. If the person has no motivation to seek help, then no amount of personalized support is going to make a damn bit of difference.

Present that evidence.

It has been presented numerous times. You can hide your head in the salad bar all you want, but eating and exercise are voluntary actions. Accumulation of mass is a direct result of those actions. Opportunity and personal issues are secondary.

Broken legs and brain tumours can also be undone (and in many cases much more easily). That doesn't make them a choice.

Who is arguing that they are choices? I used them as examples precisely because they are not choices (usually).

In this situation however, the "positive change" you are advocating comes at an emotional cost to the victims of the problem, and you haven't even shown that there is a benefit.

Oh, c'mon. Get serious. Just about every weight loss program appeals to vanity, which is by definition driven by society's definition of beauty. Do I really need any more evidence than that?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm sorry, but this is not something I can pardon.
There's no "positive change" going on here.

Social pressure drives weight loss and healthy weight maintenance more than any other factor. It's called vanity.

For people who are naturally large,

We're not talking large. We're talking fat, specifically obesity. Is obesity natural? Do some people convert air and sunlight into fat?

there are generally two options -- be miserable trying to meet a social standard that is inconsistent with either comfort or nature, or be attacked by bigots like you who wish to ostracize them because of their size.

A false dichotomy, but that's par for the course with you.

As Earthborn represents, the friend is still fat despite being healthy and excercizing regularly. It might be possible for her to get to a "normal" body size by being particularly fanatical in her eating or exercise, but there's no reason to believe that that's the case.

There is every reason to believe that it's possible. Once again it seems I encounter you jumping into a thread without any idea of what has been said before. You can't become obese overnight nor can you become lean overnight. It's a process. Every indication is that the process is succeeding.

There are people who are morbidly obese because of bad lifestyle, and there are people who are obese because they choose to live a normal lifestyle and that's what their body does under those conditions.

Like I said, once again you spouting off "facts" with no clue what you're talking about.

And I've seen what happens to people close to me when they succumb to your bigotry

To the best of my knowledge not one of your friends has encountered my "bigotry" (speaking of which, you are totally misusing the word).

and try to make themselves acceptable to people like you -- the recovery from eating disorders generally takes years, if they ever do recover.

Now you're talking eating disorders?

Your attitude ruins lives, it kills, and it's wrong.

LOL! The following premises kill people?

* The fat composition of one's body is determined by the choices one makes regarding caloric input and expenditure.

* Some people may have more difficulty than others in maintaining weight, but that can be said for anything humans do.

* Being obese is unhealthy and uncomfortable.

Yep. I'm a killer, that's for sure.

You can keep acting like everyone's the same, and should look the same -- but THAT is what bigotry is all about.

You have no idea what bigotry means. I suggest you buy a dictionary.

 

[Roboramma]

It is not impossible to continue eating the same amount and go for a half hour walk every day.

It is not impossible to eat less than you are currently eating.

It is hard. Some people, after starting to do those sorts of things, stop, because they find it hard.
That doesn't mean that it was impossible for them to continue.
For some people it's harder to do those things than for others, sometimes because their natural appetite is stronger, or because they have a poorer support structure, or simply have less motivation. That doesn't make it impossible.

If you take in fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. That doesn't mean it's easy to do that, but it is certainly possible.
If you find the rewards of doing so (greater health, better physical appearance, feeling more energetic, etc.) to be less than the rewards of eating (and believe me, they are quite high rewards, I personally love good food, and really enjoy even mediocre food), or not worth the effort of exercise (and sometimes, particularly when you haven't yet attained a certain level of fitness, that can be a very serious effort indeed), that's reasonable. We all have priorities.

It's still a choice.

 

[Earthborn]

How hard is it for you to know instead of just think something is true?

Quite easy actually. Just add scientific evidence.

It's not my fault that you can't keep up with all the citations so far, many of which are by KellyB. Too bad she fails to interpret them properly.

I agree with you that her interpretation is somewhat lacking, but I also don't see how they support your claims.

Am I going to be able to cite a study? No.

Not surprising, since there is no such study.

It has been presented numerous times.

It hasn't. None of the scientific studies cited so far argues that "obesity is a choice".

You can hide your head in the salad bar all you want, but eating and exercise are voluntary actions.

To some degree. Eating however is controlled by extremely powerful drives, that some people find impossible to ignore. And exercise is only a small part of metabolism and is not something everyone can continue to the same degree as everyone else.

Who is arguing that they are choices? I used them as examples precisely because they are not choices (usually).

Yes, you did. But you argued that because obesity is a choice because it can be undone. Using that logic broken legs and brain tumours are also choices; but since they're not it shows that the logic is unsound. Broken legs, brain tumours and obesity all can be undone, but they all require medical assistance to be undone.

Just about every weight loss program appeals to vanity, which is by definition driven by society's definition of beauty.

That has nothing to do with stigmatisation.

 

[Earthborn]

It's only a matter of degree.

No, I don't think it is only a matter of degree. I think there is a difference between saying "You are such a great person. If you were to lose a few pounds you would look fabulous too!" -- an example of exerting social pressure -- and saying "You are worthless because you are fat" -- which is an example of stigmatisation.

Social pressure is by definition socially inclusive: "We want you in our club, but then we expect you do X". Stigmatisation is socially exclusive: "We don't want you in our club because you are Y". Another big difference is that the concept of social pressure is centred around behaviour, while stigmatisation around condemning a person for what is seen as a personality trait that is (often wrongly) believed to be unchanging.

You're assuming that it's "impossible" for her to accomplish something in regards to her weight.

She rides a heavy delivery bike across a hilly town or its surrounding villages the whole day every day, and she after that she runs around on a footie pitch. And she has professional help to keep her weight under control. I am frankly at a loss what more she could do. Most people couldn't even do what she does.

False dichotomy.

It would be a false dichotomy if I was arguing that those are the only possible options. But I wasn't. I was arguing that one is the correct option, the other was the option you are arguing for.

 

[Rasmus]

She rides a heavy delivery bike across a hilly town or its surrounding villages the whole day every day, and she after that she runs around on a footie pitch. And she has professional help to keep her weight under control. I am frankly at a loss what more she could do. Most people couldn't even do what she does.

She could eat fewer calories?

Really, that answer will not go away.

If you want to lose weight, there are precisely two possible solutions: Eat less, or move more. If moving more doesn't do the trick, then

- you might just have increased your calorie intake
- you might be dishonest with yourself, possibly about how much weight you were actually gaining previously. You might not be losing weight, but possibly just gain less weight than you did previously.
- you might not be patient enough. If you start to work out and lose fat whilst building up muscles, your body changes. Things might improve without a net-loss in body weight.
- you area freak of nature with a metabolism that violates the laws of nature.
- your scales are broken

Of course, as you lose weight, the same level of exercising will require fewer calories as well. So there might be a new equilibrium and it might be a lot higher than you'd expect or want it to be.

 

[Earthborn]

Social pressure drives weight loss and healthy weight maintenance more than any other factor. It's called vanity.

It's not called stigmatisation.

There is every reason to believe that it's possible.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that it is possible for her to become of normal weight.

Every indication is that the process is succeeding.

It is succeeding at controlling her weight, but not in making her lean.

Now you're talking eating disorders?

Why not? Many morbidly obese people have eating disorders. That is to say; they have freakishly huge appetites and compulsive drives to eat.

* Some people may have more difficulty than others in maintaining weight, but that can be said for anything humans do.

What is also true of anything humans do: for what some people find easy and can't imagine someone not being able to do it, there are others who find it impossible to do no matter how hard they try.

 

[Earthborn]

She could eat fewer calories?

I am sure her dietician has never thought of that!

 

[Rasmus]

I am sure her dietician has never thought of that!

And I am sure she is simply not following that advice, one way or another. Else, she would be losing further weight.

I really doubt she is breaking the laws of nature.

 

[Earthborn]

And I am sure she is simply not following that advice, one way or another. Else, she would be losing further weight.

So you assume without any evidence that she isn't losing further weight, and from that you conclude that she must not be following the advice? Your argument is further weakened by the unproven assumption that her dietician is advising her to eat fewer calories, even though a dietician has to take other health considerations into account. If nutritional science was as simple as "eat fewer calories", then nobody would need a dietician, but it isn't that simple. People consult with dieticians to lose weight responsibly, because health and well being are more important than losing weight.

 

[Rasmus]

So you assume without any evidence that she isn't losing further weight,

No, that is what I understood the situation was.

and from that you conclude that she must not be following the advice?

Yes: If she is not losing weight, and if she is working out, then she is not cutting back her food intake enough.

Your argument is further weakened by the unproven assumption that her dietician is advising her to eat fewer calories, even though a dietician has to take other health considerations into account.

Yes, he does. But at the end of the day, that also will not change the fact that losing weight can only be accomplished by eating less and/or working more.

If nutritional science was as simple as "eat fewer calories", then nobody would need a dietician, but it isn't that simple. People consult with dieticians to lose weight responsibly, because health and well being are more important than losing weight.

If she was really obese, than that means her weight is a health-problem in itself. Then there would be no choice between health or weight loss.

And despite all that: Even when you lose weighting a healthy way you can only do so by consuming fewer calories and/or burning up more.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If she was really obese, than that means her weight is a health-problem in itself. Then there would be no choice between health or weight loss.

Obesity (defined in terms of BMI) =/= unhealthy. This is part of the problem -- it's quite possible to be fat and healthy, but the fact that you're fat means that all the stigma from bigots

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited for lack of civility

applies whether you're healthy or not.
Hence, eating disorders to try to fit in. Hence, lives ruined and lost.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Obesity (defined in terms of BMI) =/= unhealthy. This is part of the problem -- it's quite possible to be fat and healthy, but the fact that you're fat means that all the stigma from bigots

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed

applies whether you're healthy or not.
Hence, eating disorders to try to fit in. Hence, lives ruined and lost.

Your joints don't think so.

 

[Earthborn]

No, that is what I understood the situation was.

Then you haven't been reading.

Then there would be no choice between health or weight loss.

There would be a choice between weight loss that does and weight loss that doesn't improve health, the latter of which is frequently advocated by anyone claiming that obese people could and should be of normal weight.

And despite all that: Even when you lose weighting a healthy way you can only do so by consuming fewer calories and/or burning up more.

Repeating something over and over that no one is disputing doesn't make it any more relevant to the discussion.

 

[Pup]

I don't think there is any reason to believe that it is possible for her to become of normal weight.

...

What is also true of anything humans do: for what some people find easy and can't imagine someone not being able to do it, there are others who find it impossible to do no matter how hard they try.

Just to clarify, are you using the word "impossible" in its literal sense? Or do you mean "impossible because in order to do it, the process would be so painful that it wouldn't be worth it" or something like that?

I can certainly accept the latter--not everything is worth that kind of sacrifice, and the health benefit of being thinner might not even outweigh the problems of getting enough nutritients in a very-low calorie diet and the constant mental stress.

But the former? I dunno.

When people talk about it being impossible, literally, for someone to lose weight, I think of pictures of African famine victims, concentration camp prisoners or Andersonville prisoners, and wonder where the chubby people are? Literally, how little could a person eat like this eat and not lose weight? A thousand calories a day? Five hundred? A hundred? Become a breatharian?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Interesting how some tend to focus on what might be an extreme example, imply that it supports a claim in general, while ignoring the obvious increase in obesity among the general ( .. the poor in particular ) population over the last few decades; and most of all, the role that parents play in allowing their children to become obese ..
The suggestions seems to be that we praise them for eating only one Twinkie instead of two ..

 

[Earthborn]

Just to clarify, are you using the word "impossible" in its literal sense? Or do you mean "impossible because in order to do it, the process would be so painful that it wouldn't be worth it" or something like that?

The latter of course. When I say "they find it impossible no matter how hard they try" I imply that they are trying themselves, and not that they are forced by prison camp conditions.

When people talk about it being impossible, literally, for someone to lose weight, I think of pictures of African famine victims, concentration camp prisoners or Andersonville prisoners, and wonder where the chubby people are?

Quite likely they already starved to death. Ironically the people with theoretically the greatest reserves to survive lean times often have the lowest ability to make use of that stored energy, so when there is no nutrition at all for considerable time their bodies are likely the first to give up.

This is a real issue when morbidly obese people undergo intestinal bypass surgery. It is extremely important that they get enough nutrition so they won't die of starvation before they lose weight. So when I say that it is impossible for some reach a normal weight, you can also interpret that as "impossible without considerable risk of death".

 

[Uncayimmy]

It hasn't. None of the scientific studies cited so far argues that "obesity is a choice".

Every single one of them has demonstrated that energy input and expenditure affect weight. Short of being in a coma, these are things humans can choose to do or not do.

To some degree. Eating however is controlled by extremely powerful drives, that some people find impossible to ignore. And exercise is only a small part of metabolism and is not something everyone can continue to the same degree as everyone else.

It is not impossible to ignore hunger. Difficult at times? Yes. Are there numerous strategies for dealing with hunger? Yes.

As for exercise, should we debate over what "small" means in terms of metabolism? Consider a consistent energy input (calories) for a year where 1 150 pound person neither gains nor loses weight. That person rides a bicycle three days a week for an hour each time.

The next year this person does not adjust energy intake, but stops riding the bike and doesn't replace it with other activity. The result? A weight gain of probably 25 pounds of fat. To put that in perspective, for most people that size it would send them into a BMI labeled obese.

I'm sure, though, you are going to argue that some people find it impossible to ignore the desire to sit on the couch and watch TV.

Yes, you did. But you argued that because obesity is a choice because it can be undone. Using that logic broken legs and brain tumours are also choices; but since they're not it shows that the logic is unsound. Broken legs, brain tumours and obesity all can be undone, but they all require medical assistance to be undone.

I have never argued that because obesity can be "undone" it is a choice. Obesity is not an accident (like with a broken leg) or some type of mutation (like with a tumor). It is the direct result of an ongoing process of energy consumption exceeding energy expenditure, both of which can be controlled to a large extent through individual choices.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Eartborn:

I was going to pick apart your posts, but it was just too tedious to attack all the logical fallacies, straw men, inconsistencies, made-up definitions, and pointless semantic arguments. You don't like the stereotypes for obese people and want to substitute your own, which is one of hapless victims who are intrinsically good people. Whatever.

There are three related issues that are nonetheless different.

Avoiding Obesity: This is by far the easiest one. In every single case it is a matter of energy consumption exceeding energy expenditure. There are variations within individuals. Obesity does not happen overnight. It takes months and usually years to reach that point. Look in the ****ing mirror - the changes are obvious. They are obvious when you have to keep buying bigger and bigger clothes. The way to avoid a BMI of 35 is to do something when you hit a BMI of 20.

Reversing Obesity: If you have failed to keep yourself in decent shape and find yourself obese, it's going to be a long road to undo it. Slow and steady weight loss is the way to go, preferably with a combination of aerobic and anaerobic exercise leading the way with only minimal adjustments in food intake as needed. It's damned hard to do, that's for sure, but it can be done. If you become exceptionally large, there will be issues of extra skin. That's the price you pay, and there's really not much that can be done about that on your own.

Maintaining Healthy Weight After Reversal: This is more difficult than not becoming obese in the first place. As I understand it the body has an "infrastructure" already in place to support being obese, so you have to be careful. Furthermore, you probably have years of bad habits just waiting to resume after your "success" of reaching your goal. If you've lost weight "incorrectly" such as through starvation-type diets, you're setting yourself up for failure. See the above: slow and steady.

So, in the context of this thread it is abundantly clear that preventing obesity is by far the best tactic. This starts with children being taught that they are responsible for their bodies - the same lessons we teach about smoking, drugs, steroids, or even excessive sports (the latter was an issue with me and I suffer pain every day because of it).

Humans do not make fat from sunlight, water and air. We have to eat more energy than we expend. That is the fundamental lesson that must be taught from day one. While the exact numbers will vary by individual as will the motivations for exercise and eating, people must learn to accept responsibility for learning what works for them.

I am firmly against coddling people in this regard. I'm all for encouragement, but at the same time I am for calling a spade a spade. That means people should know that they ended up like they are because of the choices they made and the warning signs they missed and ignored. Likewise, those who don't have problems should understand that they are making the right choices.

If you don't like that philosophy, I don't care because I know it works.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Obesity (defined in terms of BMI) =/= unhealthy. This is part of the problem -- it's quite possible to be fat and healthy, but the fact that you're fat means that all the stigma from bigots

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed

applies whether you're healthy or not.
Hence, eating disorders to try to fit in. Hence, lives ruined and lost.

Health effects of obesity.

* Circulatory problems including high blood pressure.
* Dramatically increased risk of diabetes.
* 10X as likely to suffer from atherosclerosis.
* Joint problems including osteoarthritis.
* Sleep apnea and respiratory problems.
* Higher risks of cancer.
* Metabolic effects

So, I guess it all depends on your definition of healthy, doesn't it?

The message I have repeatedly stated is to maintain a healthy weight by acknowledging how your body works and acting accordingly. This is the same message given to people with eating disorders. They don't lie to people and tell them that it's okay to be obese because you can still be healthy. They don't lie and tell them that it's okay to be severely underweight because you can still be healthy. They don't lie and tell them that it's completely out of their control.

It's a complex illness with many factors. It's not caused by society acknowledging that obesity is a lifestyle choice.