Fat Logic

[TragicMonkey]

The evidence is clear that obese employees require more medical care and sick days than non-obese.

What about the hot employees hooking up more frequently and getting STDs and calling in sick with hangovers?

I think there are too many variables at play to simplify it down to "fat costs X more than thin".

In any case, so what? Even if the fat do cost more, should that affect how they are treated? It's (much more easily demonstrated) fact that employees with children cost a company more than employees without children, but nobody (I hope) is suggesting anything be done with that knowledge.

 

[The Atheist]

What about the hot employees hooking up more frequently and getting STDs and calling in sick with hangovers?

Give me some evidence proving it to be the case and I would, although quantifying hotness might be a bit tough.

I think there are too many variables at play to simplify it down to "fat costs X more than thin".

What variables are there?

It's dead simple.

Obese employees take 5-10% more sick leave.

The end.

In any case, so what? Even if the fat do cost more, should that affect how they are treated?

Only if profit matters.

It's (much more easily demonstrated) fact that employees with children cost a company more than employees without children, but nobody (I hope) is suggesting anything be done with that knowledge.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if employers took the same attitude with parents, although it might make hiring staff a lot more difficult.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're absurdly overestimating the complexity here.

It took me about five minutes with the point-scoring system to figure out that the biggest change would come from eating less carbs specifically.

It took me about a day and a half to sketch out a viable framework for meals without bread in them. It took me about a week to really fill out that framework with good meals. None of this was especially complicated. The mental challenge of putting all this together was trivial.

You make it sound like I'm some sort of Batman-tier superhero, who has lost weight only because of my exceptional capacity to understand and solve the most complicated problems that confront humanity.

ETA: Okay, fine. "Eat less" is too simple. The Modern American lacks the mental capacity to work out the details of implementing such a simple instruction. So how about, "eat less bread, eat more vegetables"? Still too simple? Still not enough detail there for a person of sound mind to sit down and figure out a meal plan that works for them? How complex do we have to get, before we end up with something that people can actually apply to their daily lives?

No, I don't think I'm overcomplexifying it all that much. Pointing out that "eat less" is a bit too simplistic doesn't suggest that anything else is overly complex.

No, it's not hard to figure out if you're armed with the right tools, WW scoring being one of those tools. But for someone without those tools, it may not be all that simple - it's tantamount to tossing someone into a lake ans saying that in order to swim, all they need to do is "not drown", but failing to recognize that a demonstration of dogpaddling is supremely helpful in that endeavor.

So all that said... I think that your bit about "eat less bread, eat more vegetables" is pretty much the winner.

So, in conclusion:

If you want to lose weight, all you need to do is eat less eat less bread, eat more vegetables, and exercise more.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe you and Emily's Cat should discuss among yourselves for a while. Get your stories straight.

Really? I think maybe you need to take a breath or two and read what I've actually said before you lump me into some "story-telling" dismissal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have no idea what made me motivated. I had been dissatisfied with my weight for years. This year, something changed.

What in your life changed?

I am curious, but I won't be at all offended if you decline to answer. It's just that there's a fair bit of study in marketing that supports the hypothesis that people only change their habits when there's a significant change in their lives - when they get married, have a child, move, etc. Major life changes are most often the trigger event for changes to habits. When it comes to health, a lot of those triggers are medical scares, either personal or of someone close to you.

A lot of people are pre-diabetic, or diabetic... and the early stages of diabetes can be pretty easily controlled with nothing but a change in diet. But a huge number of people don't change their eating habits when they're diagnosed in those early stages. They say they will, and they give it thought, but it just doesn't happen and stick. It's when they end up in the ER for an episode, or have a close friend who goes in to renal failure, or something else climactic - that's when they change their dietary habits and it sticks.

So I'm just nosy if there was a large change in your life that was relatively coincident with your uptick in motivation

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why is that an uniformed argument..

Are you denying that reduced caloric intake and/or exercise that results in a caloric deficit is the only way to experience weight loss?

Yes, I am denying that it is the ONLY way.

It is the most effective... but it's also true that a person can stop eating carbohydrates completely, and NOT create a caloric deficit, and they will lose weight.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Further than that, there is an enormous amount of hard data to show that chronically obese people take far more sick leave than people who aren't obese.

Hmm. There's also an enormous amount of hard data to show that people with children take far more leave than people without children. And women take more leave than men.

Of course, people with cancer take far more sick leave than healthy people.


FWIW, not being physically able to perform the requirements of the job is a valid justification for turning someone down. The amount of sick leave that you believe they will take, however, is NOT a valid reason. In some states, it might very well constitute conscious discrimination that could subject you to legal action.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Got any evidence because I think that's a myth. Everyone sucks in a breath before they go unconscious. If anyone can actually hold their breath until they are unconscious they have to be an extremely rare breed.

The drive to breathe will almost certainly override any conscious attempt to not breathe.

I believe that humans cannot hold their breath to unconsciousness, but I'm not entirely certain. The breath-hold breakpoint is involuntary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I still don't understand why you seem to think that moderation and and self control are essentially unattainable feats.

Because it's not JUST moderation and self control. Yes, that's a large part of it... but reducing your caloric intake and still having adequate nutrition requires eating a balanced meal - lots of vegetables and lean meats.

That takes planning ahead, and it takes prep-time. It's virtually impossible to adequately reduce your intake while eating out - you really have to prepare your own meals. Not everyone has the time to do that. It takes access to the right kind of foods that also fit the budget.

All it takes to have a positive cash flow is moderation and self control, sure. As well as enough cash to cover costs, and many other factors that come in to play.

 

[Emily's Cat]

False. Taubes is a crank.

But the irony of that statement in this thread is funny.

Hold on a moment - are you saying that "worth a read" is false? Or are you saying that "not all calories are equal" is false?

Because I don't actually know who Taubes is, I just found his article when looking for another one that I can't seem to find. There is, however, quite a bit of actual science involved in diets. I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss an entire field because you think one guy is a crank.

For consideration:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

 

[Dr. Keith]

False. Taubes is a crank.

But the irony of that statement in this thread is funny.

While Hall's opinion of Taube comes through clear, her article doesn't actually paint him convincingly as a crank and some of the rebuttals in the comments poke some serious holes in her argument.

I generally agree with Hall, but that piece was not terribly convincing.

I have no idea about Taube. The earlier linked article was too long for me to commit to. Based on Hall's article I don't see much new in what he is talking about, though.

ETA: EC, we talked about this: I was supposed to post my rebuttal first and then you were supposed to come back later. Oh, wait. maybe it was the other way around, ****. I must have eaten my notes while trying to hold my breathe. Damn hyperventilating is what drove me over the edge . . .

 

[The Atheist]

Hmm. There's also an enormous amount of hard data to show that people with children take far more leave than people without children. And women take more leave than men.

Been & done.

Of course, people with cancer take far more sick leave than healthy people.

I somehow don't think too many people with cancer are applying for jobs - they probably have more important things to worry about, but if someone comes in for a job bringing a drip with them, they probably won't get hired.

The amount of sick leave that you believe they will take, however, is NOT a valid reason.

Certainly valid, but definitely not legal.

In some states, it might very well constitute conscious discrimination that could subject you to legal action.

Yeah, it would be here, too, but I don't say to them, "You're too fat, piss off" they just get the same no thanks letter with no reasons as everyone else who fails gets.

They may have their suspicions - and maybe could even use it as motivation once they've been rejected 2 or 300 times - but there's no paper trail to get caught on. I'm fairly certain there have been no cases of fat discrimination in NZ to date under the employment legislation.

It's a nice, quiet discrimination and it's going to continue. As I've said before, most employers do exactly that and gigantically obese people struggle to get employed.

Shows they want a job less than they want to be fat, I guess.

Oddly, discriminating against smokers is perfectly legal.

 

[cosmicaug]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/17/the-depressing-difference-in-what-poor-people-and-everyone-else-eats/

 

[Emily's Cat]

It follows from me not seeing any great complexity in the methods and mechanisms of weight loss.

I think you actually hit this several posts back - it's simple, but it's not easy. There's a difference between difficult/easy and simple/complex. Losing weight is in concept simple. In application, it is difficult. They're two different things.

Just like playing billiards is simple - it's very straightforward physics. But making the ball go where you want it to is rather difficult.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, I am denying that it is the ONLY way.

It is the most effective... but it's also true that a person can stop eating carbohydrates completely, and NOT create a caloric deficit, and they will lose weight.

Please provide some evidence that a person can lose weight without experiencing a caloric deficit...


Caloric deficit = A person metabolizes more calories than they ingest..

 

[Emily's Cat]

Certainly valid, but definitely not legal.

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

Yeah, it would be here, too, but I don't say to them, "You're too fat, piss off" they just get the same no thanks letter with no reasons as everyone else who fails gets.

They may have their suspicions - and maybe could even use it as motivation once they've been rejected 2 or 300 times - but there's no paper trail to get caught on. I'm fairly certain there have been no cases of fat discrimination in NZ to date under the employment legislation.

It's a nice, quiet discrimination and it's going to continue. As I've said before, most employers do exactly that and gigantically obese people struggle to get employed.

You do know this is how legal suits get started, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since it has been going on for some time, I'm sure you can find some rulings against employers who have discriminated against the obese?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Since it has been going on for some time, I'm sure you can find some rulings against employers who have discriminated against the obese?

It seems like you're saying that it's only a potential legal risk if there've already been rulings against it? Discrimination against women went on for some time before there were rulings against employers for it...

 

[theprestige]

"I don't hate conservatives, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate Catholics, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate left-handed people, I just won't hire them."

Your rationale, about it costing more money in sick days, could also be used to discriminate against smokers and older people...whom I assume you don't hire either, correct?

"I don't hate babies, I just won't hire them."

Or, for a more nuanced approach:

"I don't hate women, I just won't hire them to do gay porn."

"I don't hate the blind, I just won't hire them to officiate baseball games."

"I don't hate paraplegics, I just won't hire them to be firefighters."

"I don't hate people with chronic vertigo, I just won't hire them to be jet airplane pilots."

"I don't hate morbidly obese people, I just won't hire them for any job that requires statistically better health outcomes."

Where is your god now?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It seems like you're saying that it's only a potential legal risk if there've already been rulings against it? Discrimination against women went on for some time before there were rulings against employers for it...

What was your point in pointing out that discriminating against a group of people can lead to litigation?

TheAtheist was observing that obesity can lead to problems in finding employment..

Do you disagree?