The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

That makes sense, but if a size L shirt and size 26 shorts are baggy that should be a pretty good cue

From yesterday https://www.instagram.com/p/BKhcKpjBNbG/?taken-by=pipelineaudio

There's a thing about weight though. I'm really happy that my size is going down, I'm really happy that for the first time in my life, I can lift my bike over my head even when rotational weight is added, even with one hand, but:

Weight SUCKS! It hurt like hell to land anything over four feet when I was 100 pounds heavier, but now I'm going way higher. Its like your knees are a meter and every pound is yelling at you in pain. When I hit my lowest weight, though nowhere near my lowest size, landing hurt less. I wish I could be fifty pounds at this size

I hope you can understand me questioning you. You're on par, in terms of body size, with elite bodybuilders.

For example, Frank Zane was you height, about 200 in the off season, and 185 for competition, and considered on of the best of all time. Very few people look like him.

Plus, I know the difference losing weight can make for activities. For me, it's skiing.
 
Let's say someone goes diving into shallow water without checking first and gets paralyzed, they're disabled despite it being their own fault.

Or someone chooses to chop off a hand, they're disabled despite it being their own choice.

Or someone is morbidly obese and unable to function as well mobility-wise or otherwise as others - well, even if the disability is in whole or in part based on personal choices, that doesn't mean the person isn't disabled.

It might be that for reasons of principle you want to treat disability caused or contributed to by personal choices differently - if someone does extreme sports, or motorcycles without a helmet, or uses drugs, or eats a lot, and suffers impairment of functions, then screw them (I'm not so unsympathetic). But if the question is just disabled or not, I don't see what the degree of self-contribution has to do with it.

Well, breaking your neck or chopping your hand off are examples of one time mistakes or stupid decisions. All humans are susceptible to such lapses in judgement.

Also, any person can occasionally make poor choices with money or impulsively buy something. But employers and lenders can discriminate against those with poor credit ratings, because such a thing serves as an example of a history of poor judgement and bad choices. It is a way to measure character.

Obesity might be more analogous to long term personal finance than to one-time random accidents.

Actually, I would bet that the correlation of poverty and obesity go deeper than the low quality food that the poor can afford.
 
I hope you can understand me questioning you. You're on par, in terms of body size, with elite bodybuilders.

For example, Frank Zane was you height, about 200 in the off season, and 185 for competition, and considered on of the best of all time. Very few people look like him.

Plus, I know the difference losing weight can make for activities. For me, it's skiing.

Holy crap! No, you are right, I don't look anything at all like that! It may or may not be a factor, but both my regular doctor and the doctor who really spelled out how to ditch this fat by which tricks to do for exercise on my bike were extremely concerned with bone density. The second doctor knew I was stubborn enough to just starve myself into it (I grew up riding with his son), and pushed the bone density angle extra hard
 
Alternative and simpler even than BMI- Waist/hip ratio. Waist should be 80% of hip/ass.

Apparently visceral fat is the culprit. There ain't gonna be much of that in any 28" waist.

Other studies have said obesity/bmi don't matter as long as you are not diabetic.

So my point of view is BMI is trumped in several ways. Personal medical history is the biggest. Diabetes and sleep apnea gone but scale still says obese? EXCELLENT!!!!

Lost 60# by doubling caloric output? EXCELLENT!!
 
If a young guy has testicular cancer, could he put out lots of testosterone and beef up quickly? Like he was taking other steroids ?

Lance Armstrong?
 
I noticed this thread had been resurrected. I find it quite interesting really, in parallel with the "Perpetual forum weight control thread" in Community. I think Archie Gemmill Goal is the only person posting in both threads.

Arguing the toss about exactly which measure of overweight/obesity is most valid, and nit-picking exceptions to the generalisations, doesn't seem very constructive to me. The fact is that a huge proportion of the population is overweight/obese whichever way you want to measure it, and the interesting part of the thread is how you manage this on a population basis.

It's beyond question that individuals can take control of their body weight and remedy the situation personally. In that other thread people are simply sharing their experiences as they do it their own way, and everyone is doing something different. Some people have lost a lot of weight, others are trimming down gradually, but everyone is managing to do something.

The star of the show is Orphia Nay, who had a BMI of about 32 in the spring of last year and who now has a BMI of just under 20, having lost a jaw-dropping 83 lb. She became hooked on running and is turning in half-marathon personal bests on a regular basis. She has some sort of app on her phone that tells her how many calories she's burned and how many to eat. She looks fantastic. She posted a picture the other day.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11502462

Another great example is Swordfishtrombone, who has lost 62 lb through a combination of diet and going to the gym.

I myself have lost almost 60 lb, and in my case I haven't been exercising to lose the weight. Rather, losing the weight has allowed me to exercise more, and in particular to take up riding again. I posted before-and-after equestrian shots the other day. (Warning, the "before" picture is truly horrendous.) Actually it's not "after" as the second picture was taken last June and I've lost a bit more since then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11503709

I've just been calorie-counting, and very much aided in that by doing three very low calorie (fast) days per week. Which is kind of what people were saying in this thread - exercise is good for you but not essential for successful weight loss.

MikeG was pointing out however that as a member of a cycling club he knows a number of people who have lost a lot of weight without reducing their caloric input, simply by taking up cycling seriously. I had been sceptical that anyone would actually do that, but apparently some do and it works.

It seems likely there isn't any "one size fits all" strategy that's going to work as the basis for a whole-population campaign. Some people will find exercise enjoyable, while others (like me) would rather just exercise enough to stay healthy but as far as weight loss goes would prefer simply not to eat that extra biscuit. Some people (like me) find that existing for a day on 250 calories isn't too much of a chore when it's only for a day, others say they can't do that and have to get to their weekly calorie goal by trimming a bit off every day.

The one thing the people in that thread have in common is the desire to lose weight. That comes first and without that nobody is going anywhere. On a population basis, how you you give people that desire, and then help them to find the individual weight loss strategy that they can cope with and that's going to work for them? I don't think there are any easy answers out there.
 
Last edited:
I noticed this thread had been resurrected. I find it quite interesting really, in parallel with the "Perpetual forum weight control thread" in Community. I think Archie Gemmill Goal is the only person posting in both threads.

Arguing the toss about exactly which measure of overweight/obesity is most valid, and nit-picking exceptions to the generalisations, doesn't seem very constructive to me. The fact is that a huge proportion of the population is overweight/obese whichever way you want to measure it, and the interesting part of the thread is how you manage this on a population basis.

It's beyond question that individuals can take control of their body weight and remedy the situation personally. In that other thread people are simply sharing their experiences as they do it their own way, and everyone is doing something different. Some people have lost a lot of weight, others are trimming down gradually, but everyone is managing to do something.

The star of the show is Orphia Nay, who had a BMI of about 32 in the spring of last year and who now has a BMI of just under 20, having lost a jaw-dropping 83 lb. She became hooked on running and is turning in half-marathon personal bests on a regular basis. She has some sort of app on her phone that tells her how many calories she's burned and how many to eat. She looks fantastic. She posted a picture the other day.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11502462

Another great example is Swordfishtrombone, who has lost 62 lb through a combination of diet and going to the gym.

I myself have lost almost 60 lb, and in my case I haven't been exercising to lose the weight. Rather, losing the weight has allowed me to exercise more, and in particular to take up riding again. I posted before-and-after equestrian shots the other day. (Warning, the "before" picture is truly horrendous.) Actually it's not "after" as the second picture was taken last June and I've lost a bit more since then.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11503709

I've just been calorie-counting, and very much aided in that by doing three very low calorie (fast) days per week. Which is kind of what people were saying in this thread - exercise is good for you but not essential for successful weight loss.

MikeG was pointing out however that as a member of a cycling club he knows a number of people who have lost a lot of weight without reducing their caloric input, simply by taking up cycling seriously. I had been sceptical that anyone would actually do that, but apparently some do and it works.

It seems likely there isn't any "one size fits all" strategy that's going to work as the basis for a whole-population campaign. Some people will find exercise enjoyable, while others (like me) would rather just exercise enough to stay healthy but as far as weight loss goes would prefer simply not to eat that extra biscuit. Some people (like me) find that existing for a day on 250 calories isn't too much of a chore when it's only for a day, others say they can't do that and have to get to their weekly calorie goal by trimming a bit off every day.

The one thing the people in that thread have in common is the desire to lose weight. That comes first and without that nobody is going anywhere. On a population basis, how you you give people that desire, and then help them to find the individual weight loss strategy that they can cope with and that's going to work for them? I don't think there are any easy answers out there.
Good work
 
Horrible point to bring up.

My step brother lost about 3 stone. This made him more confident. But the dudes skin was still there.

Most people can't afford to fix it.

We got together and he could
 
Horrible point to bring up.

My step brother lost about 3 stone. This made him more confident. But the dudes skin was still there.

Most people can't afford to fix it.

We got together and he could

Wouldn't it be cool if they could use it for burn victims? Serious win/win.
 
Horrible point to bring up.

My step brother lost about 3 stone. This made him more confident. But the dudes skin was still there.

Most people can't afford to fix it.

We got together and he could


It doesn't seem to happen to everybody. It didn't happen to me, or to Orphia Nay. I've lost 4 stones and she's lost nearly 6 stones. The skin round my midriff is a bit wrinkly but there's no excess. And at my age the wrinkliness might simply be an age change. I was thinking of posting a pic in my underwear to prove it, but I think that might be a bridge too far.

I don't know what percentage of the population experience these skin flaps but it's not inevitable.
 
It doesn't seem to happen to everybody. It didn't happen to me, or to Orphia Nay. I've lost 4 stones and she's lost nearly 6 stones. The skin round my midriff is a bit wrinkly but there's no excess. And at my age the wrinkliness might simply be an age change. I was thinking of posting a pic in my underwear to prove it, but I think that might be a bridge too far.

I don't know what percentage of the population experience these skin flaps but it's not inevitable.

At 5'3", I got up to 205 cuz I was drinking a 6pk of Coke a day. Down to 130 at this point but the weight is all in my belly. Not helped by the scar from my hysterectomy. Probably done with sharp rocks and buckskin stitches but it's where the fat stops abruptly. Been working on abdominal exercises and that's helping.

Nobody wants my weight loss regime. Pain! Dreadful, burning, stabbing pain causes loss of appetite. Problem solved. Not really healthy tho...
 
<snip>

The one thing the people in that thread have in common is the desire to lose weight. That comes first and without that nobody is going anywhere. On a population basis, how you you give people that desire, and then help them to find the individual weight loss strategy that they can cope with and that's going to work for them? I don't think there are any easy answers out there.

Well said.

That's why I think the comparison to those crippled in an accident isn't apt, and even insulting.

There's no desire to change.

If you told someone paralyzed in an accident that if they ate less, and moved around a bit everyday, they'd be able to walk in a year or two, how many would jump (figuratively) at the chance?

Yet people disabled because of morbid obesity everyday make choices to remain that way. Actually, not just those disabled, those who face health issues, reduced quality of life, and reduced capabilities that go along with excess weight.

There's definitely some unaddressed mental issues there.
 
Also the normalisation of excessive weight and bulk. When you see so many other people like that, it re-calibrates your "normal" and you start to think you're probably OK really. That's what go me. Except I knew I wasn't OK and eventually acted on it.
 
Personally, I have hard time beleiving that we evolved to have a metabolism that is sensitive to some extra weight. It ought to make use stronger, not die younger.

Not to say we are not sick, but that there may be an underlying issue that we are not even looking for with our superficial diagnoses of "eating to much".

It'll probably be individual genes, maybe a hundred different ones for a hundred different people. No, 100 for a billion people. A leptin problem for you, a digestive enzyme problem for my Niece (pancreatitis),... But, if it takes combinations of three or four genes each, 100,000,000 combinations? We all unique baby, just like everybody else. Computer power is helping, right now.
 
Personally, I have hard time beleiving that we evolved to have a metabolism that is sensitive to some extra weight. It ought to make use stronger, not die younger.

It typically kills you at an age that doesn't affect reproductive success.
 
Personally, I have hard time beleiving that we evolved to have a metabolism that is sensitive to some extra weight. It ought to make use stronger, not die younger.

Not to say we are not sick, but that there may be an underlying issue that we are not even looking for with our superficial diagnoses of "eating to much".

It'll probably be individual genes, maybe a hundred different ones for a hundred different people. No, 100 for a billion people. A leptin problem for you, a digestive enzyme problem for my Niece (pancreatitis),... But, if it takes combinations of three or four genes each, 100,000,000 combinations? We all unique baby, just like everybody else. Computer power is helping, right now.

Why? We are in a pretty unique situation in terms of human evolution. Until very recently, if there was excess food, the population would grow until there was borderline hunger. A surfeit of food would only be a very rare occurrence. Even more so before the invention of agriculture, which is only the last 12,000 years, so even within the history of our species, it is an evolutionary novelty.

ETA: and if it makes one more prone to die at 50, rather than 70, when 35 is the onset of old age, and most people die before then due to trauma*, disease, or starvation it won't have any effect.



*I have seen estimates of up to 25% of paleolithic deaths as being attributed to violence (I can't recall where though). Humans were also prey to large carnivores.
 
Last edited:
Yet people disabled because of morbid obesity everyday make choices to remain that way.

Bravo!

Also the normalisation of excessive weight and bulk.

And that's the worst thing of all.

There are schools within 5 km of me where being slim is positively abnormal. Pasifika kids are surrounded by very fat women, very fat men, very fat siblings, preachers and peers.
 
Why? We are in a pretty unique situation in terms of human evolution. Until very recently, if there was excess food, the population would grow until there was borderline hunger. A surfeit of food would only be a very rare occurrence. Even more so before the invention of agriculture, which is only the last 12,000 years, so even within the history of our species, it is an evolutionary novelty.

ETA: and if it makes one more prone to die at 50, rather than 70, when 35 is the onset of old age, and most people die before then due to trauma*, disease, or starvation it won't have any effect.

But men are fertile far into old age. And 12,000 years is 600 generations, plenty of time to evolve to handle the extra weight. If there even was a problem to begin with. Whales and elephants don't seem to have any problem with weight.

Hmm, makes me think... maybe it is estrogen that causes the debility of obesity? Isn't cholesterol a building block for estrogen? Lower cholesterol, lower estrogen?
 
But men are fertile far into old age. And 12,000 years is 600 generations, plenty of time to evolve to handle the extra weight. If there even was a problem to begin with. Whales and elephants don't seem to have any problem with weight.

Hmm, makes me think... maybe it is estrogen that causes the debility of obesity? Isn't cholesterol a building block for estrogen? Lower cholesterol, lower estrogen?

Except that even for most of those 12,000 years the population would still rise to the carrying capacity of the land. The fertility rate of newly colonized land was far higher than for established land, where one had to wait for technological or agricultural improvements to increase the supportable population. For most of these 12k years the reproductive success of 50-year old men was not an issue.
 

Back
Top Bottom