The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[Butter!]

deleted

 

[The Atheist]

Well, obviously...

It was a jape. Still, there are breeds of horses that weigh 200 lbs.

 

[Jono]

Jono: I've been trying to understand your claim for awhile now, and I think you're interpreting the claim that obesity is caused by overeating as identical to the claim that obesity is caused by choosing to overeat. This is not the same claim.

No that is not the claim, by you. It is, however, pretty given by some others. Regardless, basic calorie intake is relevant yet but only as so far as a crude yardstick (meaning, it is relevant but far from the "only" thing relevant). E.g, person Y and Z excercise the exact amount, eat the same amount of calories, yet person Y can be on a trend of gaining 2-3 pounds/year (which will definently show, after a decade or so) whereas person Z can be on the direct opposite trend. The formentioned posters whose posts I addressed my previous ones toward, do not accept this (or if they do, find it to be barely notable if that). As another example, as it has been tried, you can fix a given calorie diet, administer it to two groups of people, assign regular sleeping-hours for one group and deprived sleeping-patterns for the other, showing a notable weight loss/gain difference between the two. So, the view that the only weight-gain you get from medications (or lack of sleep) et al is related to urge of eating more, i.e the 'munchies', (as rustypouch just stated earlier), is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Jono]

You seem to be getting in Million Dollar Challenge territory here.

Are you really claiming that people's bodies can create mass from nothing?

Of course not. But some people retain more mass than others, using similar eating habits, due to medications and related matters. So to simplify it, as you and The Atheist do, as "get of your couch you over-eating lazy..." is not just a prejudiced and slightly imprudent attitude revealed. It's based on a false premise, like I've already noted on (which you objected to, because a brief quote of one scientist you regarded in the negative, of two dozens scientists involved, was used, or?).

 

[blutoski]

No that is not the claim, by you. It is, however, pretty given by some others. Regardless, basic calorie intake is relevant yet but only as so far as a crude yardstick (meaning, it is relevant but far from the "only" thing relevant). E.g, person Y and Z excercise the exact amount, eat the same amount of calories, yet person Y can be on a trend of gaining 2-3 pounds/year (which will definently show, after a decade or so) whereas person Z can be on the direct opposite trend. The formentioned posters whose posts I addressed my previous ones toward, do not accept this (or if they do, find it to be barely notable if that).

I think I also would not accept it, as written, because that's not all that calorie counting is based on. BMR is critical information for any estimation of daily calorie budget, and it varies from person to person due to the factors I listed earlier (age, sex, muscle density, water percentage), so we would not expect two people eating the same calories and expending the same calories to have similar weight gain/loss experiences. That's taken for granted in any appropriate calorie budget weight loss strategy.

When I did weight management with clients, we used TANITAs because they calculate lean mass, water mass, and adipose mass, which is used to estimate a better starting BMR.

It's taken for granted in the profession that over time, BMR will change, and adjustments to calorie budget are necessary. If you're gaining weight, eat fewer calories, the root cause usually can't be addressed. The exceptions would be medical, of course. Tumours, that sort of thing.

Plus, there is the added view that the only weight-gain you get from medications et al is related to urge of eating more (as rustypouch just stated earlier), which is demonstrably untrue.

Agreed. In particular, thyroid medications are clearly metabolic. But from a calorie budget point of view, that means a person should be decreasing their calorie count if their metabolism is truly slowing down. We have been given an explanation, but the core suggestion that weight gain can be stopped by reducing calories consumed is not refuted. In this example, I would be assuming the person had been prescribed the medication to address hyperthyroidism or a tumour, so discontinuing medication would not be a safe option.

However, this is another point I try to emphasize: there will always be medical exceptions to the general rule. Most people are not overweight because they are on thyroid medication. A few acknowledged exceptions do not make the general advice poor. There are people who can smoke without getting cancer. Good for them, but the government's advice to cut down to reduce cancer risk remains sound.

 

[Jono]

The idea that it is simply a matter of will-power is exactly the kind of fallacious reasoning I was referring to. It leads to some pretty ****** logical consequences: obesity is a choice, people who don't make the choice do so because they lack willpower, this lack of willpower is a moral failure of character, therefore we can call people "human balloons" and other derogatory remarks to shame them for their moral failings. I think this thread is one long demonstrations of that line of reasoning. It's not effective, it's not helpful, it's damaging, and it's based entirely on flawed reductionist notions around the nature of human psychology and physiology.

Yes, that's exactly the point.

 

[Jono]

Agreed. In particular, thyroid medications are clearly metabolic. But from a calorie budget point of view, that means a person should be decreasing their calorie count if their metabolism is truly slowing down. We have been given an explanation, but the core suggestion that weight gain can be stopped by reducing calories consumed is not refuted. In this example, I would be assuming the person had been prescribed the medication to address hyperthyroidism or a tumour, so discontinuing medication would not be a safe option.

I agree. I wasn't refuting, or in principle even negating calorie-intake as a relevant factor. I, however, noticed some fat-shaming attitudes with some posters here, along with the usual nonsense stereotypes of why people gain weight and what kind of person that makes them (lazy, lack of willpower etc in contrast to themselves or the not-so-overweight). Such attitudes are, as I said, not just counter-productive in terms of helping with this issue, they are also based on false premises. For one thing, these matters (like you observed on) need to be based on an individual-level, as people can be overweight for very different reasons. To say that they're eating too much junk-food while laying on the couch, as a yardstick spew (as we've seen uttered in this thread) is a stupid and incorrect way to view the reality of it.

However, this is another point I try to emphasize: there will always be medical exceptions to the general rule. Most people are not overweight because they are on thyroid medication.

Well, I don't regard medication as exceptions to any rule here. Thyroid is just one, yes, so that one might qualify as such but... there are hundreds of psycho-pharmaceuticals that cause weight-gain as well, without adding increased appetites/'the munchies' like so, for countless of people. So, the crude calorie in/out-take is first and foremost needed to be taken down to the individual's circumstances, because what works for one does not necessarily work for another in terms of fixed calorie-intakes. Hormones are just one variable that affects the amount that gets added and what does not (and there are many different hormones with potential responsibility for increased weight-gain, or vice versa).

 

[blutoski]

Of course not. But some people retain more mass than others, using similar eating habits, due to medications and related matters. So to simplify it, as you and The Atheist do, as "get of your couch you over-eating lazy..." is not just a prejudiced and slightly imprudent attitude revealed. It's based on a false premise, like I've already noted on (which you objected to, because a brief quote of one scientist you regarded in the negative, of two dozens scientists involved, was used, or?).

I think you and I are in agreement, just with slightly different emphases.

Firstly: "Reduce calorie intake" is technically correct information, but in and of itself, not an actionable plan. Too vague. Arguably, it could be an overarching goal. It is to be achieved through more specific objectives. I think environmental management objectives are critically important, for example.

Secondly: my belief in agency does not mean I think we should moralize obesity. Primarily because we can't identify who made better or worse choices based on body fat percentage. The increase in obesity in the world has not corresponded with a decline in character. It has corresponded with successful marketing by businesses that make money selling calories. We are facing willpower challenges that previous generations did not experience.

I get a lot of grief, because I don't make this a black and white issue, and it confuses people who are defending either a view that nothing matters but calories or alternatively, that calories don't matter. These should be marginal views, but unfortunately, they are compatible with commercial interests, so their simplicity combined with expensive marketing strategies mean they have been adopted by a majority of people and educators have an uphill battle.

Here's an interesting blog post by a GP: [Is Obesity A Choice?]

 

[Jono]

I think you and I are in agreement, just with slightly different emphases.

Firstly: "Reduce calorie intake" is technically correct information, but in and of itself, not an actionable plan. Too vague. Arguably, it could be an overarching goal. It is to be achieved through more specific objectives. I think environmental management objectives are critically important, for example.

Secondly: my belief in agency does not mean I think we should moralize obesity. Primarily because we can't identify who made better or worse choices based on body fat percentage. The increase in obesity in the world has not corresponded with a decline in character. It has corresponded with successful marketing by businesses that make money selling calories. We are facing willpower challenges that previous generations did not experience.

I get a lot of grief, because I don't make this a black and white issue, and it confuses people who are defending either a view that nothing matters but calories or alternatively, that calories don't matter. These should be marginal views, but unfortunately, they are compatible with commercial interests, so their simplicity combined with expensive marketing strategies mean they have been adopted by a majority of people and educators have an uphill battle.

Here's an interesting blog post by a GP: [Is Obesity A Choice?]

Yes, I find myself in agreement with your observation there.

Edit: Thanks for the blog-article there.

 

[Jono]

The number and size of the strawmen you're posting in this thread makes me think you may have some personal agenda going on.

I struggle to think of any other reason you'd bother.

Strawmen? [like you told Bit_Pattern too ye?]

Don't be a tit, I mean just look at your track-record in this thread (starting with the OP). I think my paraphrasing of your more than obvious fat-shaming attitude was, if anything, gentle. Furthermore, as if that wasn't enough, whenever someone wrote derogatory comments, in agreement with your own attitude, toward overweight people (i.e, using slurs or generalisations like they're all "laying on the couch gulping down chips and coca cola) then you were quickly there in affirmation with comments like 'good point, that's exactly right' or 'brilliantly put!' etc. So... strawmen? I mean come on!?

 

[The Atheist]

What happens when the obese outnumber everyone else?

https://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/Obesity-excess-weight-in-US-continue-upswing.aspx

Answer coming to a country near you soon.

 

[The Atheist]

Nice touch here on childhood obesity in indigenous Australian kids by Warwick Thornton:

http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...icide-vests-show-fast-food-threat-in-pictures

 

[Jono]

There's been plenty ado about the metabolism of some polynesian groups (like samoans, maoir etc) and their disproportionate rate of aquiring diabetes above the norm in comparison to some other populations. Apparently, though I don't atm remember the studies, there have been finds which indicated that the different rates was indeed related (the difference inbetween groups, that is) to the metabolism.

 

[casebro]

There's been plenty ado about the metabolism of some polynesian groups (like samoans, maoir etc) and their disproportionate rate of aquiring diabetes above the norm in comparison to some other populations. Apparently, though I don't atm remember the studies, there have been finds which indicated that the different rates was indeed related (the difference inbetween groups, that is) to the metabolism.

It's in the genes, you can't 'catch' diabetes. Look up <diabetes Pima>.

Fat is not the culprit, it's the carbs.

 

[The Atheist]

What really ticks me off about this entire argument is the fat-apologists who think they're countering fat-shaming, while actually giving an excuse for tubbies to stay tubby.

This is an excellent example.

...the American Journal of Public Heath published a study which found long-term weight loss is all but impossible for most people.

The researchers from Kings College Cambridge looked at ten years worth of data from 278,982 people in the UK health records and determined that women in the 'obese' BMI category have a 1 in 124 chance of reducing their BMI to the 'healthy' BMI range, or a 1 in 677 chance if they are 'severely obese'.

What is that but a get out of jail free card for fatties? "All but impossible"

Go ahead, eat up.

 

[marplots]

What really ticks me off about this entire argument is the fat-apologists who think they're countering fat-shaming, while actually giving an excuse for tubbies to stay tubby.

This is an excellent example.



What is that but a get out of jail free card for fatties? "All but impossible"

Go ahead, eat up.

The trick is going to be getting the less obese to start shaming the more obese. Divide and conquer. One smoker telling another smoker they smoke too much.

"Sure, I drink, but damn it man, you're an alcoholic!"

 

[Belgian thought]

The trick is going to be getting the less obese to start shaming the more obese. Divide and conquer. One smoker telling another smoker they smoke too much.

"Sure, I drink, but damn it man, you're an alcoholic!"

"The trick" etc.. A trick? Wanton social manipulation - see FGM posts .

Far better

Fat people
Die earlier
Thin don't

Be thinner
Your choice
Fatty

 

[Porpoise of Life]

What really ticks me off about this entire argument is the fat-apologists who think they're countering fat-shaming, while actually giving an excuse for tubbies to stay tubby.

This is an excellent example.



What is that but a get out of jail free card for fatties? "All but impossible"

Go ahead, eat up.

What it is is a conclusion based on a huge amount of data. Over the course of a decade, the vast majority of the obese people in this study have been unable to significantly lower their BMI. It isn't a get out of jail free card, it's an indication that current tactics for long term weight loss are not effective.

 

[marplots]

"The trick" etc.. A trick? Wanton social manipulation - see FGM posts .

Far better

Fat people
Die earlier
Thin don't

Be thinner
Your choice
Fatty

That doesn't work when it takes the accumulation of poor choices to see the result. If it were, "Eat that, die tomorrow" it would work, but not "Eat better from 20 till you're 50 and you'll survive an extra 5 years at the other end."

Shaming is much more immediate. The problem seems to be that someone who is thin doesn't have the moral authority to properly shame an obese person.

 

[bit_pattern]

That doesn't work when it takes the accumulation of poor choices to see the result. If it were, "Eat that, die tomorrow" it would work, but not "Eat better from 20 till you're 50 and you'll survive an extra 5 years at the other end."

Shaming is much more immediate. The problem seems to be that someone who is thin doesn't have the moral authority to properly shame an obese person.

It's also demonstrably counterproductive and pointless, serving only to make the shamer feel morally superior to the shamee.