• Hey! You! Yes, you, you fucking fatass! Drop the donut and read this study about the negative conseq
    99 replies, posted
[QUOTE=joes33431;41642481]that is a very rash generalization to make, one that entirely ignores underlying and external factors; you sound a lot like those kinds of people who say that the poor are only poor because they're lazy.[/QUOTE] Everyone has the capability to eat less, exercise more, and drink more water and that is literally all that is [I]needed[/I] to lose weight. I understand and can sympathize that for some people it's harder than for others, but it is not an impossibility and you can't pass the buck on to nature because you aren't willing to try hard enough.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41640091]This is morbid obesity. We're not talking about morbidly obese individuals, who are putting themselves at serious health risk. We're talking about obese and overweight individuals - who are often generalized as having the same health risks as the morbidly obese. [/QUOTE] I don't speak for everyone here, but when I think of 'fat' I think of people who are breaking 300-400 pounds. Using Google to search for 'fat' in image search backs this up a lot. There's a pretty big difference between 'overweight' and 'fat', and I don't really think that a lot of overweight people get slapped around with fat shaming (as a personal example I'm a bit overweight myself, 6'3 and 230lbs. Went through high school and what not just fine, wasn't 'fat shamed'). And I dunno about you guys, but I've just found that eating less is helping me lose weight. While that seems pretty obvious, it's really easy to pack on pounds without noticing when/if you over eat. It's just something you have to watch.
[QUOTE=Reimu;41640395]Uh yeah, I specifically said that there is a solid range for continuous functioning - you posted pictures that refuted that statement only in regards to the morbidly obese.[/QUOTE] Only because the morbidly obese are at greater risk. Obese people still have these health problems, albeit of less severity. [quote]From "normal weight" to "obese," there's no proof that the body can't function - we both established that it's morbidly obese individuals who are at risk here, and not necessarily the overweight and the obese.[/quote] Obese people still have health risks. This is established in the medical mainstream. [quote]Plus, it's not like there's a flat check-off list where everyone is automatically morbidly obese when they hit 250lbs. Individuals 5ft 9in+ and 250lbs are still considered obese, and 6ft 3in and 250lbs is still "overweight." BMI functions on height and weight, and you can't simply look at weight and judge someone automatically. I'm 185lbs and flirt between "normal weight" and "overweight," but I don't look like I need to lose weight at all. I was overweight as a kid, and my parents were shocked to learn that my cholesterol was perfectly fine.[/quote] This is why we measure using the actual amount of fat. There is of course the fat inbetween organs (Visceral fat) which is seriously problematic when you have excess of it. Of course, it's less obvious to external appearance. Whilst there is a range, this is no excuse to allow one to accumulate visceral fat. [quote]It's pretty obvious that there's a much larger range - between "normal" and "obese" - where individuals can still properly function.[/quote] Albeit with reduced mobility and increased health complications. [quote]Even when it comes to high body fat, you have to very specifically look at how each individual is functioning. There's proof that exceedingly morbidly obese people are unhealthy, but most overweight people are treated as if their overweight/obese body possesses the same complications as morbid obesity.[/quote] Overweight people are treated individually. You can be relatively small with a great deal of visceral fat (or even Epicardial fat) and be at serious risk, or you could be a huge person who's lucky enough not to have it that way. However, it is well established in medical circles that excess fat is detrimental to ones health. [quote]Okay, and the studies I posted show that a healthy and natural level is different for everyone. Diets don't seem to work as well as we think - they're just banging your head against the wall and waiting for your weight to come back - and it seems as if there's a neurological difference between individuals when it comes to calories burnt and weight loss.[/quote] This is no excuse to not work towards treatments or methods to curb obesity. You can't give up on a serious medical issue affecting hundreds of millions of people. [quote]I'm not going to argue that morbidly obese individuals are healthy. If I did, then I was wrong - they're clearly not. But it's clear that "overweight" and "obese" people can function at a much greater rate than society wants us to believe, and I think there's issues with the medical community when it comes to weight loss.[/quote] What issues are these? [quote]At the very least, if we want to get rid of obesity, we need to stop thinking that fat people are "eating too much" and understand how their bodies function differently from others.[/quote] Which is what medical research is constantly trying to do? It's no surprise when many doctors say you should do regular exercise and eat correctly, otherwise you will not only become larger, but at risk of other health problems. Fat acceptance is ultimately a self-defeating movement. As time goes on, the obesity epidemic will be treated thoroughly and everybody will climb back down into normal weights, by which point there will no longer be overweight persons.
The biggest issue in all of this is using weight as a sole metric of health in the first place. You can't tell if someone is healthy or unhealthy by boiling them down to a single number, whether that number is your actual weight or your BMI. Healthiness is determined by not just body fat, but by muscle density, bone density, levels of vitamins and minerals, exposure to pollutants and toxins, amount of stress and anxiety, depression and other mental illnesses, energy levels, and ultimately, ability to live your life the way you want to live it. Breaking it down to a single number may be useful for statisticians but if you're taking a medical-minded approach to health you're really missing the mark by considering weight to be the be-all and end-all of health.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41643476]The biggest issue in all of this is using weight as a sole metric of health in the first place. You can't tell if someone is healthy or unhealthy by boiling them down to a single number, whether that number is your actual weight or your BMI. Healthiness is determined by not just body fat, but by muscle density, bone density, levels of vitamins and minerals, exposure to pollutants and toxins, amount of stress and anxiety, depression and other mental illnesses, energy levels, and ultimately, ability to live your life the way you want to live it. Breaking it down to a single number may be useful for statisticians but if you're taking a medical-minded approach to health you're really missing the mark by considering weight to be the be-all and end-all of health.[/QUOTE] Of course. The problem however is that an increase in body fat, will increase chances of health complications. Anybody over 100kgs (unless they are some kind of bodybuilder or really tall) will almost definitely have health complications arising from their increase in body fat.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643551]Of course. The problem however is that an increase in body fat, will increase chances of health complications. Anybody over 100kgs (unless they are some kind of bodybuilder or really tall) will almost definitely have health complications arising from their increase in body fat.[/QUOTE] Yes but the same could be said for a sedentary lifestyle regardless of weight and I have a feeling many of the people judging those who are overweight on the internet lead rather sedentary lives.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41643564]Yes but the same could be said for a sedentary lifestyle regardless of weight and I have a feeling many of the people judging those who are overweight on the internet lead rather sedentary lives.[/QUOTE] That's not an excuse to defend obesity. It's a medical issue and should be treated as such (i.e the patient and their doctor find a method to reduce body fat levels to a healthy level).
I just ate two twinkies and two ice cream twix. I hardly feel any shame.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643585]That's not an excuse to defend obesity. It's a medical issue and should be treated as such (i.e the patient and their doctor find a method to reduce body fat levels to a healthy level).[/QUOTE] It's an excuse to defend treating everyone with more or less the same level of dignity, and in a thread about fat-shaming I think it was a really on-topic reply I give myself 7.5 stars, I even used capitalization and punctuation
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643400]Only because the morbidly obese are at greater risk. Obese people still have these health problems, albeit of less severity.[/quote] The difference between obesity and "morbid obesity" is that the morbidly obese start to see actual health risks based on their obesity. All of your research points to problems that the morbidly obese seem to have, and none of your sources have discussed problems faced by people who are specifically "obese" or "overweight." Otherwise, why aren't obese individuals dying in the 100,000's? We know for a fact that original obesity estimates were significantly overrated ( [url]http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/20/9348.aspx[/url] ) and that further research proves morbidly obese-related deaths are lower than 30,000. Compared to original estimates in the 400,000's. [quote]Obese people still have health risks. This is established in the medical mainstream.[/quote] And my sources explicitly states that that are many misconceptions pushed forward by the "medical mainstream." Some sources have gone so far as to state that research on obesity is often funded by major drug companies or diet corporations. Ex. ([url]http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth2.9.htm[/url] ) : [quote]Kassirer’s comment describes, among others, prominent obesity researcher David Allison, who was the lead author of the 1999 JAMA study that concluded obesity was responsible for 300,000 deaths in 1990. Allison has accepted funding from virtually every major business in the weight-loss industry. That includes big drug companies that make weight-loss pills like Xenical and Meridia, popular diet companies like Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, and Slim-Fast Foods, and the makers of the deadly "fen-phen" appetite suppressant combination—as well as the lawyers who defended those companies in court. The CDC’s now-discredited study upped the supposed obesity death toll to 400,000, noting: "We used the same procedure reported by Allison et al. to estimate annual overweight-attributable deaths." But JAMA noted when it published Allison’s deeply flawed study that he "has received grants, honoraria, monetary and product donations, was a consultant to, and has contracts or other commitments with numerous organizations involving weight control products and services."[/quote] [quote]This is why we measure using the actual amount of fat. There is of course the fat inbetween organs (Visceral fat) which is seriously problematic when you have excess of it. Of course, it's less obvious to external appearance. Whilst there is a range, this is no excuse to allow one to accumulate visceral fat.[/quote] There is no excuse to be unhealthy. There is also no reason to assume that obese people are inherently unhealthy. [quote]Albeit with reduced mobility and increased health complications.[/quote] Again, my sources suggest that it's more complicated than "obesity/overweight = bad health" and that serious health complications are actually seen within the morbidly obese, not the obese and overweight. [quote]However, it is well established in medical circles that excess fat is detrimental to ones health.[/quote] Again, my sources suggest that the problem is more complicated than "excess fat = bad health" and that health is often related to genetic pre-dispositions, the body's molecular/neurological inability to burn calories, and other issues. [quote]This is no excuse to not work towards treatments or methods to curb obesity. You can't give up on a serious medical issue affecting hundreds of millions of people. What issues are these?[/quote] Once again, directly related to my sources. The medical community constantly believes that dieting, weight loss drugs, and other "traditional" weight loss means are suitable for the overweight and the obese. But many of these programs fail to target the problem. This is because there is an "energy homeostasis" involved with fatter individuals - their body is naturally bigger for a lot of reasons. A genetic predisposition, a molecular inability to burn fat, a mixture of high serotonin and high nutritional requirements, etc. This creates a situation where - as the study with the "overfed twins" shows - each individual burns fat at different rates based on their genetic and neurological make-up. The medical community doesn't always adhere to these studies, especially because pharmaceutical companies would rather push forward weight-loss drugs than create new, expensive drugs which aid some of the neurological deficiencies within the overweight/obese. So we have a situation where weight loss programs are constantly pushed forward by doctors, even though their patients always regain the weight they lose. There needs to be a new medical focus that moves away from "dieting" and tries to pinpoint neurological, genetic, and biological issues with obesity. We know that obesity and overweight bodies are 77% genetically pre-dispositioned ([url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/398.full[/url] ) - so why are we trying to play the diet game without doing further medical research? [quote]Fat acceptance is ultimately a self-defeating movement. As time goes on, the obesity epidemic will be treated thoroughly and everybody will climb back down into normal weights, by which point there will no longer be overweight persons.[/QUOTE] Or, maybe we'll learn to change our social perceptions and realize that it's okay to not have the perfect sociological conception of what the body ought to be. It's true that there is a healthy range for an individual to exist - from "skinny" to "fat" - but the social conception is massively overblown. And faulty research supported by pharmaceuticals - who are creating a $66 billion industry - often try to assert that dieting and weight loss programs are the key to success. Even if you don't believe that fat, overweight, and mildly obese people can be healthy - it's pretty clear that the current program isn't ending obesity levels. Especially because obesity rates haven't changed a bit in the past few years ( well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/obesity-rates-stall-but-no-decline/ ). So, why should we continue this "diet and you'll be fine" focus when it's clear that there's a neurological and molecular concern involved? It's bunk. We want to tell ourselves that the fat and the obese "ate" their way to 200lbs+. But, like many of us normal weight individuals, the research proves that it has more to do with genetics and neurological build than anything else.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41643688]It's an excuse to defend treating everyone with more or less the same level of dignity, and in a thread about fat-shaming I think it was a really on-topic reply I give myself 7.5 stars, I even used capitalization and punctuation[/QUOTE] Insulting fat people for being fat is of course stupid. I was mostly arguing about Reimus pseudoscientific arguments about how being fat wasn't unhealthy.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643585]That's not an excuse to defend obesity. It's a medical issue and should be treated as such (i.e the patient and their doctor find a method to reduce body fat levels to a healthy level).[/QUOTE] Compare the two in a room, though, and the person weighing over 100kgs is going to be seen as more "unhealthy" than someone who has a normative weight level. [url]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/bias/Bias-Discrimination-and-Obesity.pdf[/url] [quote]Studies on employment have shown hiring prejudice in labroatory studies. Subjects report being less inclined to hire an overweight person than a thin person, even with identical qualifications. Individuals make negative inferences about obese persons in the workplace, feeling that such people are lazy, lack self-discipline, and are less competent. One might expect these attributions toa ffect wages, promotions, and disciplinary actions, and such seems to be the case.[/quote] The real issue is, why are we creating these negative generalizations and prejudices about the obese and overweight? That tells us a lot about our society. That, just because of someone's physical appearance, we believe that they are less deserving of others. Even if there's a real medical concern with a morbidly obese individual, their health has nothing to do with issues such as laziness and self-competency. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643781]Insulting fat people for being fat is of course stupid. I was mostly arguing about Reimus pseudoscientific arguments about how being fat wasn't unhealthy.[/QUOTE] "psuedoscientific arguments" backed by medical research. whereas your statements are just you claiming that "it's widespread among the medical community"
[QUOTE=Reimu;41643757]The difference between obesity and "morbid obesity" is that the morbidly obese start to see actual health risks based on their obesity. All of your research points to problems that the morbidly obese seem to have, and none of your sources have discussed problems faced by people who are specifically "obese" or "overweight." Otherwise, why aren't obese individuals dying in the 100,000's? We know for a fact that original obesity estimates were significantly overrated ( [url]http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/20/9348.aspx[/url] ) and that further research proves morbidly obese-related deaths are lower than 30,000. Compared to original estimates in the 400,000's.[/quote] The source still gives a figure of 112,000 dying yearly. That's still a problem. [quote]And my sources explicitly states that that are many misconceptions pushed forward by the "medical mainstream." Some sources have gone so far as to state that research on obesity is often funded by major drug companies or diet corporations. Ex. ([url]http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth2.9.htm[/url] ) :[/quote] These are conspiracy theories. There's a reason why knowledge in the medical mainstream is mainstream. (Hint it isn't bullshit). Using sites like "obesity myths" is just shitting on medical science. [quote]There is no excuse to be unhealthy. There is also no reason to assume that obese people are inherently unhealthy.[/quote] Despite strong correlations between obesity and health problems? The fact that 112,000 die each year from it? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity[/url] [quote]Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.[/quote] [url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obesity[/url] [quote]a condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body. Obesity has been linked to a number of health risks, such as heart disease.[/quote] The fact it says it in the fucking wikipedia article and dictionaries? [quote]Again, my sources suggest that it's more complicated than "obesity/overweight = bad health" and that serious health complications are actually seen within the morbidly obese, not the obese and overweight.[/quote] This doesn't discount the fact that you still get health complications, albeit of a less severe variety. And that obesity is classified as a condition where excess body fat causes health problems. [quote]Again, my sources suggest that the problem is more complicated than "excess fat = bad health" and that health is often related to genetic pre-dispositions, the body's molecular/neurological inability to burn calories, and other issues.[/quote] This doesn't discount the fact that obesity is detrimental to health, and is commonly accepted by most medical authorities as being such. [quote]The medical community constantly believes that dieting, weight loss drugs, and other "traditional" weight loss means are suitable for the overweight and the obese. But many of these programs fail to target the problem.[/quote] Do they now? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_obesity[/url] [quote]Success rates of long-term weight loss maintenance with lifestyle changes are low ranging from 2 to 20%.[/quote] Let us assume 10%. Fairly low rate it seems. At least that number will see improvement. What else? [quote]The most effective treatment for obesity is bariatric surgery. Surgery for severe obesity is associated with long-term weight loss and decreased overall mortality. One study found a weight loss of between 14% and 25% (depending on the type of procedure performed) at 10 years, and a 29% reduction in all cause mortality when compared to standard weight loss measures.[8] However, due to its cost and the risk of complications, researchers are searching for other effective yet less invasive treatments.[/quote] This is usually one of the last measures. Amazingly, it works. However, we can do better. [quote]Studies have found significant benefits in mortality in certain populations from weight loss. In a prospective study of obese women with weight related diseases, intentional weight loss of any amount was associated with a 20% reduction in mortality.[/quote] Gosh! What's this? Shocking isn't it! It's almost as though this fits in nicely with medical science. [quote]This is because there is an "energy homeostasis" involved with fatter individuals - their body is naturally bigger for a lot of reasons. A genetic predisposition, a molecular inability to burn fat, a mixture of high serotonin and high nutritional requirements, etc. This creates a situation where - as the study with the "overfed twins" shows - each individual burns fat at different rates based on their genetic and neurological make-up.[/quote] Despite the fact that outside of the upper classes, obesity practically didn't exist until the modern era? You had fat monks and nobles, but rarely did you find a fat peasant. [quote]The medical community doesn't always adhere to these studies, especially because pharmaceutical companies would rather push forward weight-loss drugs than create new, expensive drugs which aid some of the neurological deficiencies within the overweight/obese. So we have a situation where weight loss programs are constantly pushed forward by doctors, even though their patients always regain the weight they lose.[/quote] Golly, now it's big pharma being the baddies. I guess this means weight loss is bad huh? [quote]There needs to be a new medical focus that moves away from "dieting" and tries to pinpoint neurological, genetic, and biological issues with obesity. We know that obesity and overweight bodies are 77% genetically pre-dispositioned ([url]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/2/398.full[/url] ) - so why are we trying to play the diet game without doing further medical research?[/quote] Surprisingly enough we are. The best treatments at the moment however, involve dieting, exercise, and medication. [quote]Or, maybe we'll learn to change our social perceptions and realize that it's okay to not have the perfect sociological conception of what the body ought to be.[/quote] The perfect body is one free of medical problems. Obesity is one of those. [quote]It's true that there is a healthy range for an individual to exist - from "skinny" to "fat" - but the social conception is massively overblown. And faulty research supported by pharmaceuticals - who are creating a $66 billion industry - often try to assert that dieting and weight loss programs are the key to success.[/quote] Yes, companies try to make money by selling drugs to desperate people. Does this somehow invalidate the problem of obesity and the limited success that existing treatments can already do? [quote]Even if you don't believe that fat, overweight, and mildly obese people can be healthy - it's pretty clear that the current program isn't ending obesity levels. Especially because obesity rates haven't changed a bit in the past few years ( well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/obesity-rates-stall-but-no-decline/ ). So, why should we continue this "diet and you'll be fine" focus when it's clear that there's a neurological and molecular concern involved?[/quote] And could you imagine what it would be like if you spread your lies about obesity bringing no health complications? [quote]It's bunk. We want to tell ourselves that the fat and the obese "ate" their way to 200lbs+. But, like many of us normal weight individuals, the research proves that it has more to do with genetics and neurological build than anything else.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's why gastric surgery has the highest success rate. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Reimu;41643817]Compare the two in a room, though, and the person weighing over 100kgs is going to be seen as more "unhealthy" than someone who has a normative weight level.[/quote] That's because it's most likely that they are. We ain't banging rocks together here. [quote]The real issue is, why are we creating these negative generalizations and prejudices about the obese and overweight? That tells us a lot about our society. That, just because of someone's physical appearance, we believe that they are less deserving of others.[/quote] Oh don't give me this bullshit. I'm focusing on obesity as a medical problem. [quote]Even if there's a real medical concern with a morbidly obese individual, their health has nothing to do with issues such as laziness and self-competency.[/quote] And where did I state this was the reason? [quote]"psuedoscientific arguments" backed by medical research.[/quote] Half of your sources are about fat people discrimination or from biased websites. [quote]whereas your statements are just you claiming that "it's widespread among the medical community"[/QUOTE] Hey if Wikipedia and all the dictionaries tell me that obesity is detrimental to health, I should trust some fat anarchists blog.
It's quite simple really, putting someone down isn't really a necessity however there are people that confuse accepting their body with abusing their body. Having said that it's a fine, fine line between tough love and mental abuse.
I just feel like people who get fat are a bit silly for not realising sooner that they are getting fat and fixing it I remember I started getting chubby so I stopped eating fast food and did more exercise and lost 10kg in 2 weeks. Its easy if you have the willpower
I was eating a donut when I clicked on this thread...
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41643968]The source still gives a figure of 112,000 dying yearly. That's still a problem.[/quote] No, the data is cut off. Besides, in the opening paragraphs: [quote]"Thus, for overweight and obesity combined, our estimate was 25,814 excess deaths."[/quote] Other sources: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381629/Obesity-killing-30000-a-year.html[/url] [url]http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/20/9348.aspx[/url] [quote]These are conspiracy theories. There's a reason why knowledge in the medical mainstream is mainstream. (Hint it isn't bullshit). Using sites like "obesity myths" is just shitting on medical science.[/quote] Have you even looked at where these links lead to? They're all academic studies supported by places like "diabetesjournals.org" and the American Diabetes Spectrum. Those places are hardly bias. And, even the links that lead to "anti-obesity" blogs specifically link to and reference academic sources from areas such as Rockefeller University and University of Montana. Your point would be valid if these places were coming from quacks. Most of this research is coming straight out of non-obesity health organizations, or academia. [quote]Despite strong correlations between obesity and health problems? The fact that 112,000 die each year from it? This doesn't discount the fact that you still get health complications, albeit of a less severe variety. And that obesity is classified as a condition where excess body fat causes health problems.[/quote] Wikipedia and a dictionary? That's cute. Obesity puts you at risk for these health problems the same way that being a [b]bald man[/b] puts you at risk for a heart attack ( [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51421287/ns/health/t/balding-men-may-have-higher-risk-heart-attack-study-finds/[/url] ). There's is no cause or correlation for most complications - as I posted above, from diabetes to hypertension - unless there is a [b][i]genetic pre-disposition involved in the process[/i][/b]. This is why we do not see 100% hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cardiac arrest fatalities, and cancerous death rates in the obese. There is a cause but no correlation unless there is another factor at play - the genetic disposition. This changes when [b]morbid obesity[/b] comes into play, because general biological functionality is still unimpaired at an obese or overweight level. Unless prior complications related to genetic pre-dispositions are at play. But claiming that fat "makes you" unhealthy is like stating that being bald is inherently linked to heart disease. Again, the opening paragraph for the above article establishes that it's not 112,000, it's around 26,000 deaths. [quote]This doesn't discount the fact that obesity is detrimental to health, and is commonly accepted by most medical authorities as being such.[/quote] No, it proves that genetic alleles are more important to your health than your weight. Claiming "weight makes you fat" is like saying "being a female with breasts gives you breast cancer." There is not a correlation unless the risk increasing alleles are present (or, in cases such as hypertension, certain genes are missing). [quote]Do they now? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_obesity[/url] Let us assume 10%. Fairly low rate it seems. At least that number will see improvement. What else?[/quote] That 2% - 20% are probably hitting individuals such as myself, who naturally rest at a lower "normal" weight when they're eating. 2% - 20% is a pretty shitty rate, too, and proves that 98% - 80% of morbidly obese people will never lose the weight they need to lose if they talk to their GP. [quote]This is usually one of the last measures. Amazingly, it works. However, we can do better.[/quote] According to Wikipedia, requirements for surgery: [quote]"Surgery should be considered as a treatment option for patients with a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or greater who instituted but failed an adequate exercise and diet program (with or without adjunctive drug therapy) and who present with obesity-related comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea.[/quote] That means if you're obese and don't experience any of these conditions - as many obese people do - you're not necessarily going to receive that surgery. [quote]Gosh! What's this? Shocking isn't it! It's almost as though this fits in nicely with medical science.[/quote] That 20% reduction should be much more significant if obesity is truly the cause of issues such as hypertension and diabetes. [quote]Despite the fact that outside of the upper classes, obesity practically didn't exist until the modern era? You had fat monks and nobles, but rarely did you find a fat peasant.[/quote] Because fat monks and nobles had access to food, whereas peasants did not necessarily have the ability to intake the amount of calories their body necessarily required? There's a reason why fatness and child mortality appeared and disappeared, respectively, at the same time in the West. Research has shown too that obesity is often related to genetics, and some have even claimed that the "melting pot" genetic formula within the United States has contributed to that. [url]http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Obesity-largely-determined-by-genetics-says-study[/url] [quote]Golly, now it's big pharma being the baddies. I guess this means weight loss is bad huh?[/quote] It means that focusing on weight loss drugs without focusing on the neurological cause is inherently [b]not[/b] solving the problem. Again, the sources above clearly state that the "400,000" research and other studies were clearly supported by pharma companies. Whereas other non-obesity-affiliated studies - such as the diabetics - came up with a different perspective. [quote]Surprisingly enough we are. The best treatments at the moment however, involve dieting, exercise, and medication.[/quote] "Best" is misleading, though, with the extremely low % rates and a pharmaceutical aversion to treating the serotonin issue related to calorie intake. [quote]The perfect body is one free of medical problems. Obesity is one of those.[/quote] Great, because there are many obese and overweight people who are perfectly healthy. I am technically overweight (185 and 5ft9in), and my body is in prime shape - from blood pressure to diabetes risk. [quote]Yes, companies try to make money by selling drugs to desperate people. Does this somehow invalidate the problem of obesity and the limited success that existing treatments can already do?[/quote] It invalidates it when pharmecutical companies exclusively fund dietary programs instead of focusing on the neurological side of Caenorhabdtis elegans's influence on metabolism. [quote]And could you imagine what it would be like if you spread your lies about obesity bringing no health complications?[/quote] Give me a fucking break. I clearly stated that morbid obesity is a serious health concern. And I've admitted that certain issues - like PTP1B combined with obesity, like a heritary risk of diabetes - are [b]further compounded[/b] by obesity. What I'm not saying is that obesity [b]inherently causes these problems[/b] because there is no research directly stating that [b]obesity will make you diabetic[/b] or [b]experience hypertension.[/b] It's very, very clear that obesity only becomes an issue when there is a genetic influence in regards to these illnesses. It's like telling someone they are bound to become schizophrenic if they smoke pot, even though there's only a 1% chance of schizophrenia in the general population. Your risk increases if there's a family member who has schizophrenia, and marijuana has been known to cause auditory schizophrenia while high - that does not mean you ave bound to experience schizophrenia while high. And that does not mean that marijuana inherently causes schizophrenia - you have to be [b]genetically pre-disposed[/b] while toking. [quote]Yeah, it's why gastric surgery has the highest success rate.[/quote] Not everyone can have nor afford it. [quote]That's because it's most likely that they are. We ain't banging rocks together here.[/quote] We aren't even talking about actual obesity here. We're talking about someone who "looks" overweight being more likely to be turned down for a job based on their fat. [quote]Oh don't give me this bullshit. I'm focusing on obesity as a medical problem.[/quote] If you want to deal with the problem, you have to look at the sociological studies too. Medical issues don't exist in a vacuum. This whole entire thread is about the sociological impact based on an anti-fat culture and on fat individuals. Mental illness isn't treated because of its stigma - obesity often isn't either. Or adverse affects cause fat individuals to possess a negative self-image, thus leading to mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety (which further prevent treatment for actual health issues). [quote]And where did I state this was the reason?[/quote] I'm just putting it out there, Jesus. Because it's clear many people associate "fat" with laziness, according to the study. [quote]Half of your sources are about fat people discrimination or from biased websites.[/quote] They're fucking academic and scientific sources. The blog itself carries the sources, but they all hyperlink to actual research, news articles, and scientific studies. Even some of the sources you cited from me - such as the one you claimed had "110,000" deaths - were from research links. [quote]Hey if Wikipedia and all the dictionaries tell me that obesity is detrimental to health, I should trust some fat anarchists blog.[/QUOTE] Hey, if highly esteemed biomedical universities, news sources, and American health organizations are putting forward information that strays from the norm - [i]they are probably worth thinking about and researching[/i] ALL of my sources are either a.) directly from non-obesity-activist organizations (i.e. the American Diabetes Association), b.) non-biased news sources, c.) an academic or scientific study, or d.) an unrelated blog analyzing any of the above. The only time I referenced the blog was to show that there is a long list of [b]esteemed and acclaimed sources[/b] which run counter to mainstream beliefs on obesity. [b]None of the sources I used[/b] were directly from a "fat anarchist blog."
[QUOTE=Reimu;41644367]No, the data is cut off. Besides, in the opening paragraphs:[/quote] Adorable. [quote]"Thus, for overweight and obesity combined, our estimate was 25,814 excess deaths."[/quote] Combined? Golly! [quote]obesity kills 112,000 Americans each year[/quote] [quote]Today's study in JAMA indicates that being overweight, as opposed to obese, actually saves 86,000 lives.[/quote] Wow! It's saying that overweight and obese are different things! It's saying being OVERWEIGHT saves lives. NOT obesity. [quote]Thus, for overweight and obesity combined, our estimate was 25,814 excess deaths."[/quote] Aww, look! By combining lives saved from overweight, and by combining deaths from Obesity, we get this! Wonderful! Isn't it great that by manipulating obesity AND overweight figures I can twist an argument to suit me? :) [quote][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1381629/Obesity-killing-30000-a-year.html[/url] [url]http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/20/9348.aspx[/url][/quote] One is the earlier source. Another is about an entirely different fucking country. [quote]Have you even looked at where these links lead to? They're all academic studies supported by places like "diabetesjournals.org" and the American Diabetes Spectrum. Those places are hardly bias. And, even the links that lead to "anti-obesity" blogs specifically link to and reference academic sources from areas such as Rockefeller University and University of Montana.[/quote] Let's go through the sources for the "truth behind fat page" that covers many sources, so let's focus on there. We are discussing obesity causing health problems, so lets focus there. [quote]Doesn’t Obesity Kill?[/quote] [quote]Obesity does not kill 400,000 Americans a year (in fact, it ‘contributes’ to fewer than 30,000).[/quote] Gosh, that's the one which combines saved lives from overweight and deaths from obesity to make it look ok! (Also subtly ignoring that even if that was true, 30k people are directly dying lol) How about source 2? [quote]Though the evidence for the risk of being overweight is mixed, most studies find no increased risk of mortality among overweight people[/quote] [quote]The increased risk of mortality associated with obesity is of considerable concern because more than 33% of American adults are categorized as obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30).6 By even the most conservative estimates, obesity is responsible for more than 80,000 deaths annually.3 Obesity increases the risk of illnesses such as coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, sleep apnea, and several types of cancer.7,8 In addition to increasing morbidity and mortality, obesity is a major financial strain on both individuals and society, with the direct annual medical costs estimated to be in excess of $147 billion dollars.9[/quote] Hmm, I smell a pattern. Somebodies been confusing obesity and overweight :) [quote]Your point would be valid if these places were coming from quacks. Most of this research is coming straight out of non-obesity health organizations, or academia.[/quote] Or people with an agenda by distorting studies on overweight and obese people and retarding medical progress? :3 [quote]Wikipedia and a dictionary? That's cute.[/quote] Not as cute as your propensity for supporting social justice movements over that of established scientific knowledge! [quote]There's is no cause or correlation for most complications - as I posted above, from diabetes to hypertension - unless there is a [b][i]genetic pre-disposition involved in the process[/i][/b]. This is why we do not see 100% hypertension, type 2 diabetes, cardiac arrest fatalities, and cancerous death rates in the obese. There is a cause but no correlation unless there is another factor at play - the genetic disposition.[/quote] Then explain why losing weight has been shown to reduce mortality rates? :) [quote]This changes when [b]morbid obesity[/b] comes into play, because general biological functionality is still unimpaired at an obese or overweight level. Unless prior complications related to genetic pre-dispositions are at play. But claiming that fat "makes you" unhealthy is like stating that being bald is inherently linked to heart disease.[/quote] No, it's not like that at all. I mean, if it were, then the Lancet wouldn't be telling you that obesity is a medical problem right? [quote]Average life expectancy is already diminished; the main adverse consequences are cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and several cancers.[/quote] [url]http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67483-1/fulltext[/url] I'll cite Wikipedia again. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity[/url] [quote]Evidence to support the view that some obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is limited; on average obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass.[/quote] Well shit. [quote]Again, the opening paragraph for the above article establishes that it's not 112,000, it's around 26,000 deaths.[/quote] Well I covered this earlier but shhh I won't spoil your fantasy. [quote]No, it proves that genetic alleles are more important to your health than your weight. Claiming "weight makes you fat" is like saying "being a female with breasts gives you breast cancer." There is not a correlation unless the risk increasing alleles are present (or, in cases such as hypertension, certain genes are missing).[/quote] Erm. It's fat that's the problem. Heavier people tend to carry more fat around. [quote]That 2% - 20% are probably hitting individuals such as myself, who naturally rest at a lower "normal" weight when they're eating. 2% - 20% is a pretty shitty rate, too, and proves that 98% - 80% of morbidly obese people will never lose the weight they need to lose if they talk to their GP.[/quote] Then let's fund medical research! Till then, dieting and exercise are among the best treatments available. I mean, since eating a healthy diet and exercising tends to be good anyways, why not encourage it? It at least slows down or halts an increase in weight. [quote]According to Wikipedia, requirements for surgery: That means if you're obese and don't experience any of these conditions - as many obese people do - you're not necessarily going to receive that surgery.[/quote] That's because its one of last resort. :) [quote]That 20% reduction should be much more significant if obesity is truly the cause of issues such as hypertension and diabetes.[/quote] Somehow you take a piece of news saying that a reduction of weight is beneficial to health, and manage to jump around it as though its nothing. [quote]Because fat monks and nobles had access to food, whereas peasants did not necessarily have the ability to intake the amount of calories their body necessarily required?[/quote] [img]http://matrixresources.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/monty-python-holy-grail-05.jpg[/img] Good! Now, what does this tell us? Well, shockingly enough, peasants actually had plenty of good sometimes. I mean, all those skeletons found with tooth decay from sweetened foods and obesity-induced arthritis weren't for nothing! [quote]One typical estimate is that an adult peasant male needed 2,900 calories (12,000 kJ) per day, and an adult female needed 2,150 calories (9,000 kJ). Both lower and higher estimates have been proposed. Those engaged in particularly heavy physical labor, as well as sailors and soldiers, may have consumed 3,500 calories (15,000 kJ) or more per day. Intakes of aristocrats may have reached 4,000 to 5,000 calories (17,000 to 21,000 kJ) per day. Monks consumed 6,000 calories (25,000 kJ) per day on "normal" days, and 4,500 calories (19,000 kJ) per day when fasting. As a consequence of these excesses, obesity was common among upper classes. Monks especially frequently suffered from obesity-related (in some cases) conditions such as arthritis.[/quote] Strange that. It seems as though heavy labour kept most people quite thin until the modern age when we became wealthy enough to become fat bastards like our masters! I'm cutting down a bit because this is too long.
[QUOTE=Darkjerms;41642437]I know it can be annoying, but think about how much that inconveniences you, then compare that with how uncomfortable they must feel commuting everyday.[/QUOTE] I don't give a shit about those people's lives. I DO care that I have the chance to have someone's roll of fat constantly slosh onto me every time the bus stops.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;41639127]if losing weight is that easy, then why the fuck is obesity a problem around the world?[/QUOTE] This is thin privilege. Seriously though, most people lack will power, which is understandable since doing nothing and eating bacon is hard to resist.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;41644821]shrek was fat any questions? [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] i dont like when gay people kiss near me its so icky[/QUOTE] If they gay people touched me and/or tried to get me involved, I would be bothered.
What a novel way of thinking. How about we solve every problem by pretending it's not a problem?
Joking about obesity is sort of iffy in today's culture, because I know a lot of people who aren't offended at all by it, and I know people who are extremely offended by the simple mention of weight when they're in earshot. The problem is that a lot of people berate others for obesity over and over again, and that doesn't help; Likewise though, telling them that they aren't fat and that nothing is wrong with their health doesn't benefit them either. It's a tough area to be in, because either statement can cause them to be upset.
You're going to cherry pick my sources so you can disprove places like the AHA, sciencedaily, the US National Library of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, and University of California? Okay. Remember too that the US has a much higher percentage of obesity-related deaths than the UK - and many of those "obesity-related" deaths are related to obesity-compounded diseases. Which, again, has to do with issues such as a genetic predisposition to diabetes which is further compounded by obesity. [QUOTE=Emperorconor;41644693]Then explain why losing weight has been shown to reduce mortality rates? :)[/quote] What's with the passive aggressive smiley? This is a discussion not a power play :v: Also, that's simple. For example, 20% mortality rate decreases compensate for individuals who would have health complications rooted in genetics, but compounded by their obesity - i.e. diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. This is especially true for individuals who need surgery, because virtually all use surgery as a last resort for serious medical conditions - from hypertension and sleep apena. So naturally mortality would decrease for individuals who are using a surgery to, well, save their mortality in the first place. [quote]No, it's not like that at all. I mean, if it were, then the Lancet wouldn't be telling you that obesity is a medical problem right? [url]http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67483-1/fulltext[/url] I'll cite Wikipedia again. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity[/url] Well shit.[/quote] Both of those clearly state that it's the diseases themselves that are killing - not just fat alone. i.e. "The main adverse consequences" are the actual concerns. And all the research I posted above - from places like the NIH or Uni of California - clearly explain that this is a genetic situation. Again, your weight is always linked to your genetics when it comes to possible disease risks. Weight compounds the issue; it doesn't cause it, it simply agitates what already exists. Which is why some fatter individuals are not going to see any serious long-term health issues, and others will. We can literally separate hypertension victims - thin and fat, both are at risk - based on their genetics. [quote]Erm. It's fat that's the problem. Heavier people tend to carry more fat around.[/quote] When you have all these sources immediately explaining "Obesity and Health" and jumping to diseases caused by genetic pre-disposition, no, it's more complicated than "you're fat and you are going to die because you are unhealthy." I've explained this from numerous sources and if you can't see it, fine. Most of your post is just you cherry picking my arguments and using ad hominems to try to invalidate my sources. [quote]Then let's fund medical research! Till then, dieting and exercise are among the best treatments available. I mean, since eating a healthy diet and exercising tends to be good anyways, why not encourage it? It at least slows down or halts an increase in weight.[/quote] I'm not saying that those portions of medical treatment are bad or shouldn't be funded. I'm saying that obesity, morbid obesity, and general weight gain is a very complicated issue that needs to be understood from multiple perspectives. There's a molecular level where some individuals are prematurely shutting off calorie-burning neurons; there's a sociological level where people are being shamed; there's an environmental factor where obesity is caused by a mixture of genetic pre-disposition to higher weight mixed with environmental factors; etc. The medical community and pharma companies have this huge obsession with diets and dietary supplements, but these certainly don't work for everyone. Obesity needs to be understood as a larger picture - how it has genetic roots in its cause and effect, how there's more going on than "you're eating too much," and how there's a socio-economic bias where some people simply lack the opportunity to exercise. It's extremely privileged to think an overweight father in an inner-city family, for instance, has the time to exercise if they're moonlighting two jobs to try to keep their family afloat. [quote]That's because its one of last resort. :)[/quote] That only certain people - usually rich white people who have a pre-disposed condition - can afford. [quote]Somehow you take a piece of news saying that a reduction of weight is beneficial to health, and manage to jump around it as though its nothing.[/quote] That's because you're blowing it out of proportion without realizing that most mortality rates are linked to "obesity-related" diseases: not fat in and of itself. As for the Middle Ages cuisine, that's misleading by a lot of standards: 1.) Middle Ages life was much more physically active for the peasantry in virtually every respect. Comparing farming and husbandry to receptionist work and bus driving is a long stretch. Obesity is a different problem for a different era, where our "peasantry" isn't forced to be physically active 24/7. 2.) It's improper to state that obesity wasn't an issue, when it's very clear that food accessibility was significantly limited to peasants (from bread to finer meats, many of the population had to do without foods that the nobility were eating). After all: [quote]The caloric content and structure of medieval diet varied over time, from region to region, and between classes. However, for most people, the diet tended to be high-carbohydrate, with most of the budget spent on, and the majority of calories provided by, cereals and alcohol (such as beer).[/quote] 3.) Food diets today are filled with much more fats, high-sugar meals (which turn into fat), and processed food compared to the peasants' nutritional meals. Of course obesity isn't going to be an issue among Medieval peasnts, when they have access to low-fat foods and are eating nutritious meals. Likewise, this also doesn't explain why the developed world suffers from obesity issues: [url]http://www.fao.org/focus/e/obesity/obes1.htm[/url] [quote]A 1999 United Nations study found obesity in all developing regions, and growing rapidly, even in countries where hunger exists. In China, the number of overweight people jumped from less than 10 percent to 15 percent in just three years. In Brazil and Colombia, the figure hovers around 40 percent -- a level comparable to a number of European countries. Even sub-Saharan Africa, where most of the world's hungry live, is seeing an increase in obesity, especially among urban women. In all regions, obesity seems to grow as income increases.[/quote] Today's world is radically different from 1,000 years ago. There are situations where, in starving countries, we have starving individuals and obese individuals living side-by-side. These issues point to dietary changes across the world, where high-fat and high-sugar diets are significant. You can't simply state "Well, the peasantry were thin, so we should be too" when there are many more complex sociological, cuisine, and physical issues at hand. [editline]30th July 2013[/editline] I think it's also important to note that we shame fat and obese individuals for any compounded illnesses, but we rarely shame cigarette smokers or binge drinkers when it's very clear that both actions are instigators for health issues. Regardless of genetic disposition. [QUOTE=katbug;41644789]I DO care that I have the chance to have someone's roll of fat constantly slosh onto me every time the bus stops.[/QUOTE] Don't go to a University with public transit. At rush hour, you can't even choose who you're going to be standing next to (and you definitely WILL be back-to-back and belly-to-belly with anyone in a 1in radius). It's a fight to get in, not choose a seat :v:.
I remember all the past threads that were fat related, so many people mocking fat people, bullying or insulting them one way or another. Where have they all gone now this article has risen up? Are they ashamed that what they were doing was worsening the problem?
I drink water instead of eating sometimes when it comes to stress
[QUOTE=Reimu;41646824]You're going to cherry pick my sources so you can disprove places like the AHA, sciencedaily, the US National Library of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, and University of California? Okay.[/quote] Nah, you just haven't bothered to read them (such as when they make distinctions between obesity and overweight). [quote]Remember too that the US has a much higher percentage of obesity-related deaths than the UK - and many of those "obesity-related" deaths are related to obesity-compounded diseases. Which, again, has to do with issues such as a genetic predisposition to diabetes which is further compounded by obesity.[/quote] Do you admit that obese people are more likely to have detrimental health, and that on the whole, people die from it? Also I like how you subtly revised the 112,000 figure out of existence. [quote]Also, that's simple. For example, 20% mortality rate decreases compensate for individuals who would have health complications rooted in genetics, but compounded by their obesity - i.e. diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc. This is especially true for individuals who need surgery, because virtually all use surgery as a last resort for serious medical conditions - from hypertension and sleep apena. So naturally mortality would decrease for individuals who are using a surgery to, well, save their mortality in the first place.[/quote] So you admit that obese people who lose weight see improvements in health? [quote]Both of those clearly state that it's the diseases themselves that are killing - not just fat alone. i.e. "The main adverse consequences" are the actual concerns. And all the research I posted above - from places like the NIH or Uni of California - clearly explain that this is a genetic situation. Again, your weight is always linked to your genetics when it comes to possible disease risks. Weight compounds the issue; it doesn't cause it, it simply agitates what already exists. Which is why some fatter individuals are not going to see any serious long-term health issues, and others will. We can literally separate hypertension victims - thin and fat, both are at risk - based on their genetics.[/quote] [quote]Which is why some fatter individuals are not going to see any serious long-term health issues, and others will.[/quote] Which? I'm pretty sure that being larger compounds these health issues (as you said in your source). Surely one way to help reduce mortality is to reduce ones weight (as evidenced in multiple sources). [quote]When you have all these sources immediately explaining "Obesity and Health" and jumping to diseases caused by genetic pre-disposition, no, it's more complicated than "you're fat and you are going to die because you are unhealthy."[/quote] Obesity is literally a disease that is detrimental to health. (That's the fucking definition of it). [quote]I've explained this from numerous sources and if you can't see it, fine. Most of your post is just you cherry picking my arguments and using ad hominems to try to invalidate my sources.[/quote] From the same person who quietly backpedals when they fudge up mortality statistics? [quote]I'm not saying that those portions of medical treatment are bad or shouldn't be funded. I'm saying that obesity, morbid obesity, and general weight gain is a very complicated issue that needs to be understood from multiple perspectives. There's a molecular level where some individuals are prematurely shutting off calorie-burning neurons; there's a sociological level where people are being shamed; there's an environmental factor where obesity is caused by a mixture of genetic pre-disposition to higher weight mixed with environmental factors; etc. The medical community and pharma companies have this huge obsession with diets and dietary supplements, but these certainly don't work for everyone. Obesity needs to be understood as a larger picture - how it has genetic roots in its cause and effect, how there's more going on than "you're eating too much," and how there's a socio-economic bias where some people simply lack the opportunity to exercise.[/quote] I think the reason the medical community is fixated on diets and exercise atm is literally because those are some of the few treatments available, in a time when obesity rates have risen in the past few decades. [quote]It's extremely privileged to think an overweight father in an inner-city family, for instance, has the time to exercise if they're moonlighting two jobs to try to keep their family afloat.[/quote] If he has access to a local GP, then he can work out a solution with his doctor to at least manage the issue. This is no excuse to not do anything. [quote]That only certain people - usually rich white people who have a pre-disposed condition - can afford.[/quote] Or people in countries with nationalized healthcare. [quote]That's because you're blowing it out of proportion without realizing that most mortality rates are linked to "obesity-related" diseases: not fat in and of itself.[/quote] And does it not surprise you that reducing obesity reduces the chances of getting obesity related diseases? [quote]As for the Middle Ages cuisine, that's misleading by a lot of standards: 1.) Middle Ages life was much more physically active for the peasantry in virtually every respect. Comparing farming and husbandry to receptionist work and bus driving is a long stretch. Obesity is a different problem for a different era, where our "peasantry" isn't forced to be physically active 24/7.[/quote] Peasants didn't work 24/7. They slept as long as we did, and the prevalence of religious holidays (not to mention every sunday) meant that you had a lot of spare time as well. [quote]2.) It's improper to state that obesity wasn't an issue, when it's very clear that food accessibility was significantly limited to peasants (from bread to finer meats, many of the population had to do without foods that the nobility were eating). After all:[/quote] And does it not surprise you that historians tend to agree that peasants diets were generally quite healthy? [quote]3.) Food diets today are filled with much more fats, high-sugar meals (which turn into fat), and processed food compared to the peasants' nutritional meals. Of course obesity isn't going to be an issue among Medieval peasnts, when they have access to low-fat foods and are eating nutritious meals.[/quote] So, let us get persons to move towards healthier diets. It's going to require education in school on how to prepare healthy and cost effective meals as one major one. [quote]Likewise, this also doesn't explain why the developed world suffers from obesity issues: [url]http://www.fao.org/focus/e/obesity/obes1.htm[/url][/quote] Developing world people cannot be put on the same level as medieval peasants. The spread of cheap foods, markets, infrastructure, etc has already happened in many cases. [quote]Today's world is radically different from 1,000 years ago. There are situations where, in starving countries, we have starving individuals and obese individuals living side-by-side. These issues point to dietary changes across the world, where high-fat and high-sugar diets are significant. You can't simply state "Well, the peasantry were thin, so we should be too" when there are many more complex sociological, cuisine, and physical issues at hand.[/quote] Nicely saved. Pity you didn't get my point that healthy diets was what helped massively in this. The problem today is that access to high fat, high sugar foods is of course much easier. [quote]I think it's also important to note that we shame fat and obese individuals for any compounded illnesses, but we rarely shame cigarette smokers or binge drinkers when it's very clear that both actions are instigators for health issues. Regardless of genetic disposition.[/quote] I'm pretty sure a stigma is growing against smokers as well. Then again, I am wondering if a misguided social justice movement will try to defend smokers.
This isn't Mass Debate let me remind you
Nice post mining there Emperor.
[QUOTE=Vasili;41648543]Nice post mining there Emperor.[/QUOTE] How? The whole argument stems from if obesity is detrimental to health, that reducing ones weight when obese leads to marked improvements in health, and finally if we should be making the effort to encourage this The answer is yes to all of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.