Shit, forgot the poll. Meh, just write a comment with your opinions, plz.
Comment has been collapsed.
nothing wrong with being a little overweight (as defined by BMI), but being obese is a problem. So is being underweight.
BMI is a bad measure of body/weight health, it just happens to be less bad than any other quick and easy to measure ratio
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd specifically mentioned obesty. Which by BMI standards is defined as >30 so a 1.8 m high person should weight around the 100 kg to be considered obese.
Quoting from your article
In this cohort, patients with type 2 diabetes who were overweight or obese were more likely to be hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons. Being overweight was associated with a lower mortality risk, but being obese was not.
and as dingbat mentioned BMI is an aproximation, % of body fat calculated with wrist and waist measurements, impedancy or whatever is much more accurate.
Comment has been collapsed.
obesity is a lifestyle choice
Not at all. While there are people that may have become obese "by choice", there are many conditions that lead to obesity.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's half true, but it ignores the crux of the matter. Does middling policy that supports the ideal that all body types can be healthily help or hurt society?
Comment has been collapsed.
When the "ideal" body type is unattainable by all, it will do more harm. Pushing it borders on eugenics.
Comment has been collapsed.
do you even know what eugenics is?
While I agree with you that there are many factors that can cause obesity, encouraging people toward a more healthy lifestyle most certainly isn't eugenics.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I do. Of course is not a direct form of eugenics, more like a veiled kind. Promoting the so-called healthy figure can have the effect of diminishing obese people's chances of passing on their genes, does it not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering how most of them are obese by choice I'd say that as far your example is concerned they would exclude themselves from the gene pool.
Not to mention that it's deep ingraved into human (and maybe animal, I'm not a biologist tho) nature to try to find healthy mates for reproducing as it improves the chances of their offspring surviving.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is, but what's the role of media-induced influence on sexual attraction today? Is there a point where it might overtake instinct?
Comment has been collapsed.
That is a different question than the ones you posed in the OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
True that, although he probably wasn't talking about thyroid problems, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
I know enough people where medication for chronic/mental diseases is responsible for them gaining weight like nobody's business, still better than not taking that medication
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but genetics and medication induced overweight are minority of all cases. For most cases it's the effect of lifestyle choices. Driving everywhere, even if it's 15min walking distance, spending free time on the couch watching tv, eating more energy than is used up and so on...
Comment has been collapsed.
Obesity is a lifestyle choice in the vast majority of situations. There are conditions and medications that can lead to weight gain, sure, but that doesn't strictly derive into obesity per se.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vast majority? How so?
Even if we ignore genetic issues, healthy good quality food is expensive. Cheap, processed, filling food is fattening, but also fast to prepare and doesn't require hours of cooking. Do tell me, which of the two someone who is working long hours or simply struggles to make ends meet is going to pick?
Also, quite a lot of working people has thankless, hard, exhausting jobs. These might not be that big issue when you're young and fit, but when you pass 30 and come home tired, then even if you have money, are you going to stand around for hour or two making food? Or will you even have energy to do that providing you still want to?
By the same standard, in vast majority of cases, being poor or sickly is "lifestyle choice". After all, you could have "picked" to travel to say Bahamas, buy a villa, and eat freshly plucked tropical fruits daily for maximum fitness and slim belly, eh? Or have house servant prepare freshly bought superfood timed to arrive on table just as you're back from work, isn't it easy "choice"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Being poor or sick is not a lifestyle choice, it has to do more with enviromental factors, upbringing, genetics and such. Being obese (not overweight, but obese) is mostly, a lifestyle choice.
I do agree that cooking your own meals and buying fresh organic produce might be expensive and time consuming, but when the trick to losing weight is as simple as eating less calories than those you use, I don't think the argument stands for itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are so very unbelievably wrong! Obesity is NOT a choice for the overwhelming majority of humans. Excess food consumption is one of the hardest behaviors to stop, perhaps even more so than drug abuse, because it's an instinct. Suppressing it requires excessive amounts of self-control for the majority of humans, and self-control is very exhausting. You can't expect people who have to motivate themselves to work full-time uninteresting jobs to then have enough mental energy left over to suppress their need for high calorie food. Hell, even unemployed people often don't have that much self-control. And self-control/willpower is a physical process in the brain, not a personality trait or anything related to lifestyle, so you can't blame people for having poor self-control.
You might have noticed how all the TV shows and the like about overly obese people losing weight involve intensive external intervention - someone else manages their diet and pushes them to exercise, they're given individual attention, they're praised for progress, etc. This is effective while it lasts, but as soon as the intervention ends, the person's own willpower takes over, and they go back to gaining weight. Their willpower wasn't improved during the intervention, so it's ultimately a failure long-term.
So, what happens when obesity is demonized is, a tiny minority of people can suppress their urges, while the overwhelming majority fail at it miserably, lose confidence and become stressed and demotivated. So not only do they still suffer the effects of obesity, they suffer further negative effects from society's attitude towards them. By comparison, if the HaES idea becomes widely accepted, that would lead to a small number of people suffering negative effects because they no longer feel the need to restrain themselves and become obese, but it would also lead to significant improvements in the lives of the huge number of people who aren't able to lose weight long-term.
NOTE: I don't support anyone who claims that obesity has no negative health effects, just to be clear.
If you're concerned with public health, there are only 2 effective ways to reduce obesity:
-
Reduce the availability of high calorie food. Since people can't stop themselves from eating, governments can use bans, taxes, subsidies and ingredient regulations to make low-calorie, more filling food more widely available (as in, cheaper and featured more in cooked meals, be they in restaurants, fast food places or store shelves), while making high calorie, easy to consume in large quantities food more expensive and less widely available. This would probably require highly unpopular bans on sugary drinks and overly fatty and/or sugary snacks, along with severe restrictions on sugar content in general, but it's something I'm fairly sure will be recognized as necessary in the coming decades.
-
Reduce the amount of stress people suffer and the amount of willpower they have to use. These two are closely related since the main source of both is work. Since stress is one of the main causes of overeating, and is very unhealthy by itself anyway, it makes sense to reduce it as much as possible. And since willpower is needed to suppress urges, reducing the amount of it needed for other activities should make more of it available for healthy eating. The only effective way to achieve both goals is to reduce the number of hours worked per week while maintaining or increasing financial security. This would be extremely hard to achieve, as it requires that some people reduce their standard of living. Specifically, the wealthy. See, less work means less is produced, and less should be paid. But for the vast majority of people on the planet, earning less is not acceptable, since they're already barely surviving right now. So such a change would require an increase in equality - the majority of people produce less and earn the same, which means there's less stuff to go around, which means those who already have way more than they need have to consume way less, with their spending power distributed between those who need it. For obvious reasons, implementing this would require a state-owned or at least state-controlled economy.
NOTE: Reading that last paragraph, a reader might jump to the conclusion that I'm advocating for the supposed communist idea of equal pay for unequal work. I'm not. I have no problem with some people earning more than others, but I find it morally, economically and socially unacceptable for there to be an enormous gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, given that the difference between them is primarily the result of luck. Something like a cap of 10 times the income of the poorest person in the country is what I would find acceptable.
NOTE 2: Something else to note is that it can easily be argued that reductions in working hours should come from increases in productivity as more and more work is automated. Yet, it seems this doesn't happen much, as whenever workers are replaced by machines, the profits from the increased productivity are spread between the wealthy owners who become even wealthier, and the customers who enjoy lower prices. Those owners and customers thus have more money available to spend, and the replaced workers end up finding employment in other industries and services that see increased demand.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with most of your points but the first. I stand my ground in claiming than being obese it's a lifestyle choice, and while it's true than there's processes akin to drug consumption in the way the intake of food is perceived by us, I then wonder why the first group is demonized and cast-away, when it's obvious that many don't have the power of will or the enviroment to prevent it from happening.
I completely agree than the vast majority of the population is overworked, overstressed and overtired, 40 hour work weeks are alienating to the workforce, preventing them to develop themselves as individuals, spending time with their children, pursuing their hobbies and so on and so forth, specially when the necessity of being present at the workplace independently of the work load is widely ingrained as a society.
It's true too, that the salary gap between the high class and the worker class is ridiculous to the point of stupidity, but adressing that would imply a redistribution of wealth that, unless some kind of revolution and uprising happens, we won't see in our lifetime, as the people in power are those most interested in perpetuating the status quo
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, I'm trying to imagine people for who obesity is a lifestyle choice, but I can't. It doesn't compute. I'm sure that in the vastness of humanity, there are examples of it, but I just can't accept there's a significant number of such people.
And as for the demonization of the drug-addicted, I view it in much the same way as the demonization of the obese or even the poor (or any disadvantaged group, really) - society is blaming people for things they had no significant control over, due to a mix of insufficient understanding, insufficient compassion, and a terrible fear of how horrible the world would be if terrible things happened to people for no reason, all the time.
All 3 can be improved, to varying degrees. Some part of mandatory education should be focused on teaching people how complicated everything is and how many rolls of the dice you go through that can set you up for failure. And a strong, wide safety net for everyone in the world would make life not so terrible even for the unluckiest, thus helping people overcome their fear of accepting the harsh reality of a largely luck-based world.
Comment has been collapsed.
But that goes against the american dream TM, against the notion that by working hard and wishing something very hard and applying yourself 100% you can be everything.
You can't, but we've been fed that that is not the case, I would dare to say that this might be a reason why mental illnesses are so prevalent, and drug use, and even obesity. You gotta evade yourself somehow when you gt that cold hard dose of reality, when you realize that the world is not fair, that nepotism still matters, that even if you gave 200% you're are not guaranteed any kind of success
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. It's a problem and should be dealt with as such. But the people in charge are people, so they're going to deal with it the same way they do climate change, small fixes that amount to nothing just so they can say they're trying something without stepping on any toes.
We've become to afraid of hurting people's feelings... it's bullshit and leads to a lot of bullshit policymaking that is the legal equivalent of pussyfooting.
Comment has been collapsed.
My opinion is very similar to yours. I don't have anything personal against obese people, but I don't think it should ever become anything to celebrate. There are multiple reasons for that, one of them is the health thing. This is their personal business, if they want to live unhealthy, they can, but it's still an emotional burden on their close ones, and in my country (and some others) we have that free healthcare system going on, meaning whenever a person causes themselves an illness, it will be taxpayers who pay for it. Also, other stuff that's made for standard people may have to be re-engineered because of them (example: some more expensive wide and strong seats on planes to not break under a 200kg person) which is waste of money... so they can't really say it's 100% their own business.
Comment has been collapsed.
it will be taxpayers who pay for it
alright, seems fair, should taxpayers have the right to choose those that might have access to free health care, heavy people with private insurance policies should have the right to stop paying health-related taxes
stuff that's made for standard people
okay, let's just pretend very tall and very short people do not exist as well... not to mention the disabled... those poor airlines and their measly margins
Comment has been collapsed.
Only that being tall or short is actually about your genes, and not possible to change, and being disabled is something you have no control over, either (apart from those crazies who chop off their legs for some "trans-disabled" thing they wanted to be) while obesity is mostly self-inflicted thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
mostly
that's the key. If at least a bit of them aren't that way "by choice", why should they be stripped of their rights?
Comment has been collapsed.
Excuse me, what rights did you misread that I'm trying to strip them from?
Comment has been collapsed.
the right to travel by plane... but that's moot anyway... most plane seats can't accommodate a normal-sized person properly anymore, let alone an obese one (even worse if he/she also happens to be tall).
Comment has been collapsed.
Where did I say they shouldn't be allowed on plane? You silly thing. Only said that their eating habits cause other people to lose money, so it's not only their own thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
no, just the part about seats being re-engineered... airlines would love to be allowed to skip all those pesky regulations (and in some places they are)... I've seen people on wheelchairs having difficulty boarding or even left "stranded" after landing.
I agree that it puts a financial burden on society, but the obese also pay their share of taxes. In Britain (Castiglia, please correct me if I'm wrong), obese people on benefits take part of a "rehab" program of sorts, and in case they fail to keep it up they risk losing them.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't obese people pay taxes as well? Why should they not be allowed the same care as others? Not to mention there are infinite things people do to themselves which are unhealthy for them, why only pick on obese people? Or should we exclude anyone who at any point does anything that can potentially damage their heart? You are obese? no healthcare for you. You smoke? no healthcare for you. You have a dangerous job or do extreme sports aka are at much higher risk of having an accident? no healthcare for you. You drink a lot when going to Friday party? no healthcare for you. You had unprotected sex this one time and put yourself at risk of STD? no healthcare for you. and so on and on. If the country has public health service and you pay taxes - you have every right to health care. Refusing health care to certain groups who pay their taxes is not only unfair, but also very excluding in the meaning of society as a whole as well as dangerous, because the moment government wants to save some money they will just exclude another group. You may not be obese and say "damn, I don't care obese people are excluded" but how long until you get excluded yourself, because you like to drink, because you have piercing or tatoos (risk of hepatitis), because you ride on bike instead of car (risk of traccic accident) etc?
Comment has been collapsed.
They pay taxes as much as other people, but require more. Already gave an example with plane seats. If a plane doesn't have "fat seats," some fat people will actually expect to use two seats for the price of one, because they're one person, for example. That counts as special treatment, not the same care as others. Who says I "only" "pick" on obese people? I wouldn't welcome a person to smoke next to me on a plane, even though it would be so convenient for them to not go to the smoking area when they feel the need.
You're strawmanning hard here, I never said anyone should exclude anyone from anything, and I will not say that. I only say that people should pay for their costly choices, unless it's not a choice (diagnosed as something that makes you pretty much unable to lose weight without starving) instead of demanding the society to cater to them. And public free health care is not something I'd support anyway. There are always people who like to live dangerously, and others who never even get sick, yet everyone has to pay.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think health care should be given to all citizens without differentiation, the system is unbalanced by nature, everybody pays the same via taxes but a relatively small group uses most of the resources. That's just how things are, if you don't need to use the health care it is essentially a loss, but if you do have a disease is probable that you'll end up costing more to it that what you are contributing. The whole point is to distribute the cost between all of society so the people that need it don't go broke (at least not so hard).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there could be some kind of 50:50 option. Lots of people make themselves sick, but some are just unfortunate, and often it's impossible to tell which is which. Maybe just taxing the "bad stuff" harder, and adding part of that to health care, or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad stuff? As in things that are bad for the health(cigarettes, alcohol, etc.)?
Or you're taking about something else?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, sure. I'm ok with that, charge them their weight in gold for all I care.
But I'm pretty sure that's already the case for tobacco. I got curious and googled it and apparently my country just gets a 41.3% percent of what tobacco cost to the health care from the taxes they charge to it, so they wanna increase those taxes so they cover art least 82% of the damage they cause. It looks like that industry is more problems than is worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
while you can tax things like alcohol or cigarettes, how do you intent toi rax obesity harder? Ofc you could tax just fast foods - but what If I make this fat unhealthy burger myself in my home? Or just tax all food that is unhealthy? Then what with people who want this food for healthy diet? I can buy this chicken and deep fry it, buy potatoes andmake deep fried fries to serve them with it. And at the same time I can boil a chicken to make healthy broth and steam-boil potatoes without a gram of salt ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to go out of your way to live unhealthy life, then be my guest, I'm not taxing anything. shrug
But I have to say I've never seen a person who would make it some kind of life goal to eat unhealthy stuff. Most of them just do it because it's fast and easy (fast food) or cravings (chocolate and candy).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well - you were the one suggesting, direct quite:
taxing the "bad stuff" harderso I just asked how do you imagine taxing "bad stuff" that is responsible for obesity "harder".
Also where did I say about obesity being some kind of life goal lol o.O But at the same time - do you consider someone is satting himself life goals like "I will chain-smoke pack a day", "I will drink excesivelly and destroy my liver by the age of 40", "I have a new life goal, I must get at least 5 different STDs before I turn 30!" etc?
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever, just tax the sugary stuff and fatty/oily/greasy stuff then.
Comment has been collapsed.
and you do realize that you are also taxing a lot of healthy people in the process? People use sugar for their tea - does it mean they are unhealthy? You need oil/buter to fry basically anything, including healthy stuff etc. Like I said - while it's easy to tax cigarettes - there are no healthy cigs, it's not easy (if not impossible) to tax food just for unhealthy people, because healthy people eat the same things just in smaller amounts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Healthy people get sick too sometimes, so taxing them for the sugar they sometimes use, and at the same time taxing people who overuse sugar (therefore pay even more), and adding this money to healthcare, would make perfect sense to me. Same with oil.
healthy people eat the same things just in smaller amounts.
Yeah, healthy people also get sick, just in smaller amounts. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
you still miss the point (or do it on purpose). You would basically have to tax everything and everyone would be paying it, so where's the point, if non-obese people would have to pay anyway, because they need this stuff in their kitchen anyway? Not to mention that unlike tobacco or alcohol food is not govt licensed and controlled. Basically anyone can produce food. You tax fast foods? People can legally make their own fast foods to avoid taxes. You want to tax all unhealthy products in shops? People can buy the same unghealthy products legally from farmers and avoid taxation. And so on and on.
Comment has been collapsed.
-_-
What's wrong with everyone paying for healthcare, if everyone's going to use it sometimes anyway, very likely? "Anyway-anyway" - there are certain things that obese people eat more than skinny people, or else they wouldn't get obese. They're also more likely to have all kinds of cardiovascular issues. So the taxing will just be proportional with the risk a person takes. Low consumption - less tax paid - low risk. High consumption - more tax paid - high risk.
I really have no idea how to put it in simpler words, so I hope this is understandable now.
Also, I believe it's quite possible to tax every import of oils/sugars, and the farmers who can produce stuff. It's done with tobacco and alcohol, so why not with oils and sugars.
P.S. I'm starting to think you only argue with me because you took it personally and think I dislike fat people. It's not so, you're free to stop.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what you mean the whole time, but it doesn't make me agree with you any more ;p Not to mention that your "proportion" argument is stupid because there is no easy amount-haelth proportion, it all depends on HOW you use ingredients, not how much of them you use. Let's take a few examples. Meat - let's start with it. I can buy 1kg of meat and steam it without any fats, salt etc, make it super healthy. I can also buy 250g of meat, put it in flour, eggwash, bread crumbs, salt it heavilly and then deep fry it. It will be super unhealthy. Still I will pay just a half of the tax of healthy steamed meat ;) Another example? Sugar you mentioned. I can buy 2kg of sugar not to make unhealthy things, but to make healthy homemade preserves, from fresh fruits. All natural jams, concentrated juices and syrups, all much healthier than stuff you buy in shop. But I will end up paying much higher tax, simply because what? Because i could eat whole 2kg of sugar with a spoon? :> These examples can go on and on - salt while unhealthy can be used in large amounts to salt-crust baking which is very healthy way to make fish. But you need like 1kg salt per one fish ;p Olive oil can be used as healthy oil in salads, but you can also fry on it making it less healthy. List goes on and on.
As for your another argument - difference between tobacco/alcohol and food markets is that first two are heavilly regulated markets, thus you can easilly tax everything, while food marked is not a regulated market, you can have all kinds of sources of food, not just big corporations. You can buycorpo-produced food, but you can also buy fresh ingredients or all kinds of stuff from small farmers, you can make and trade homemade preserves etc. A small farmer cannot just start planting tobacco and selling it to anyone who wish to buy it. He cannot make moonshine on his own and sell it to folks. But he can sell potatoes he grew. See the difference?
@PS. Nope. I'm arguying with you because I find your idea stupid and detached from reality, not because I hate how thin you are and think you hate fat people ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
They pay taxes as much as other people, but require more
Things are not that simple.
For one, the same can be said about people living in big cities for example. Risks of cancer, lung sickness, accidents are higher.
Second, more important. If we start to differentiate premiums for health insurance it won't stop on smoking/obesity/etc. It will move to genetic tests leading at the end to two tiered society: nobility with healthcare and other privileges and peasantry left to fight for themselves and die
Comment has been collapsed.
This was in context of plane seats, and especially the example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not when combined with op (public healthcare), but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
Comment has been collapsed.
Also let's be frank here, not every obese person is going to be a burden on the health care system. Just like not every smoker in the world is going to get lung cancer and die. Same with alcoholics etc, diabetes which is a real problem isn't just for obese people and saying it as such is stupid. Are you more likely to have diabetes if you're obese? Yes. But then again children get diabetes due to the destruction of the pancreas. So I mean eh. Are you more likely to have a heart attack if you're obese? Yes, but again people in regular BMI's have heart attacks as well.
Also as a note, this whole you're more likely to die earlier thing. People die it's the circle of life. Disney made a movie about it. Eh when it's your time it's your time. Might as well enjoy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure you have to purchase two seats now if you're over a certain .. size. . :x
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's a food technologist's opinion:
I actually agree in everything you said! :O Everyone is free to have whatever body they want to have and nobody should judge them about it, but still, obesity is actually a problem, linked to health problems and death. They should understand that and also understand that they aren't really healthy and this could affect their future negatively. And the last thing you said is the most important part of your topic that I totally agree with. The parents may like to eat a lot and that's ok (although that would probably affect negatively the DNA of their child and probably cause them hereditary diseases), but they have no right at all to overfeed their child. Just because they don't want to be healthy, they have no right to destroy their child's good health. Here's a related video about it. So, people are free to make a decision for themselves, even if it's bad, but never try to force others in your unhealthy habits. :/ That's my humble opinion. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
would probably negatively affect the DNA of their child and probably cause them hereditary diseases
NO. that's pseudoscience and is blatantly wrong. An unhealthy lifestyle generally does not negatively affect DNA nor does it cause hereditary diseases.
an unhealthy lifestyle during pregnancy may negatively affect the fetus, but that's mostly chemistry, not biology. Furthermore, it doesn't affect the DNA, nor are the issues hereditary. If the child is nourished properly and healthily, there won't be any lasting repercusions
Comment has been collapsed.
What? o.O So, for example, don't you know that diabetes can be a hereditary disorder and can affect the child and make it have diabetes too? You have never heard about hereditary disorders/diseases?
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a difference between Type I diabetes (hereditary / born with it) and Type II diabetes (caused by unhealthy lifestyle)
Yes, I ahve heard of hereditary disorders/diseases, there are a lot of them. They're genetic, passed down generation to generation. They're not caused by lifestyle choices.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, the first guy in a family that got Type I diabetes, got it randomly, no matter what he was eating?
Comment has been collapsed.
A distant cousin of mine has type I diabetes. He is (and has always been) extremely thin.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, but because he got it from his parents or his grandparents, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
exactly. But as dingbat pointed out, there's no hard evidence that eating sweets or drinking coke can damage DNA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong about diabetes then, but usually, isn't it usually said that methyl-rich diets affect positively the genes, while methyl-poor diets affect negatively the genes?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have no idea, you probably know a lot more about it than I do. I took my genetics classes more than 15 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Type I diabetes is of autoinmune nature (I think) your beta Lagherhams islands are destroyed in the pancreas rendering you unable to produce insulin, it has an hereditary component but if I am not mistaken it can "randomly" appear and it's not related to diet.
Type II is insuline resistant diabetes and it's determined by, among other factors, diet.
There's more types like MOODY but they are not very relevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, maybe I'm wrong about diabetes then, but usually, isn't it usually said that methyl-rich diets affect positively the genes, while methyl-poor diets affect negatively the genes? I mean, there are some factors that affect genes, while others may not!
Comment has been collapsed.
that is generally how genetic disorders start.
Imagine downloading the same movie file 10,000 times. 9900 copy fine. Of the remaining 100, 90 copies have such a minor flaw that it's not noticeable (e.g. one pixel is wrongly colored in a movie file). Of the remaining 10, a few are unplayable (still-birth), a few will have noticeable issues right from the start (birth defects), and a few will play fine for a while then crash (genetic disorders). If you only watched the first 30 minutes, you might not realize that the problem doesn't occur until about an hour in, and you may copy that file to give to a friend, not knowing it's issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, very nice explanation! :O But I still believe that diets affect genes, just like I said below. They're not only random.
Comment has been collapsed.
very little. DNA/Genetics is very robust. radiation and chemistry are the major causes of genetic damage, and even those the body can often recover from.
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as you don't ingest/inhale toxic substances, food has only indirect impact. It may increase/decrease ability of body to repair/destroy dna damages done by other sources (like radiation or toxines), but the same can be said about prolonged stress and many other factors
Comment has been collapsed.
You're conflicting eating disorders with genetic disorders. The few ways you have of damaging your DNA all involve very dangerous materials and situations, which do not include having an unhealthy lifestyle.
Comment has been collapsed.
I may not speak English fluently, but I think that genetic disorders are something completely different. I think that genetic disorders aren't something necessarily hereditary. o.O
Comment has been collapsed.
um, the very definition of a genetic disorder is that it's something in your genes, which means it is hereditary.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I just checked the definition of genetic disorders and it says that they're not necessarily hereditary.
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, "usually" means it's hereditary.
Non-hereditary genetic disorders fall into two broad characters:
incorrect number of chromosomes (instead of having 46 chromosomes, the person has 45, 47, or a different number), which results in sterility.
Loss of DNA information or corruption of the data: these can become hereditary.
But yeah, I'll admit my incorrect statement
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm with you on this, in part.
Nothing wrong with being a little chunky, but obesity (and being too thin, for that matter) are major health issues that should be condemned just as much as smoking is. Now, I don't really care what adults do, so long as it doesn't harm others. You want to weigh 500 pounds? Be my guest; but, you should pay the cost for your lifestyle choices, such as higher insurance premiums.
But note that there is a lot of misinformation when it comes to food and nutrition, so I can't exactly fault someone for making mistakes. Not to mention how irritating it is when someone is trying to convince me that the latest diet fad is healthy (PSA if you're jumping on a bandwagon, or focusing on a single part of the overall diet, odds are that I know far more about nutrition than you do)
It's difficulty when it comes to kids, because it's not so easy as saying don't give your kids cigarettes. Yeah, giving your kids cheesy poofs and sugarsticks every day might be endangering the life of your child, or setting them up for disaster later in life, but, it's not exactly the same as beating them with a belt, or making them work long hours every day. I've seen true child neglect, and have a much higher tolerance for ineffective or negligent parenting, because in all likelihood it's still better than foster care.
Comment has been collapsed.
as long as they keep it to themselves and don't affect anyone else, fat people can live whatever kind of life they want, same as any other lifestyle choice people make (smoking, using drugs, etc).
but i have something against them when they target me, because it seems being thin is bad, but being overweight is healthy. i got twice in "trouble" because people can't keep their mouths shut and tell me how to live my life. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
works the other way around too, like eating out with tall skinny friends and being told to eat more, it's not healthy to eat so little (when it's a normal portion size and I'm actually full, it's just that they can process more) (I'm not obese, but I'm short and not skinny, struggling with my weight/body image all my life, so that's not helpful)
Comment has been collapsed.
look on the bright side. y'all are still young. When they get older and their metabolism slows down, they'll bloat up into a balloon, but you'll be used to eating smaller quantities and will stay healthy
Comment has been collapsed.
just tell them that you want to be jsut like them: so unhappy with their own lives that they try to make everyone else miserable too
Comment has been collapsed.
it seems being thin is bad, but being overweight is healthy
Do you still get that over there? I thought only great-grandmothers liked their grandkids rosy and chunky.
Comment has been collapsed.
got it at a party from someone i saw for the first time, tells you a lot what kind of person she is. and yes, she was fat
hopefully i won't see her again. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, all the "only dogs wants bones" and "real women have curves" really piss me a lot. If we are promoting a healthy attitude towards one image this should be totally out of the picture. It's utterly disrespectful towards skinny women, small-chested women and so on and so forth.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. "I'm body positive... except when you're skinny. Skinny is trash."
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, even grown up (and sideways, too, hah) women who should know better, still bully other adults (me, sadly) for being thin.
Comment has been collapsed.
The question is the same as the title would suggest. Is the Health at Every Size movement, HaES from now on, a Public Health issue?
There's really two sides to the health argument here.
First of all, you have the purely physical one. Being obese is not good for your body, you're likely to die early, all that stuff (and that's something that we're all aware of).
The second thing to consider is mental health. Actually having groups that supports you, that makes you feel better about yourself is going to improve your mental state. Being obese is something that's often very draining for people who feel bad about themselves, constantly wrestle with poor self esteem. And when people feel bad, they're far more likely to do things like overeat, and poor mental health is also something that can impact your physical health in other ways.
And by moving the health debate away from just being about weight (or worse yet, blaming people who are overweight), you can more easily address the underlying reasons for why people are getting obese.
Comment has been collapsed.
well, tbh there are different way such groups may help each other feel better about themselves. It's one thing to help by saying "you are still beautiful, even if overweight", whuich is simply positive attitude and totally fine, and totally another thing saying "being obese is not unhealthy" and promoting such idea simply because "it makes me sad if I hear what I do is unhealthy". Fighting fat-shaming with positive comments is great, fighting your low self-esteem by spreading dangerous lies that something whiich is unhealthy is healthy is bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm all for supporting people in some kind of mental or physical distress, I do think that's a part of society really lacking at the moment.
One thing is that, and the other is outright lying and going against the medical data available and claiming that being obese does not affect your health negatively.
In my opinion the high prevalence of obesity is directly correlated to socioeconomic issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Obesity and mental issues such as depressions and a chronic sense of low self-worth kinda goes hand in hand though. While not everyone who's obese suffers from it, it's very common. By moving the focus away from "blaming the fat person" and into something more positive, like encouraging healthy living, you'll likely to get better (long term) results. And going by what nellyneko said in the post under mine, that seems to be what the focus is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never heard of this as a movement, but according to wikipedia it "supports people in adopting health habits for the sake of health and well-being (rather than weight control)."
How is encouraging people live a more healthy lifestyle, regardless of their current situation, a public health risk? If you take away the stigma, obese people may actually be more willing to do something to get healthier instead of thinking "what's the use? even if I lose x amount of weight, I'll still look fat and people will still look at me weird"
IDK, your question just doesn't even make any sense to me, but I'd probably say no.
Comment has been collapsed.
the thing is that it is not encouraging people to live more healthy but instead spreading their agenda that your health is not dependant in any way shape or form from you being or not overweight. While it is fact that even being overweight you can still pick up lifestyle choices that wil make you healthier even if obese, it does not make obesity unrelated to your health and claiming that we should not relate obesity to health issues because of that is dangerous and wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
But isn't that the fat acceptance movement? (just followed the wiki link, never heard of that either)
It seems the HaES movement is supposed to support eating right and exercising, regardless of your individual size and whether or not you'd lose weight with that. Going by that, it would actually be helpful, instead of shaming people into doing unhealthy diets just to hit some magical target weight that will suddenly make everything in their lives better, or feel worthless because they can't shake their bad habits (just talking about obesity as a "lifestyle choice")
(if people do that other thing, just promoting being obese as normal and not unhealthy, and claiming it's for the HaES movement, maybe they're just misidentifying it, like feminism isn't really clear anymore either, because so many people think it's "against men" or so)
Comment has been collapsed.
They seem to be part of the same thing. You first mentioned the wikipedia article of the health at every size movement. The second paragraph of that starts with:"HAES advocates are strongly sceptical that weight loss directly and controllably improves health.The benefits of lifestyle interventions such as nutritious - but not calorically restricted - eating and exercise are held to be real, but independent of any weight loss they may cause."
So if everything else was equal, they'd accept that person A below would be healthier than person B, but would deny that person C is healthier than person A.
Person A - Consumes 4000 calories of nutritious food a day, goes for a daily 30 minute walk, maintains a body weight of 150kg/330lbs
Person B - Consumes 3750 calories of junk a day, no exercise, maintains a bodyweight of 150kg/330lbs
Person C - Consumes 2000 calories of nutritious food a day, walks daily for 30 minutes, maintains a body weight of 80kg/176 lbs
Comment has been collapsed.
I think we understand that differently - to me it means counting calories is useless if you eat the wrong kinds of food, and can actually be harmful (eating less than your body needs), same as fad diets/diets done wrong, and eating right and exercising are good, even if you don't lose any weight (and even if it sometimes goes over 2000 or however calories are recommended for you).
"but not calorically restricted" to me sounds like it refers to those kinds of diets where you only allow yourself to consume as much as you spend by exercising etc., not "consume as many calories as you want, just make sure to cut out the junk food"
Comment has been collapsed.
as long as the macronutrients and micronutrients are balanced enough eating slightly less than your BMR will not affect your health negatively if you are overweight.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am obese myself. But I would never try to claim that it is healthy and that someone who tells me any different is harassing me. I believe there is a big difference between someone telling something bad/hurtful about you and taking any opinion he states which is not praising you as offensive. Telling obese people he's a fatass fucktard, loathsome etc is not ok, it is bullying and should not have place in society. Telling obese person that obesity is bad for their health is just stating the fact. If done in a polite and civilized manner (aka "you know, your overweight is not good for you" not "you lazy fat fuck, lose weight, it's not healthy!") I see nothing wrong with it. It's the same as with smoking you mentioned (used to smoke myself for ~12 years be4 I switched to vaping) - saying "smoking is unhealthy" I am not harassing you, if I say "you're killing yourself you smelly filthy smoker. Why not shoot yourself in the head? It would be quicker and would cost you less." is.
I also believe that it's one thing following your lifestyle choices, even unhealthy ones (like obesity, smoking, drinking, getting high etc) and totally other thing putting up an agenda that is encouraging such choices, denying health issues corelated to them etc. Fighting fat-shaming is good, demanding that noone speaks about obevity being unhealthy, because it "hurts your little feelings" is not. Similar - I believe that demanding soft drug use decriminalization, fighting against prohibition etc is good as each adult can decide for himself, but saying that drugs are totally harmless would be a bad thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
santa weed is right +1 freedom > safety
Comment has been collapsed.
I can certainly sympathise with the 'Health at Every Size' movement. I'm somebody who has struggled to control their weight and at times failed miserably. But I make the effort to go for jogs along the canal towpaths on a regular basis and I'll make myself a small vegetarian omelette when what I really want to do is phone out for two family size pizzas because I understand that is going to make things much better for me in the long term. And I think healthy lifestyles have to be what is promoted and encouraged by society if only for the sake of relieving the strain on public healthcare, and not being obese has to be part of that.
If somebody is going to settle for being fat then that should be their choice to make, the same as somebody who chooses to smoke. I don't think it is something that should be policed or that people should be attacked over. And if some folks want to focus on being as healthy as possible while being fat then good for them. But I'm not sure that should especially be considered a positive agenda, any more than a group that promoted health and acceptance for alcoholics rather than attempting to control the problem of alcoholism.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know the feeling. We're at a weird place in society where acceptance and tolerance for some traditionally shunned groups/practices is growing but online communities are making mob mentality and overwhelming harassment too easy and common. This has put people who want to say something critical but constructive in a position where they're scared that speaking out will result in backlash because some of these mobs are confused about what actually constitutes harassment. At the same time people often on the receiving end of this constructive feedback are overly sensitive and gun-shy because they've dealt with so much nonconstructive harassment and hate.
Overfeeding your child as child abuse is taking it a bit far in my opinion.as that would then be grounds for removing the child from the parents custody and that is taking too far (except in a few extreme cases perhaps). The thing is, there are other factors at work here. A big one in child obesity is the socioeconomic standing of the parents. Garbage fast food is cheap and easy for a family or single parent working multiple jobs to keep the household afloat while healthy food is harder to get, much more expensive, and takes a lot more time. Educating parents of overweight children on the danger they are putting their children in (finding an engaging and effective way to do this is the real challenge) and increasing access (both physically and economically) to healthy food is going to be the way forward here, not getting the CPS involved.
There are some people/places that are working on this. Many public schools have made school lunches healthier and increased coverage of their free/reduced lunch programs giving more kids access to this healthier food, for example, but unless those habits are reinforced at home, they will almost never stick.
Comment has been collapsed.
is this really an issue?
taxes on meat and sugar could regulate this "problem" .
this would also have a positive effect on climate change, pollution, deforestation and water scarcity.
problems with financing health care systems could be easily managed by communalising the system as a whole.(insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies.....)
but what do i know i'm just a commie .
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right about cattle, but probably not so much about sugar. Sugarcane fields have a larger carbon sequestration capacity than most grasslands and forests. Ethyl alcohol refined from the cane is a much cleaner fuel than any of its "fossil" counterparts.
I'm not sure how you'd go about "communalizing" private health care enterprises, though. Turning them to the state would only make the system bigger, not necessarily more efficient or even fairer.
Comment has been collapsed.
a sugar tax would affect obesity and diseases like diabetes. i didn't mean that it has the same effect as a meat tax on the environment.
pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies make big profits, if you cut out the we have to grow and make as much money as we can mentality the whole system gets a lot cheaper. cuba is good example.(not the best, i mean come on its cuba)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think Cuba is a good example of anything...
...no, I'm wrong, it has beautiful beaches and landscapes, a crafty people and some fine musicians... on the politics side, though...
Comment has been collapsed.
for its general condition it has actually a great healthcare system.
deprofitiesing (i dont think thats a word) the healthcare system is probably the best thing a society can do.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is more taxes always the answer. My state tried to pass a sin tax, a tax on basically everything the gov't decides is bad for you. Soda, snacks, etc. I like to snack, and drink soda, yet Im not overweight. why should I have to pay more because others have no self control, or personal responsibility for their choices?
Comment has been collapsed.
the only thing i have to say about that is fuck you.
with all the love i can give to someone that complains about taxes.
sorry but its just something i can't hear anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, as an american who believes very firmly in the declaration of independence, articles of confederation, and the constitution, fuck you right back buddy. We went to war over a 3% tax on tea, no taxation without representation. Now we on average are losing 40% of our pay to taxes, but the answer is always more tax. If you want to provide a real arguement I'll gladly debate the necessity of taxes, but if fuck you is your final answer. well...
Comment has been collapsed.
i pay 65% tax on just my income and i would gladly give more if it were still possible to live comfortably and if i can be certain it goes somewhere where its needed.
you are american so you have a little handicap in that regard.(no public education no public healthcare no infrastructure investments)
and don't give me this we went to war because of 3% tax bullshit .
it wasn't the tax on tea that started the american revolution it was the stamp tax.
and rich fucks that wanted to get even richer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, to be completely fair, stamp tax, tea tax, banning and attempted confiscation of 'assault style' weapons, a desire to be independent etc. There are a myriad of reasons we went to war, but taxation was a key factor. Prior to 1913 in the US there was no such thing as an income tax in the states. Yet we had roads, hospitals, schools etc. My argument isnt that taxes cant do good things, its that society will find a way to do those things without taxation. But specifically to this topic, why should everyone be penalized because of the poor health choices of a minority? Its just silly. Perhaps if one could dictate where their taxes had to be spent, it would at least provide representation of your money, but we cant, so.
Comment has been collapsed.
the idea of being able to choose where my taxes go is something that i would sign on the spot.
but as you see in america today that you can't keep your own infrastructure alive even with an income tax (income tax i the biggest part of all collected taxes in most parts of the world.)
comparing prior to 1913 with society's today doesnt hold up.
taxing the rich fucks is something every country in the world should do heavily.(but we don't because we have to stay economically competitive)
i don't just pay taxes for people who make bad choices about their health(they pay these taxes too) but also for example a little girl that is born with a heart condition or an old man who got alzheimer's.
i finance schools that keep the society i live in educated (even though i don't have children myself)
i pay for the infrastructure my whole society relies upon.
and then there are the mostly stupid and sometimes corrupt politicians whose salary i pay.(sadly)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but here Id say about 60% of all tax goes to fund the military industrial complex. The only economy my country has really ever known has been a wartime economy, the rich fucks you want to tax, are the ones who reap the most benefits of taxes as they own these companies that make the weapons of war. And corrupt politicians hah, same people as my prior statement. The average net worth of a congressman is in the 10's of millions, on a 200k civil servant job. Hows that possible?
Comment has been collapsed.
so no taxes, small government.
now think about how your society will look like.
wage labor with a hint of slavery.
the rich will still be rich and the poor will have no means to better their lives
no food stamps no unemployment benefits no social security.
no one that stops companies from polluting the water you drink.(i'm sure they want to sell you bottled water though)
i could go on for ages.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except for the welfare, all those things already happen. And we have the "representation" and government agencies to 'protect' us from those things. I personally however think that it would be in the best interest of our country to have exactly that. Not even that long ago, maybe 6-8 deccades, if you couldnt support yourself, your family or friends helped you. Not the government. The states have given up their sovereignty to the fed in lieu of funding. Be it for schools, roads, etc, the transgender bathroom thing being the most recent example. Dont allow transgenders to use the bathroom they want in school? lose millions in federal funding. And we the people have given up our liberties one after the other for the same thing. Think of the children, think of your neighbor, think of the poor israeli's who need 8 MILLION dollars a day to aid in their defense, think of your security yada yada yada, and we just keep on moving on like its not happening, because the talking heads on tv tell us its for our own good. I know i'm going off topic, Im just in general disgusted with my fellow americans, and this is a hot topic issue to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
our countrys are very different.
most of my taxes go to things i want financed.(and they mostly work pretty well)
i whitelisted you.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is true, and growing up in a society where your taxes actually represented you, probably gives you a much brighter outlook on them in general. I just get so frustrated. Like the funding we give israel. 8 Billion a year, 8 BILLION! We spend more on their state defense than they do. Now, if you took that 8 billioin we use to defend israel from essentially a bunch of rock throwing palestines, who are being systematically exterminated, and put it into our schools instead. Thats 80,000$ per school in additional funding, 8bn divided by roughly 98,000 public schools in the us. Thats 2 new teachers per school, or new textbooks, instruments for music class that have been cut from the curriculum for lack of funding. art supplies for the art classes that were also cut etc. I have a very different view of taxes because ours get spent so fundamentally different.
Whtielisted you in return, funny how we got from fuck you, to here.
Comment has been collapsed.
i like discussions.
its probably the reason why provoked you in the first place.
i do that subconsciously all the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same, I love to debate (read argue), and will often start shit, especially on facebook in obviously biased conversations just to see people degrade into their real selves and not the filtered civilized person they pretend to be. Thats not to say I troll them, I believe everything I say in these discussions, but I'll start in about fathers rights on far left feminist groups calling for revocation of a fathers parental rights because he cant afford to pay child support. Knowing full well I'm going to trigger half the members.
I have issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wonder what country Shootme lives.
Here things are kinda alright too, but sadly, things are about to get much much worse. The EU is forcing a certain max. threshold of excess spendings so to make up the government has to decrease spending... and by decrease spending I mean they just tax people more and spend really the same, except for healthcare and other things. Prestigeprojects like the JSF black hole? Throw more money at it? Greece? Spend more money at that! Each year also more and more money goes to the EU who just like the local goverment can not for their life fix their spending, and just fills the holes of their bad decisions with ohter people's money.
More taxes or a little lower government allowance probably would be a lot easier to swallow if we didn't see them doing just that to fix their yearbooks. And actual excess spendatures are completely left untoched. In the end, more taxes isn't going to help them at all if they don't fix their own stuff.
And that their incompetant can be easily seen in the results of their actions, and the deductions made by mathematics who always predict the economy going worse than the government tells us. They save money firing people then have to repay them again in unemployment allowances. Even when they cut them, generally the profit margin is small since most of the inneffective moneydrain is in command rather than the employees getting fired. Of course their loss is extremely noticable though, even if the actual saving is such a pittance. Their increased taxes and lowering of all grants make it so people can spend less money into the economy, meaning further economic duress when actual spendings were supposed to get the ball rolling again. They bailed out the banks for billions and even though they refuse to give loans to people to further stimulate business and the house-market managers get mega-bonusses again. It's a mess, and I don't see it becoming better anytime soon.
Especially with such a wasteful, moneygrabbing and inefficient mechanic as the EU providing overhead sucking up more and more money aswell ontop of inefficient local governments.
Comment has been collapsed.
Based on his 65% claim, I assumed denmark. Profile says Austria
Comment has been collapsed.
It's part of the social contract you indulge as a member of society, kinda your obligation as a citizen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dont give me that social contract bullshit. No one chooses where they are born, or even to be born. The 'contract' you refer to, is forced upon you without choice. Which makes it far more a decree than contract
To elaborate a bit more, a contract requires two willing parties. If therefore I am not willing to agree to pay taxes, there is no contract, either implied or otherwise. Even ignoring the fact that I cannot vote until I'm 18, but pay taxes the second I begin working. How then is that a contract between voters and the government.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's forced upon you as a member of the human species. You could've been born an alligator if participating in society annoys you so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Participating in society doesnt bother me, but I want to do so by choice, not by force. I want to choose how my money is spent, without that ability taxes are theft, theres no other way to look at it. I dont pay taxes, this isnt just a moral standpoint, I live what I believe. I claim exempt on my wages, and dont file yearly returns. I avoid buying things new to avoid sales tax. I do not recognize anyones right to money I've earned, regardless of what humanitarian basis you throw behind it. Because the truth is, over 60cents on every dollar of us taxes, goes to continue war. Fuck that. Fuck the system, Go Galt.
Comment has been collapsed.
Taxes are not theft, they are approved with the support of the citizens of a country in theory and so is budget allocating. With this said, goverments in general can go fuck themselves, specially when their interests are subordinated to lobby groups, corporations and so on and so forth.
Do I agree on what my taxes are spent on? Vastly not, IMO education and health budgets should be way higher and who the fuck needs an army this day an age. Having said that I still consider them necessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think if income tax was put to a vote now, in nearly any first world country, it would fail resoundingly. However, I would literally reverse my opinion overnight, if tomorrow I could file my taxes, with an option like on humble bundle, to decide how much of my purchase went to education, and how much to healthcare, and how much to military etc. You bring up the biggest pointthat taxation is theft however, corrupt government. Where is the representation my taxes are supposed to guarantee me? There is none, therefore, it must be theft.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are represented by the elected Senate members, your local major, your state governor and so on and so forth. Is this representation good or do their adhere to their promises and stuff? Of course they don't, democracy is flawled as a goverment system but it is considered to be the less flawled one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you for one second believe that your local/state or federal representitives, are actually representing you? Or just lobbyists, special interest groups, themselves and big corporations?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I don't believe that, I think it was clear from my posts. It is how it's supposed to work.
Comment has been collapsed.
But its not how it DOES work, yet you still support it. Thats like staying in a sinking boat, because its SUPPOSED to float.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only tax system I could stand behind, besides a system like described above where I could dictate where my taxes went, would be a first sale flat tax system. Basically sales tax on steroids. Heres why, low income people who never buy new, lost almost all tax liability. While big ticket spenders (eg upper class) carry the burden of most of the taxes. Also, in that system, people like myself who dont want to contribute to the military industrial complex, could just buy everything used, and avoid ever paying taxes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did the math once, on the life of a car over 10 years, in the state I live in, sold 4 times, 3 years 3 years 2 years and 2 years (timing of sales) after the inital sales tax, the yearly excise tax, the sales tax on each private sale, and the excise taxes they pay yearly. After 10 years, the state has made over 80% of the initial value of the car in tax revenue. The system is so fundamentally flawed I just cant ever come to see your side of the argument.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, I'm almost overweight, I'm aware of it and know it's almost 100% down to me. I've cut down on the shit I've been eating and am getting better slow and steady.
In the end, most people can lose weight if they really want to. An exception to a few people though.
Comment has been collapsed.
i can eat what i want and don't get any heavier.
that doesnt mean i'm healthier.
you like a lot of people could just be genetically on the heavy side. which doesnt mean that there arent alot of people in the western world that are obese because of an unhealthy lifestyle.
some people say their body is a temple mine is an amusement park.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, yeah. My bones are larger than the average. I eat what I want, drink what I want. But if one wants to lose weight, then they can do it. Also, the thing about the genes is that a huge number of health enthusiasts and professionals say that there is no real "fat" gene. As they say, it's all about energy intake vs. output. there's metabolism and stuff, but you can still do things to gain weight / lose weight. Genes play an extremely minimal part in all of this. The bone structure isn't being fat. Having a lot of fat on you is being fat.
Comment has been collapsed.
but there are genes that make up your metabolism and they vary .
i could eat what i want and not move at all and still wouldn't get any heavier.(trust me, i have tried)
Comment has been collapsed.
thanks but i don't have a problem with my weight.
it just doesnt change that much ,whether i eat healthy or not or a lot or less
or do sports regularly or just sit on my ass for weeks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I get you. But this was just a thing I brought out, since there might be people going through this thread and might find it and get some use out of it. But those bits of advice should help people gain weight at a pretty measurable pace.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes, definitely. but what gets me the most, is black culture especially, now glorifies fat women. wtf? I mean everyone has their own preferences as to physical attraction, but encouraging people to live an unhealthy lifestyle, so you got more ass to squeeze, its morally and ethically wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
before someone invariably asks me to prove my opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqWVOY40oBw
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm technically classifiable as obese; I'm likely luckier than most people in that I only reached this stage due to years of health problems that forced a very sedentary lifestyle, rather than excessive eating or poor diet (plus I'm built v. short and tiny so any weight gain is more immediately obvious) but that's as far as any potential good points go. If a parent allowing a child to reach a similar state and suffer all the related concerns isn't considered abusive and grounds for mandatory intervention, then it damn well should be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Medically being considered "obses" myself,it definitely does suck,i'm trying my ass off to lose weight though,cut out sugary shit,exorcise,the works.
It's just a shame it's such a slowly rewarding process.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course it helps,everybody knows fat people are just possessed by demons.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wish you the best of luck :)
It's a slow process but kudos to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep it up, it's a long and tedious process. I admit it, but I think the results are worth it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use to be 250 lbs now I'm 140 I'm 5'9" male. I don't think any one should force feed children or make them "clean their plate". I think if some one is comfortable with how they look then good for them. How ever from personal experience losing weight does make you fell better about your self physicaly and mentaly. With all that said I'm still very attracted to woman with some meat on their bones 8]
Comment has been collapsed.
The individual Metabolism definitely matters.
My father had a light Thyroid Hyperfunction which resulted in an increased Metabolism.
Over holidays he could afford to eat like a horse and literally gained nothing while others eating significantly less than him
had to struggle to get rid of the gained fat afterwards.
10.000 years ago that would have been a serious disadvantage for survival, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for posting this thread. I enjoy reading the discussions.
However you are evil: Cause you're tempting me to post which will lead to me being blacklisted which means you are going to have less competition in GA's...wait...that was your plan all along wasn't it? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Meh, it's mostly me the one getting blacklisted every time I open a thread rofl, my plan needs revisitng
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol probably.
I have resisted the temptation this time because really I don't think it would make an ounce of difference and explaining my view would take too long
So how many blacklists/whitelists are you on?
Comment has been collapsed.
51 WL/36 BL, I managed to get it to 29/29 but then people started liking me
Comment has been collapsed.
it's definitely an important health matter but it's also a far more complicated one than many give it credit for. it's easy to say that obese people need to lose weight but that's about as productive as telling an anorexic that they need to eat more. it's often (though by no means always) tied to issues of mental and/or physical health besides just being overweight
personally I gained a lot of weight due to suffering lifelong depression and it's only since I managed to make headway against depression that I've lost some weight and become healthier (I'm not so bothered about being slim but I do want to be healthy). for some weight can also be tied to metabolism (which can sometimes ALSO be tied to mental health. weird but true, mood and mind can affect you physically too), medication, alcoholism or any number of issues
I think more does need to be done to help combat the issue but also to educate about it. stigmatising obesity, even to try to shame people into fighting it, is not productive. the majority of the obese (and by that I mean being overweight to an unhealthy degree rather than just a little wider than the media encourages to be) would love to lose that weight. many probably don't even know why they find it such a struggle to do so and the shame only makes it more difficult to ask for help
Comment has been collapsed.
One might wonder how does it come to this [view pic here]
- shit industry & economy +advertisement
- bad education
- bad habits "family tradition"
- job & hobbies "sitting 24/7"
- abysmal healthcare
- junk-food restaurants everywhere
- tasty junk-food in masses and cheap
- endless and cheap supplies
How to fix that? I don't know maybe divert a some billions to healthcare, education and subsidies for "good food"
from the trillion $ military budget for starters. Sounds impossible? Yieeh kinda, so why not have the morbid populace
just get comfortable X--D ... the degeneracy is uncanny.
But anyway grown ups are responsible for themselves, kids however might get drawn with their
morbidly obese parents into a uncomfortable and unhealthy lifestyle and maybe an early grave.
On this note - "optimal body form" in my opinion BEAR-MODE (aka. STRONGFAT).
Comment has been collapsed.
Wouldn't want either, but seeing hows it brewing i'd pick Hofer.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh no no.
trust me nothing good can come from something that has the FPÖ sticker on it.
only evil, a deep ,dark fundamental evil.
mark my words, we are one step away from children in schools greeting their teachers with heil hofer .
Comment has been collapsed.
Geschichte wiederholt sich daran kann man nichts ändern - die Rollen aber, können sich sehr wohl ändern.
Sehe die Gefahr eher in der irren Politik a la Merkelmoore ... kaum zu glauben was zum fi** vor sich geht,
und welche Maßnahmen getroffen werden (Türkei Deal). Bei dem Schmarren sehe ich eher Potential
katastrophaler Ausmaße und infolge dessen entsprechende "Reaktion der Bürgers".
Comment has been collapsed.
Nicht nur ... aber sehe dort jedenfalls super Zündstoff.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bin absolut dafür die generellen Asyl Gesetze zu verändern.
Es geht doch nicht einfach Jedem der aus einem Land kommt das ökonomische oder politische Probleme hat Asyl zu gewähren.
Besonders junge Männer im kampffähigen alter sollten für ihre eigene Freiheit in ihrem Heimatland kämpfen.
Das Asylrecht ist gemacht worden um Minderheiten die verfolgt werden zu beschützen . Beispiel Swoden ,dafür waren wir aber zu feige.
Mann könnte ja auch ganz Afrika kommen lassen denen gehts ja auch nicht rosig.
Und ich bin eigentlich sehr weit Links.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dem kann ich nur zustimmen. Der BPD war mir bis vor geraumer Zeit allenfalls bekannt als staatliche Zierde/Mitunterschreiber - bin ja nicht überrascht das die Leute jetzt interessiert sind - "wo's konn den der Hansl?".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah it certainly ain't easy and everyone has different circumstances ... but no need to become sporty either :D -
even just cutting out immoderate amounts of crap helps. Personally i started cutting out all soft drinks and too
many sweets when i turned ~17 - also some irregular home work-out push-ups/sit-ups ... got ambitious later on
and signed up for a gym (22$) that's pretty cheap for regular "physical body hygiene/maintenance" that's how i'd view it today.
Having guidance or no choice (= a plan to stick to) is sometimes for the best as it enforces/cuts the amount of discipline required,
especially once your deep in the red of physical disproportion its probably very hard to "fix it" on your own i'd imagine.
Comment has been collapsed.
That sounds good i'd say - nutrition is the key ... eating for most of parts reasonable and going
sometimes for extended a walk or a ride even without feeling like dying from strain is enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are a lot of suppositions, assumptions, and false arguments contained within your OP, but let's skip all of that. Instead, let us accept a "modern, European" gestalt as the default point of view and ask what course of action (if any) would be useful. To that end, let us examine a few generalizations that appear to be true.
- Kids are getting less physical exercise.
- Occupations are trending toward being more sedentary.
- Families are eating fewer home-cooked meals.
- The healthcare system is less efficient and more reactionary.
- Government involvement in all of the above continues to make matters worse.
The "quick and easy" solution is to remove government from people's private lives, privatize the health care system, and let the pressure of competing healthcare providers squeeze everything else back into shape. However, while this would work, it is unlikely to happen. The government has worked hard to consolidate its power and control over the populace and will be reluctant to give it up.
Comment has been collapsed.
thats funny.
because it works so great in the U.S.A right.
aren't they the fattest unhealthiest of them all.
pharmaceutical companies will be glad to hear that they can sell diet pills to 5 year olds.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem to be under the false assumption that such a situation currently exists in the U.S. It does not.
You're right about the pharmaceutical companies, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Privatization won't change anything.
First of all, in general (and States in particular), it's no longer health care but sick care. This industry is only mildly interested in prevention of sickness and focuses on curing it.
Second, insurance companies also have very little interest in prevention. They would just charge more. Now one could argue that they would lose clients when prices become prohibitively high. To keep the profit margin, human nature will be used against the clients: they will be given the opportunity to opt-out from certain coverages. And people will happily use it, as 1) it's easier than changing habits 2) lack of skill and data for proper risk assesment and 3) general bias "bad things happen to other, not me"
Comment has been collapsed.
Your first point is (generally) correct, but inconsequential. The "industry" you refer to is actually the pharmaceutical companies, not the healthcare providers, and while the former are only interested in making money, the latter are interested in performance within whatever system exists. The current system rewards expense of care rather than quality of care, hence the current debacle which is healthcare.
Your second point is also (generally) true, but completely fails to address what I wrote. Insurance companies will only change their practices when the Market compels them to do so. My suggestion was to change the Market so that it will force them to do so. (Notice the keyword "competing" in my (extremely brief) description. Currently, there is very little competition among insurers. It is reminiscent of the days when there was only one phone company.
Comment has been collapsed.
I often appreciate your responses on my thread, but I can't avoid but think this one is quite off the mark.
First of all, the attitude of the first paragraph does not contribute to a healthy discussion, if you have any problems with my arguments, ideas or way of thought on the OP I'd like you adressed it instead of throwing a "educate yourself" kinda aswer.
Then, privatizing the healthcare system does not work, simply because of two simple facts, first of all there's a gap of information between the healthcare providers, insurancers and such and the patient themselves, thus preventing the latter from making an educated decision in most cases pertaining their health, with such gap a free market cannot exist.
Secondly, healthcare is not an optional ammenity or a superfluous spending, but a vital non-delayable attention you need to get, in many cases in life-or-death situations. That does not contribute, either to the upkeep of a healthy free market.
If something, I'd advocate for more responsible control over healthcare services.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I thought I did address the problems in your suppositions and argument. I guess my response was too terse. I'll try, again. I will not refute what you wrote as that would waste time and space. Instead, I will outline what I believe to be the most efficient and effective way to "fix the system" based on what is currently available in "Western" countries.
The American healthcare system will not be "fixed" until there are a sufficient number of insurers within any given zone so as to provide stiff competition. This will result in the following:
- Various plans and methods of payment (many already in existence) will be implemented on a wider scale.
- Insurance rates will be forced downward due to lowered costs and increased competition.
- Coverage will increase due to policies being tailored to fit the needs of each individual.
Other reforms need to be made in the following areas:
- Tort reform, to discourage frivolous lawsuits while protecting against fraud.
- Streamlined and reduced regulation, so as to free up the Market and reduce unnecessary costs.
- Overhaul of safety-net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, to further reduce costs and increase effectiveness.
I realize the above points are so brief as to provoke further questions, but I don't feel we could reasonably have a full-blown discussion on any of them. My involvement in the medical field, my work with insurance companies, and my (limited) grasp of supply side and applied economics leads me to believe that the answers are too long and complicated for this forum. You could argue that my proposed changes are "just theory," but similar methods, and programs have found success on a smaller scale. Implementation on a grand scale would require only those adjustments necessary to ensure competition and availability of services offered.
I hope my response was more clear this time.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was indeed, I feel that I must comment that I've been heavily involved on the sanitary field until I decided to take a break.
I consider the american system to be fundamentally flawed, and in many countries Bismarck-like or derivative Public Health programs have been developed a relative success.
I don't know the actual state of american's healthcare so I will refrain to comment further, thanks for your answer tho.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hey guys, some food for though and let's spark a wee discussion in here, see how it goes.
First, regarding the SG Book Club I'll try to get it up and moving next week at the latest, I've been having hectic workweeks lately so I haven't have the time to properly set everything up, it will come, don't you worry.
Now let's get to it.
The question is the same as the title would suggest. Is the Health at Every Size movement, HaES from now on, a Public Health issue?
In my opinion, it definitely and indisputably is, however I'd love to hear your views on the matter.
First I would like to start by stating that I do not hold any kind of grudge towards ovewerweight people as a whole, they, as every one else, deserve all the respect we grant the rest as fellow human beings. I don't demonize being overweight and, for the record I think that body positivity is a good think, however, from my humble point of view there's some issues with the HaES part of the movement concretely.
First of all, obesity is a lifestyle choice that is directly correlated to higher morbidity and morbility, and the HaES movement likes to pretend this connection does not exist. However it's been continuously proven that a high BMI (somewhat flawled measure, I know) is directly responsible to a higher incidence of some conditions such as hearth diseases, strokes, diabetes or sleep apnea.
Does this mean we should harass fat members of society? Definitely not, but it's naïve at best and utterly misleading and malicious at worst to pretend that those risks do not exist. I'm gonna put forward a personal example, I am a smoker. it's directly related to higher incidence of mouth, larinx and lung cancer (among many other risks) I know that smoking is bad, however from my circunstances I ended up taking up the habit. Do I deserve the same respect as non-smokers? Ovbiously I do, however, pretending that I'm engaging in a health lifestyle would be lying to myself.
Obesity and childhood obesity is becoming an increasingly large health problem on the developed world. 80 million of adult US citizens are obese or a staggering 35% of the population, amounting for $147 billion of obesity related healthcare costs. Not to mention that childhood obesity has tripled or even cuadrupled (depending on the age bracket) on the last 30 years. Overweight children amount to one third of the infant population.
Here comes, then the other issue I wanted to adress, I am not going to police any adult capable of making their own decisions lifestyle, however *should overfeeding your kids to the point it causes a health problem be considered child abuse? after all, you are causing them demostrable harm. I think it should. Children lack the ability off making their own decisions when it comes to diet (both steeming from a lack of knowledge and lack of independence from the parent household) so you are subjugating them to a (increasingly likely) life of illness and suffering. Might construe child abuse, in my book, definitely does. What's your opinion tho?
Try to keep the discussion civil. We are talking about a health standpoint, I would never dare to dispute the fact that everyone can be confortable with whichever lyfestyle they choose, but here we try to adress the health issues derived from it.
Cheers and have a good day.
Comment has been collapsed.