Lifestyle Choices

[Quinlan]

Actually I'm not finished, Satya I am surprised that you so readily accept the power of one biological drive while discounting completely the power of other biological drives, I'm also surprised that you so readily accept medical definitions that you should know well can be (and have been) easily distorted by social and cultural attitudes.

A natural variation in biological drives being described as a medical disorder doesn't sound familiar to you? Just because something is defined as a disorder doesn't mean it actually is one.

...and while not wanting to get into a discrimination pissing contest, I don't understand how you can't see how things like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022101706.htm

...wouldn't have an affect on the health stats of that group of people.

I think whenever someone makes a statement about the health risks associated with both homosexuality and obesity, that they need to carefully tease out the effects of stigma and discrimination (pretty much impossible) before making bold statements.

Most of the arguments you have made for homosexuality being normal apply perfectly to the state of being obese, so why refrain from applying them?

 

[carole]

I like casual lifestyle. But i don't know how to describe it, just feel relaxed and casual.

 

[Satya]

Most of the arguments you have made for homosexuality being normal apply perfectly to the state of being obese, so why refrain from applying them?

If you can provide sufficient evidence that simply being obese in most cases has as few negative health effects as simply being homosexual then I have no means to argue that isn't just as normal. My present understanding of obesity is that it generally means increased rates of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, among other medical conditions, that threaten to shorten the longevity of the American populace and has lead to astronomical increases in health care costs.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Marriage constitutes a set of very real rights, including things like hospital visitation, beneficiary rights, insurance, etc. Do you somehow feel like a big man for the degrading the efforts of homosexuals to obtain equal recognition of those rights by comparing it to things like bestiality? Exactly how does a pet or or computer or bike, consent?

I don't really want to offend gay people, sorry if it sounded like that. My main point was to ridicule protesting, as laws never solve physiological differences. And also to ridicule marriage, seen as important goal of freedom. Relevant freedom is mostly defined by physics, not people.

As to consent, there is nothing special about humans. A human can consent to what has learnt, like my pet and computer. If you only know A and B, you can't magically choose C. Humans can be manipulated to consent, can be forced to consent, can fake (lack of) consent (post factum) etc. Legal contracts are pure imagination, relying heavily on the assumption that people are always able to say just what they mean, that they have clearly verbally set needs etc. Assumption, that is not yet proven physiologically.

I'm just disturbing the Force here, don't take it very seriously.

 

[Satya]

Ah, well I hear too often how gay marriage will lead down a slippery slope to bestiality and polygamy so I'm a bit defensive when I hear the comparison. Marriage is not purely symbolic. There are actual rights and freedoms associated with it and so it has a lot of value to people.

If you wish to think that physics define freedom, then it may help to remember that people define power. Power is access to resources and control over outcomes. Gay marriage is a power issue, not a freedom issue.

 

[enfp can be shy]

I believe that power can't be a (reasonable) issue much longer. At some point everyone will be able to exterminate life on Earth from home.

It doesn't matter who has the bigger pile of explosives, if each pile is enough to blow out both of us.

 

[Quinlan]

If you can provide sufficient evidence that simply being obese in most cases has as few negative health effects as simply being homosexual then I have no means to argue that isn't just as normal. My present understanding of obesity is that it generally means increased rates of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, among other medical conditions, that threaten to shorten the longevity of the American populace and has lead to astronomical increases in health care costs.

None of this says anything about whether the individual has any choice in the matter, we have little choice in our height but being very tall and very short are associated with health risks, this does not exclude tallness and shortness as being a part of normal human variation.

You also said excluding homosexual behaviours (like the act of sex) and the effects of stigma (stress related diseases like hypertension and diabetes) was sensible when analysing health risks. So by applying the same standard to obesity it is true that once differences in behaviour (physical activity levels) has been taken into account the health risks associated with obesity pretty much disappear (in other words an active fat person is completely healthy), and as has been discussed teasing apart the health effects of the stress of carrying the fat stigma from the fat itself is difficult (impossible?).

In general "obesity rates" is a social health issue at the population level, but says nothing of the individual. Americas obesity epidemic has come about as an increase of average weight of about 10 pounds, 10 pounds! This does not explain the difference between you and a very fat person, that explanation is genetic.

Have a read of this and let me know what you think:

http://mcdb.colorado.edu/courses/4410/papers/fried_rev04.pdf

Ultimately here is my point of view-

-Some people have an innate biological drive towards having sex/relationships with a certain sex (a genetic set point for sexuality)
-Some people have an innate biological drive towards a higher body weight (a genetic set point/narrow range of body fatness)

-Acting on these drives (homosexual sex, hetero sex, overeating or under exercising) are all choices
-However I do not blame anyone for making those choices, to go against them goes against very fundamental parts of your mind, those choices are the reasonable choices to make, making any other choice is likely to be extremely unpleasant and require very extreme measures to avoid making those more desirable choices.

I think they are choices any reasonable person would make.

If there were twin studies and adoptive studies showing that your sexuality is pretty much entirely determined by your biological parents sexuality (as there is for body size) wouldn't you be holding these up as evidence of a biological basis just as I am for obesity?

Fat parents almost always have fat biological children (no matter who raises them) and identical twins almost always grow up to be the same fatness. How can there not be a major genetic component to this?

 

[Jana]

I think they are similar in a few ways:
-Health risks associated with both
- I see the actual behaviours as a result of the concious mind being overcome by innate drives
- Probably very similar success rate (ie. almost non-existent) for turning an homosexual straight as there is for turning an obese person into a slim one.

It's not same.

 

[Quinlan]

It's not same.

I think they are similar in a few ways:
-Health risks associated with both
- I see the actual behaviours as a result of the concious mind being overcome by innate drives
- Probably very similar success rate (ie. almost non-existent) for turning an homosexual straight as there is for turning an obese person into a slim one.

.

 

[Architectonic]

I think that has always been the draw of gay marriage.

I'm not a big fan of the way that married couples are treated differently by the state in the first place. However given that system, I agree that gay marriage should be acceptable.

Does that mean masturbation is an impairment?

If all you do (sexually) in your life is masturbate, then yes you definitely have an impairment.

Obesity is an extremely complex, multivariable condition with an etiology that includes biological, cultural, agricultural, psychological, economic, sociological, and other factors.

I would suggest the same about homosexuality, based on current evidence.

By the way, if homosexuality is purely biological, then what are the biological causes for paedophilia and zoophilia?

I know these have serious social stigmas, related to consent, abuse and whatnot. But like homosexuality, they aren't necessarily always abusive.
There are some interesting points of views on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Zoophilia

 

[Norton]

I would suggest the same about homosexuality, based on current evidence...

Probably not. Current research tends to indicate that homosexuality is biological, e.g., related to perinatal influences on the developing male fetus. These may influence the volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus. Look at the work of Stormshak et al., Dean Hamer and Simon LeVay, for example, and others. Another interesting investigation showed that second and later born sons had a greater likelihood of being homosexual. This appears to be consistent with the mother's diminishing ability to maintain high enough levels of androgens during late pregnancy to support heterosexual development of the male brain.

There's a lot of emotion in these subjects that impedes objective analysis. Indeed, emotional responses also causes some to concoct premature arguments unsupported by the data. Sometimes you just have to suppress your desire to have a strong opinion until the data are in. The data are converging but they're not definitive.

Obesity is not completely understood, either. That is why the NIH has a dedicated center for studying obesity and, also, why the study of obesity is liberally funded (as current funding goes). It is simplistic to say that all you have to do to lose weight is keep your mouth shut. That biological mechanisms govern obesity is obvious. All you have to do is look at the tremendous weight gains of people on the new anti-psychotics. It is likely that if a drug can make just about anyone gain weight, then there must be people who are born with a greater inherent likelihood to become overweight. For example, the various receptors involved may have different concentrations and/or ligand affinities in different people. It stands to reason that there is a large spectrum of variation in the population relating to appetite control and volition. Some people are just biologically more hungry or less easily sated than others and this is in the context of enormous portions, advertising, and calorie dense fast food. Also, the more fat people there are, the more acceptable it becomes to be overweight.

So, whereas homosexuality may be due to an as yet not completely understood perinatal/epigenetic process, obesity is best viewed within the context of an inherent biology of some individuals living in a complex society that effectively encourages obesity.

 

[Shai Gar]

It's not about eating less, it's about Eating Right.

 

[enfp can be shy]

Trying vegetarian may help, Shai Gar is right also about raw food.

It stands to reason that there is a large spectrum of variation in the population relating to appetite control and volition. Some people are just biologically more hungry or less easily sated than others and this is in the context of enormous portions, advertising, and calorie dense fast food.

Fast metabolism vs slow metabolism is of major importance too. Some of the healthiest people I've met eat like crazy. They eat junk food, any type of food, all the time, in huge amounts, way over the healthy ranks. And they are athletic and fit and full of energy. Such people are always on the move, spending so much energy that over-eating doesn't harm them at all; they would have been unhealthy without it. (having such lifestyle) Of course, junk food will probably have its bad effect later, the point is that over-eating doesn't hurt some people, they seem to use up more food.

The charts of how much is good to eat cannot suit the right needs of every body. Some people under-eat (successfully), and still won't lose weight, because their metabolism is too slow. The question there is to what extend you lead your body, and your body leads you. Can you turn around your metabolism by will-power and how stable would be the results, if you do (it seems to be temporary).

It is also of great importance the obesity in very early age, which cannot be easily overcome later. And child obesity is hard to prevent with education and reason, there should be a more systematic approach to prevent all the traps that lead there. (i.e. reduce the traps)


edit: There's another issue I'm thinking about: Is being fit always good? Sounds crazy, but maybe the golden rule "healthy mind in healthy body" doesn't always apply. What if there's a trade off in some of the cases? The reason such rules persist is that they apply to some people, while maybe won't apply to other people, depending on body/brain features. What if for about half of the people the choice between concentrating on body, or on mind, plays major role? (i.e. they couldn't perfect both at the same time) This is only based on observation, and somewhat MBTI (the N/S dichotomy), and needs to be investigated further. I noticed I have been the smartest (creative, deep, strategic follow-through) when most unhealthy, and vice-versa: getting very fit causes me to become aggressive, reckless and superficial; had many major changes of lifestyle during my life and observed this strange pattern. Noticed it in other people too, but certainly not everybody; for some people it seems both mind and body go up and down together, as the golden rule suggests.

 

[slant]

Fat parents almost always have fat biological children (no matter who raises them) and identical twins almost always grow up to be the same fatness. How can there not be a major genetic component to this?

The flaw in your argument is what you assume is the cause of obesity: genetic factors.

Obesity, and being overweight, is caused by consuming more calories than your body can burn off.

I will promise you that obese parents are not going to teach their obese children healthy eating mannerisms and the proper exercise routines for the child's specific needs.

When a person consumes calories at a rate that they can burn off, they will maintain fat, and overtime, an unhealthy amount of fat will gather.

The similarity where obesity and homosexuality connects, and the only correlation I can see, is this:

A homosexual cannot control their sexual attraction.
A person cannot control the rate of their metabolism.

Note that I didn't say obese. If a person is paying attention to their body they will be able to adjust to their specific calorie and exercising needs, and obesity need not happen. Someone who has already attained a state of obesity theoretically cannot control themselves being obese because, well, they are already obese, but they can change their state if they take the proper actions towards that goal.

I would beg to differ that obesity is genetic--- the inclination and likelihood to BECOME obese may be linked to genetic factors but obesity is not something that a person cannot control no matter what they do, unless linked to a rare genetic disease that prevents the body from burning off calories properly.

Summary:

People are obese because they consume more calories than they burn off.
Certain people may have an increased risk for obesity possibly due to genetic factors, but this does not cause obesity.

On the note of homosexuals, someone could say this similar statement:
People develop AIDs because they engage in unprotected high risk activities that spreads the infection of AIDs.
Homosexual people may have an increased risk for AIDs due to lifestyle choices, but this does not cause AIDs itself.

 

[Quinlan]

The flaw in your argument is what you assume is the cause of obesity: genetic factors.

Obesity, and being overweight, is caused by consuming more calories than your body can burn off.

But WHY do people do that? The answer is genetic.

I will promise you that obese parents are not going to teach their obese children healthy eating mannerisms and the proper exercise routines for the child's specific needs.

Stereotypes aside, why is it then that when a child from fat parents is raised by slim adoptive parents the child almost always turns out fat? Wouldn't the slim parents pass on their perfect habits?

When a person consumes calories at a rate that they can burn off, they will maintain fat, and overtime, an unhealthy amount of fat will gather.

But WHY do they do that? The answer is genetic.

A homosexual cannot control their sexual attraction.
A person cannot control the rate of their metabolism.

Note that I didn't say obese. If a person is paying attention to their body they will be able to adjust to their specific calorie and exercising needs, and obesity need not happen. Someone who has already attained a state of obesity theoretically cannot control themselves being obese because, well, they are already obese, but they can change their state if they take the proper actions towards that goal.

What you are not considering is what that actually means when put in practice. First of all, science has no idea how to turn a very fat person slim in practice, so if science has no answers where is someone to turn for advice on methods? Religion? Of course not, so the fat person turns to physics theory, like you say burn more calories than you consume. This advice is the equivilent of telling a gay man to "just start having sex with women, it's easy! I can do it, why can't you?". It's arrogant and shows a complete lack of empathy. I don't think you understand just how efficient an obese body is, semi-starvation as well as rigourous exercise seems to be effective but the unconcious mind kicks in well before that point and before you know it, you're unconciously eating slightly more and piling on the pounds and making concious rationalisations after the fact.

Do you think there are no limits on concious control? If so, you must be pretty idealistic, try holding your breath for an hour and let me know how that concious control works out for ya.

I would beg to differ that obesity is genetic--- the inclination and likelihood to BECOME obese may be linked to genetic factors but obesity is not something that a person cannot control no matter what they do, unless linked to a rare genetic disease that prevents the body from burning off calories properly.

I disagree, I think that in this case the power of the genetic link is stronger than the power of the concious mind.

I would appreciate it if you would read this and let me know what you think about it:

http://mcdb.colorado.edu/courses/4410/papers/fried_rev04.pdf

 

[Norton]

I think it's an interesting point that it is quite unlikely that the genetic propensity to become obese has changed in one or two generations. Evolution just doesn't happen that fast. OTOH, obesity rates for US adults have increased from approximately 22% in 1988 to about 34% in 2006. 6% of US adults are extremely obese. Clearly, given that incidence of obesity genes has not changed in that short time, it must be environmental factors that are to blame. Regardless of genetics, people eat too much and move too little. Having a genetic propensity for gaining weight only compounds the problem.

It seems that over 99% of human existence genes were selected for that encouraged gorging when food was plentiful to counteract long periods of famine and starvation. Gorging is a behavior that favors survival in a primitive environment where one's next meal is far from certain. That is, eat all the mastodon you could stuff into your gullet because it would be a long time before another mastodon was available. Now, for most people in developed countries calories are cheap and easily available yet we retain our pig out genes. Add to that the compounding problem that most people sit on their asses (arses) all day despite that the human body is meant to move almost constantly (that is, humans were all hunter-gatherers until about 10,000 years ago--the advent of agriculture). So, now we eat like hunter-gatherers and move like sloths.

 

[Shai Gar]

On the note of homosexuals, someone could say this similar statement:
People develop AIDs because they engage in unprotected high risk activities that spreads the infection of AIDs.
Homosexual people may have an increased risk for AIDs due to lifestyle choices, but this does not cause AIDs itself.

Hell, AIDS is spreading faster through the Heterosexual community than the Homosexual community.


I notice that you, yet again, didn't post your Dietry habits.

My grandfather was very very skinny, my other grandfather was short, stout, but muscular and not fat.
My grandmothers were and are both very healthy... for their age, and certainly not obese.

My parents were both sportspeople. Dad was a Soccer and Hockey champion, mum was a champion in Judo, Equestrianism, Womens Hockey, Indoor Cricket, Touch Football and she also rides a pushbike.

Neither are obese, or ever have been.

I turned out obese. I turned out obese because I ate too much bread when I was 12 and 13 without knowing the effects of doing so. I gave up sport a few years later and spent most of my time in the library... I kept eating junk food at the same rates as when I was playing basketball, hockey, martial arts and volleyball. I took up drinking, and put on more fat from unused sugars. I started eating a lot MORE junk food when I became even more addicted to reading, because it was a time saver.

I ended up at 109kg, 176cm.

I gave up alcohol, cut down on my food consumption, took up martial arts again and got myself onto a raw foods diet.

I am no longer obese.

Where do genetics come into play here?

 

[Quinlan]

I think it's an interesting point that it is quite unlikely that the genetic propensity to become obese has changed in one or two generations. Evolution just doesn't happen that fast. OTOH, obesity rates for US adults have increased from approximately 22% in 1988 to about 34% in 2006. 6% of US adults are extremely obese. Clearly, given that incidence of obesity genes has not changed in that short time, it must be environmental factors that are to blame. Regardless of genetics, people eat too much and move too little. Having a genetic propensity for gaining weight only compounds the problem.

The genes don't have to change, those rates are explained by and average weight gain of only 10 pounds, I'm not saying shifts in ten pounds are genetic, I'm saying that changes in 100s of pounds are genetic. If I'm sitting just to the left of the obesity cut off (BMI 29.9) and then I pig out and gain a few pounds and cross the obesity threshold my genes don't have to change one bit. However if I wanted to maintain 100 pounds more than I do now for any meaningful length of time would require genetic changes.

This explains it well:

In the US, to take a much-cited example, the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’ is almost wholly a product of tens of millions of people with BMIs formerly in the 23–25 range gaining a modest amount of weight and thus now being classified as ‘overweight’, and, similarly, tens of millions of people with BMIs formerly in the high 20s now having BMIs just >30. This movement of population cohorts from just below to just above the formal definitions of overweight and obesity is what public health officials are referring to when they point out that rates of obesity have exploded over the course of the last generation. (Furthermore, there is some evidence that adult and childhood BMI may have ceased to increase, as shown by comparison of NHANES data from 1999 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2002).

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/55

These changes do not require a genetic explanation, but the existence of a 300 pound man does.

It seems that over 99% of human existence genes were selected for that encouraged gorging when food was plentiful to counteract long periods of famine and starvation. Gorging is a behavior that favors survival in a primitive environment where one's next meal is far from certain. That is, eat all the mastodon you could stuff into your gullet because it would be a long time before another mastodon was available. Now, for most people in developed countries calories are cheap and easily available yet we retain our pig out genes. Add to that the compounding problem that most people sit on their asses (arses) all day despite that the human body is meant to move almost constantly (that is, humans were all hunter-gatherers until about 10,000 years ago--the advent of agriculture). So, now we eat like hunter-gatherers and move like sloths.

Since no individual has ever needed to conciously limit their feeding, throughout the course of their evolutionary history, it is not surprising that concious control of feeding is an overwhelming failure when it comes to treatment, we were just never designed to do it.

I notice that you, yet again, didn't post your Dietry habits.

Are you asking me or Slant? and why is it relevant to anything?

My parents were both sportspeople. Dad was a Soccer and Hockey champion, mum was a champion in Judo, Equestrianism, Womens Hockey, Indoor Cricket, Touch Football and she also rides a pushbike.

Neither are obese, or ever have been.

I turned out obese. I turned out obese because I ate too much bread when I was 12 and 13 without knowing the effects of doing so. I gave up sport a few years later and spent most of my time in the library... I kept eating junk food at the same rates as when I was playing basketball, hockey, martial arts and volleyball. I took up drinking, and put on more fat from unused sugars. I started eating a lot MORE junk food when I became even more addicted to reading, because it was a time saver.

I ended up at 109kg, 176cm.

I gave up alcohol, cut down on my food consumption, took up martial arts again and got myself onto a raw foods diet.

I am no longer obese.

Where do genetics come into play here?

The theory goes that we have a genetic setpoint for body fatness, genetic set point theory involves body weight over a lifetime. Whether your recent weight loss will be lasting is yet to be seen. Your genetic setpoint is truly a relatively narrow range, where you have modest concious control above or below that point. The fact that your parents were slim would indicate that you were sitting at the top of your natural weight range, you then made changes and are now probably sitting at (or heading towards) the bottom of your natural weight range. In your case the obesity threshold lay within your range of concious control but if your natural range was much higher you would probably never pass that point for any meaningful length of time (so a natural 20 pound range for you might be very meaningful for you but not if that range sat 100 pounds higher, 20 pounds would no longer be meaningful).


Anyway I hesitate to compare short term weight loss results to long term weight maintainence as they are truly apples and oranges.

 

[slant]

Hell, AIDS is spreading faster through the Heterosexual community than the Homosexual community.


I notice that you, yet again, didn't post your Dietry habits.

My grandfather was very very skinny, my other grandfather was short, stout, but muscular and not fat.
My grandmothers were and are both very healthy... for their age, and certainly not obese.

My parents were both sportspeople. Dad was a Soccer and Hockey champion, mum was a champion in Judo, Equestrianism, Womens Hockey, Indoor Cricket, Touch Football and she also rides a pushbike.

Neither are obese, or ever have been.

I turned out obese. I turned out obese because I ate too much bread when I was 12 and 13 without knowing the effects of doing so. I gave up sport a few years later and spent most of my time in the library... I kept eating junk food at the same rates as when I was playing basketball, hockey, martial arts and volleyball. I took up drinking, and put on more fat from unused sugars. I started eating a lot MORE junk food when I became even more addicted to reading, because it was a time saver.

I ended up at 109kg, 176cm.

I gave up alcohol, cut down on my food consumption, took up martial arts again and got myself onto a raw foods diet.

I am no longer obese.

Where do genetics come into play here?

I'm confused---who was this post directed towards?

 

[slant]

But WHY do people do that? The answer is genetic.



Stereotypes aside, why is it then that when a child from fat parents is raised by slim adoptive parents the child almost always turns out fat? Wouldn't the slim parents pass on their perfect habits?



But WHY do they do that? The answer is genetic.



What you are not considering is what that actually means when put in practice. First of all, science has no idea how to turn a very fat person slim in practice, so if science has no answers where is someone to turn for advice on methods? Religion? Of course not, so the fat person turns to physics theory, like you say burn more calories than you consume. This advice is the equivilent of telling a gay man to "just start having sex with women, it's easy! I can do it, why can't you?". It's arrogant and shows a complete lack of empathy. I don't think you understand just how efficient an obese body is, semi-starvation as well as rigourous exercise seems to be effective but the unconcious mind kicks in well before that point and before you know it, you're unconciously eating slightly more and piling on the pounds and making concious rationalisations after the fact.

Do you think there are no limits on concious control? If so, you must be pretty idealistic, try holding your breath for an hour and let me know how that concious control works out for ya.



I disagree, I think that in this case the power of the genetic link is stronger than the power of the concious mind.

I would appreciate it if you would read this and let me know what you think about it:

http://mcdb.colorado.edu/courses/4410/papers/fried_rev04.pdf

I'm glad that you linked me to this article because I now know what you are basing your arguements on.

After reading the article, I've concluded several things.

1. The study done in rats shows that there is a genetic influence to obesity. The rats only became obese after adopting unhealthy eating habits. Had they not, they would not have become obese. While the risk for obesity may be greater in other because of genetics, it does not cause obesity.

2. There was a portion in this article that was talking about how when a person loses weight, an obese person, their calorie expenditure is low and their hunger increases, which explains why people go off their diets and gain weight. Regardless of the stress the article had on how ravenous the food cravings are, if the person eats an amount of calories they can burn of obesity will not occur.


The article, basically, was saying the reason people go off their diet has a lot to do with the cravings genetically being harder to ignore than in normal people- but this does NOT cause obesity. Overconsumption of calories that cannot be burned off by the body does. While it is more likely, and easier for certain persons to become obese simply because of these genetics factors, it does NOT create obesity, as was proven by the rats.