Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?

[Phyllotaxis]

In public health care (every place I

 

[Phyllotaxis]

On the issue of obesity and mass...I align with my signature. I have heard the term tossed around a few times "correlation is not causation." I agree, but feel that this logical fallacy can be directly applied to the very studies the "pro-obesity" side cites. The fact that skinny people are at the same risk for something like heart disease does not inherently mean that losing weight is in vein. One could venture to guess that it's because skinny people are just as guilty as fat people of eating unhealthy cholesterol-ridden foods.

 

[Quinlan]

On the issue of obesity and mass...I align with my signature. I have heard the term tossed around a few times "correlation is not causation." I agree, but feel that this logical fallacy can be directly applied to the very studies the "pro-obesity" side cites. The fact that skinny people are at the same risk for something like heart disease does not inherently mean that losing weight is in vein. One could venture to guess that it's because skinny people are just as guilty as fat people of eating unhealthy cholesterol-ridden foods.

Exactly my point! So why destroy the self esteem of one set of people if other groups are just as guilty?

I think the first step on the road to healthy living is accepting your body and not being ashamed of it and hating it. It is hard for someone to want to tend to their garden if they hate their garden and are bombarded with messages since childhood telling them that there is something fundamentally wrong with their garden. I would say shame is a terrible motivator, it is more paralysing than anything.

 

[Shai Gar]

Only one person can destroy self esteem. The self.

Feel guilty enough to destroy it? Maybe there's a reason.

Explore the reason, fix the fault. Don't lash out in self pity.

 

[Azure_Knight]

... ignore all of the scientific evidence I have presented because you don't like what it says. It's much more comfortable for you to stick by your ingrained bias and prejudice, it's as close minded as you can get. If you won't accept hard evidence then there is nothing I can do to convince you. You also state that things are facts even though they have no supporting evidence at all.

I have a few qualms with the evidence that you have brought up. For one thing: your sources may be unreliable (in a scientific sense, and for use in academic setting with peer review).

I'm fairly confident that your source for weightwatchers is unreliable.

Your source for junkfoodscience may also be unreliable: the medical blogger site that she is affiliated with has a gmail account. As we all know, gmail accounts are free to get. The fact that the group does not seem to be affiliated with any professional organizations also gives me some pause. If you are presenting scientific evidence, make sure they are good sources with peer review.

I have provided the wiki on reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples

The first is an engineering issue, not a public health one. Second, isn't it possible that fat could also cushion a fall? This would have to be weighed up against the benefit of having more fat at older ages (yes there are benefits) as well. I think you would find the increased risk negligible.

Do you have any evidence that there is a negligible risk with increasing weight? Otherwise, I will have to point out that you still have increased weight (which generates more force when it hits the ground). If you have evidence that the weight acts as a cushion and is protective, please provide it. Otherwise, this is speculation.

I'm all for facts, I have brought lots of facts to this discussion backed by studies and expert opinion, I will happily discuss any facts you would like to put forward. I do think that logistics and machines should fit humans not the other way around.

I am finding sources as I type this. Unfortunately, many of them require payment for other users to access them (and I will not repost them here because of copyright law). I will provide the authors and titles of the articles, and will continue to search for some that I can post here for discussion purposes.

Which guidelines should we follow though? and how accurate are they really at measuring health (BMI)? Where do these guidelines come from? Public health officials have already messed up beyond belief in the past by dramatically overstating the number of obesity deaths. This is no slight error, this is 15 times greater! That is willful misleading of the public! They have already shown in the past that they get so stuck in their own idealogy and circular logic "Fat is bad, because we have always thought it was bad, therefore fat is bad" that they end up backing themselves up a creek with nowhere to go except out and out lies and misinformation.

It depends on what field you are in healthcare as to the guidelines. If you would like, I could try to see if I can find it for (insert field here).

While this is an interesting graph, it is talking about old data. Is there a more current graph with data from within the past five years? As it stands, this graph would probably not be considered a good figure to use in academia.

Is no one ever treated badly by anyone else ever? Sometimes people are treated badly and sometimes people have to stand up for themselves, that's just life, the alternative is everyone being a doormat, if everyone did that, there would be no rights for women or minorities!

As far as I am aware, the obese have the same legal rights as everyone else in America.

As much as it would make you more comfortable to dehumanise the issue and the people, there is no way around it, this is a deeply human, complex and personal issue. Pretending it isn't does no help to anyone!

I am fully comfortable with this being a 'humanized' issue. However, I am interested in discussing the scientific facts surrounding obesity as being unhealty.

Of course you don't! Everyday we are bombarded with "FAT IS THE DEVIL!" messages. All I am asking is for people to open their minds just a little, to the possibility that the whole thing might be a fuss about nothing and be open to the slight possibility that by making such a big deal of it we might be exasperating the very problem we're trying to fix (something humans seem to do oh so well)!

I am aware that the issue may not be in the correct proportions because of incorrect figures that were given by agencies. However, obesity is a great cause for concern; I do not have any figures to og on yet, but I am of the opinion that less than 25% of the obese population have 'normal' glucose and cholesterol parameters. Once I have the information that I require, I will present it here.

 

[mallory knox]

The countries that have socialized medicine put caps on the number of procedures doctors can do. Socialized medicine costs money just like a private system. With no real ways to implement cost control, the only easy way for the government to maintain costs is to limit what doctors can do in a certain period of time.

I have never heard anything about limiting the procedure and costs.
Can you clarify to explain how did you hear that and where that happens?

By the way, we don't call it "socialized medicine". Only americans call it that way, we just call it "public health". We see it as the same as education, security and roads. An act of respect to the taxpayer.

It's funny that something that a lot of countries in the world have been living with forever seems so alien to US citizens now. For the rest of us, it's just natural. Ask anyone who lives in a country with public health care (whether they pay for private or not) if they'd think it'd be a good idea to remove that and they'd say that's absurd.

The only people who REALLY suffer with the lack of public health care are the poor, and they are the people who'd benefit the most.

I don't know why americans in general seem to have this crazy idea that private medicine would stop existing once they had Universal Health Care.

 

[Faye]

I don't know why americans in general seem to have this crazy idea that private medicine would stop existing once they had Universal Health Care.

Because the moment any policy that might benefit the poor is suggested, people go "Oh no, the dirty commies are taking over! Save our freedom! Save America! The rich don't deserve this kind of tyranny!"

 

[mallory knox]

the people who really benefit from it are the poor
the rich will continue going to their fancy hospitals with 45 channels on cable

 

[Eniko]

Not even try and do what? All this guy is asking for is a shift in goals, shifting the goal to health and wellbeing and away from weight loss. He promotes exercise and good eating! If you exercise often and eat well, all your measures of health will be good apart from BMI. I guess it boils down to if you believe fat people can be healthy, perhaps you don't but there is very little evidence for that belief.

Uh-huh, and I totally can't see unhealthy fat people not trying to get healthy by using this as an excuse. They'll say "you can be fat and healthy!" and then stuff their faces with two overfilled plates for breakfast, and when asked they will still maintain they "don't eat a lot".

And don't tell me they don't exist. Don't even try to sell me that these kinds of people all have some kind of medical problem that makes them gain weight easily. I've seen far too many people who are fat, and who stay fat, through their own gluttonous actions to ever buy that.

For the record, I don't care if people don't mind being big. They want to stuff their faces with all the good stuff cuisine has to offer and not do anything to keep it off? That's their prerogative, just like it's a smoker's prerogative to become a rattled addict. They'll both be chipping years if not decades off their life expectancy, but they're adults so they can do whatever they please. They don't even need to justify themselves to me.

What bugs me is articles like that, weasely articles. Fat-acceptance movements, shit like that. Because the only thing I loathe more than people who bitch about their condition without even trying to remedy it, it's people who do that and then scream about persecution and try to peddle me excuses when they don't even apply to them.

That's why I mind the article. Not because it doesn't have some positive stuff in there, but because it slips down into fat-acceptance extremism from how I read it. Because it'll give people who don't scrutinize it so badly an excuse, when they need to be told to get their ass on the treadmill.

And just like I can't deny that there are people who get fat through medical conditions and can't help it nobody here can deny that there are people who get fat through overeating and under exercising. And that latter group doesn't need an excuse, they do need to eat sanely and exercise.

 

[mallory knox]

how could acceptance ever be extreme?

i mean, why is it anybody's business? someone's body, health, shape or habits?

why should it give anyone a certain right to assume something about them?

 

[Phyllotaxis]

Exactly my point! So why destroy the self esteem of one set of people if other groups are just as guilty?

I think the first step on the road to healthy living is accepting your body and not being ashamed of it and hating it. It is hard for someone to want to tend to their garden if they hate their garden and are bombarded with messages since childhood telling them that there is something fundamentally wrong with their garden. I would say shame is a terrible motivator, it is more paralysing than anything.

That's not all you have been claiming though. Your claims go as far as to say that losing weight is detrimental to health or even impossible. Like Billy has said, weight loss and gain is simply a product of burning more calories than you consume. I wouldn't argue that there are exceptions but they are not very common. In other words, truly obese people that eat terribly are quick to self-diagnose themselves with a glandular problem.

Myself, I weighed 155 to 165 lbs in high school. I ate terribly but was in track, cross-country and baseball so I never really gained weight. It didn't take long after graduating for me to gain 70 lbs with the absence of sports to keep me active. I also gained a lot of muscle because I have only really done physical work. I'm just now starting to get back into shape. Last time I weighed myself I weighed 215 lbs. According to BMI, I'm obese. I think using body fat percentage is probably more accurate, in which case I'm almost not even considered overweight (27% body fat).

 

[Phyllotaxis]

I have never heard anything about limiting the procedure and costs.
Can you clarify to explain how did you hear that and where that happens?

By the way, we don't call it "socialized medicine". Only americans call it that way, we just call it "public health". We see it as the same as education, security and roads. An act of respect to the taxpayer.

It's funny that something that a lot of countries in the world have been living with forever seems so alien to US citizens now. For the rest of us, it's just natural. Ask anyone who lives in a country with public health care (whether they pay for private or not) if they'd think it'd be a good idea to remove that and they'd say that's absurd.

The only people who REALLY suffer with the lack of public health care are the poor, and they are the people who'd benefit the most.

I don't know why americans in general seem to have this crazy idea that private medicine would stop existing once they had Universal Health Care.

I don't know why you are not willing to call it socialized medicine. There is nothing wrong with the term "socialized." I'm not saying it as a derogatory term.

As far as I know, every country that has socialized medicine uses a cap system. You were trying to frame it as if money was not a part of the health care equation in these countries when it very much is. If the United States took up this system, they couldn't just tell doctors to treat anyone for anything like you seem to think they can. The costs would be astronomical and disproportionate.

I would like to hear how you think costs are controlled if not through a cap system. You can't just use the money in a pool-style system because then your "equal care" goes right out the window. More common but expensive procedures would use up a major part of the budget and the money for more rare procedures just wouldn't be there.

 

[mallory knox]

well, I have lived all my life in countries with public health care and no one i have ever known have associated that with the word socialized, because it's pretty much like saying public health care goes against capitalism, which is not true. Ideas for the people such as free education, health, workers rights and unions exist and are part the capitalist world.

never in my life i have heard that word associated to it, because to us public health care is simply a fundamental right, as well as education and pension.

There isn't such a system to control costs regarding procedures and treatment. Most of the people who can afford private health care, go private, due to the comfort of the treatment, not necessarily the quality of it.

Not only that, but medication is also free. You can provide such things by breaking monopolies of the pharmaceutical or sirurgical industry.

Also you have to consider how much the country actually gains by keeping people healthy and able to work, rather than bankrupt and losing their assets due to illness.

 

[Eniko]

how could acceptance ever be extreme?

Acceptance of bad things is extreme where I come from.

 

[mallory knox]

I agree.

so you're saying obesity is a bad thing that shouldn't be accepted?

 

[Faye]

In the United States (and many other places) prior to around the turn of the 20th century, this was a reality.
Substance regulation ("drug laws") came about in the 1930's, and medical licensing started in small scale by the late 1800's (post Civil War) catching on fully before the turn of the century.

Socialized medicine itself is a monopoly, by means of privileges and exclusivities granted by the state forcefully.
Why worry about monopolization in the face of introducing vastly more competitive pressure to the playing field? If anything, a monopoly over healthcare/pharmaceuticals would be drastically less likely in a stateless society (or at least, a society wherein the state keeps it's hand off these industries).

Okay, has it ever been implemented in a modern setting? In the 1800s, quacks ran rampant, and medical technology was nothing like it is now. I really don't see the merit or applicability of what happened then to what exists now. The most successful strategy is public health care, as demonstrated by pretty much everyone in Europe, Canada, etc...

A private monopoly is not subject to accountability, especially if the government is weak. A public monopoly could be controlled if the government is democratic. But, we're not talking about fully socialized here. Private medicine would still exist with public health care, but to do what you're suggesting is extreme and has .... no good evidence to support it. We're in a post-industrial economy now.

Also, it is impossible to get rid of the state.

 

[Eniko]

I agree.

so you're saying obesity is a bad thing that shouldn't be accepted?

If we don't accept other self destructive things then we shouldn't accept this one?

And nobody better come out swinging with the "but some people have a medical condition" because some people get hooked on drugs because they have a medical condition too.

 

[Azure_Knight]

One of the things that sets the US apart from many of the hybrid economies that have been discussed elsewhere is military. Most of the hybrid countries that I remember being brought up (Japan, Norway, Sweden, etc.) do not have to pay for having the largest military in the world. They also have much smaller populations (going by figures provided on wiki here; numbers are in the millions): Japan 127, Normay 4.8, Sweden 9.2. The United States has over 300 (million) people to take care of under a Universal Health Care plan. If the US really wanted to have a UHC, then costs would have to be cut somewhere. It's a matter of the numbers I'm afraid.

Also to note: free medication may not be the best option. Studies have been done to show that patients do not take their medicine as prescibed (compliance) as well if the medicine is free. The thought is that since the patient did not have to give any money for the medicine, that the medicine is not valued as much as if the patient did have to pay for part (or all) of it.

Finally, someone brought up trans fats somewhere in this thread. Trans fats were banned because their consumption increases one's risk for cardiovascular disease between 30-45% (I don't remember the figure exactly, but it is within that spread). Trans fats are one of the most dangerous substances to cardiovascular health. So I think that it was a good move to ban trans fats in foods.

 

[Phyllotaxis]

I wouldn't be completely against clinics becoming socialized...but just clinics. That way it really wouldn't be preventing the commercial market and preventative care would improve.

 

[mallory knox]

If we don't accept other self destructive things then we shouldn't accept this one?

And nobody better come out swinging with the "but some people have a medical condition" because some people get hooked on drugs because they have a medical condition too.

what do you mean we don