Obesity

[jampack84 0]

I just have to say this...Just because you are skinny..does NOT mean you eat healthyJust because you are heavy...does NOT mean you DONT eat healthy.Its comments like the one that Daniel and others make that give the assumption that all "fat" people eat fast food or too much, NOT true. Some people have medical reasons they cant lose weight or gain weight. My mother has kidney disease. Skinny before..now not skinny. Why?? Most people when they look at her think its because of the way she eats...has nothing to do with it. I cant stand people that judge other people because of the way they look. When you see a fat little kid did you ever think maybe there's something medically wrong?? Why always assume its because they eat...Just wrong...

[El Guapo 8]

I just have to say this...Just because you are skinny..does NOT mean you eat healthyJust because you are heavy...does NOT mean you DONT eat healthy.Its comments like the one that Daniel and others make that give the assumption that all "fat" people eat fast food or too much, NOT true. Some people have medical reasons they cant lose weight or gain weight. My mother has kidney disease. Skinny before..now not skinny. Why?? Most people when they look at her think its because of the way she eats...has nothing to do with it. I cant stand people that judge other people because of the way they look. When you see a fat little kid did you ever think maybe there's something medically wrong?? Why always assume its because they eat...Just wrong...

Actually I am the opposite, when I see a little fat kid, I assume there is something medically wrong. My 3 year old eats as much as me somedays and he can't gain a pound.

[Sheiky 0]

I just have to say this...Just because you are skinny..does NOT mean you eat healthyJust because you are heavy...does NOT mean you DONT eat healthy.Its comments like the one that Daniel and others make that give the assumption that all "fat" people eat fast food or too much, NOT true. Some people have medical reasons they cant lose weight or gain weight. My mother has kidney disease. Skinny before..now not skinny. Why?? Most people when they look at her think its because of the way she eats...has nothing to do with it. I cant stand people that judge other people because of the way they look. When you see a fat little kid did you ever think maybe there's something medically wrong?? Why always assume its because they eat...Just wrong...

The amount of people who are fat for medical reasons make up an incredibly small % of the overall amount of fat people.

[Mercury69 3]

STFU, FATTY! AHAHAHAHAAAAAOn a related topic, I saw the recent Ricky Gervais special in which he discusses obesity and compulsive eating and making fun of the fact many people call it a disease. It's not leprosy, ffs.I guess I'm lucky, in that I have a metabolism that crushes almost anything I eat into a gooey paste and I never gain weight, but that doesn't mean I'm healthy because I'm not fat.

[Loismustdie 0]

you didnt even address anything he said. moron... why cant you debate something?

Sometimes, a blanket wrong across the board suffices. I got, like, kids and a job and stuff.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The amount of people who are fat for medical reasons make up an incredibly small % of the overall amount of fat people.

It depends on what you mean by a "medical reason." If you only mean people who have thyroid diseases or kidney diseases or what not, then yes, that number of people is small. But if you include a genetic proclivity toward being fat, then I'd say the vast majority of fat people are fat due to a medical disease. Put it another way, one's body type determines to a huge extent how fat or thin a person is going to end up. Nutrition and exercise habits can vary a body type about that genetically predisposed average, but it's extremely difficult to make radical changes. People who are extremely fat are so either due to medical reasons or for their own fault, but people who are mildly fat are often just a product of their genes.

[repoman042 0]

how about dont eat like sht all the time and you have a good chance of not being fat. Meaning dont let your kids eat like sht and they have a better chance of not being fat.

[hblask 1]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ing-us-fat.htmlDon't blame fast-food restaurants for why America seems so supersized. This new economic study from Northwestern University and UC Berkeley seems to disprove the the common nutritional myth: The results find no evidence of a causal link between restaurants and obesity, and the estimates are precise enough to rule out any meaningful effect. Analysis of food intake micro data suggests that although consumers eat larger meals at restaurants than at home (even after accounting for selection), they offset these calories at other times of day. We conclude that public health policies targeting restaurants are unlikely to reduce obesity but could negatively affect consumer welfare. Although restaurants conveniently deliver calories at a low marginal cost, they are only one source among many. While taxing restaurant meals might cause obese consumers to change where they eat, our results suggest that a tax would be unlikely to affect their underlying tendency to overeat. The same principle would apply to other targeted obesity interventions as well. For example, two recent large-scale, multi-state randomized trials of school-based programs that improved the nutritional content of cafeteria meals found no effect on student weight (Nader et al. 1999; Caballero et al. 2003). One principal investigator noted, in retrospect, that the intervention could not control what the children ate outside of school (Kolata 2006). Future research and policy proposals may find greater success if they are designed to account for the optimizing behavior of the targeted subjects.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...ing-us-fat.html

I'm not sure that this study is applicable to our argument. What the researchers actually did was compare the BMI index of people in towns which had highway access to restaurants to those without highway access to restaurants. It focused mainly on rural, iscolated towns. It doesn't account for the different types of restaurants that people could go to, their rates of going to restaurants, or what they actually eat when they go to restaurants. It doesn't explore the habits of urban and suburban families, especially in poorer neighborhoods, which is really the topic of this discussion.

[hblask 1]

I'm not sure that this study is applicable to our argument. [...]which is really the topic of this discussion.

I disagree. This thread hasn't had a focus on anything since the first couple of posts, so anything food related directly applies to this discussion, including ads for tomato paste.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I disagree. This thread hasn't had a focus on anything since the first couple of posts, so anything food related directly applies to this discussion, including ads for tomato paste.

Touche

[Mercury69 3]

Touche, fatty

FYP ("fatty"'d your post)

[AmScray 355]

everything always comes down to this because this is what freedom really is. you want freedom to do the things you think are ok, but you are fine with things being illegal that you have deemed not ok. when the klu klux klan wanted to hold a rally in new york city the aclu stood up for them. that is believing in freedom. you cannot draw lines when it comes to freedom. its either all or nothing.

Just so we're clear here...Are you advancing the Libertarian ideal? Or are you playing that retarded contrarian game where one political side points out the hypocrisies of the other, as if that somehow negates their own?Because if you're advancing that unique, Libertarian type of intellectual consistency, bravo. Welcome aboard, brother. I guess I was remembering someone else who took a totally different position regarding freedom on the gun issue... I do that sometimes; confuse one person for another.

[Loismustdie 0]

Just so we're clear here...Are you advancing the Libertarian ideal? Or are you playing that retarded contrarian game where one political side points out the hypocrisies of the other, as if that somehow negates their own?Because if you're advancing that unique, Libertarian type of intellectual consistency, bravo. Welcome aboard, brother. I guess I was remembering someone else who took a totally different position regarding freedom on the gun issue... I do that sometimes; confuse one person for another.

Fairly certain he is playing the retarded game, that being said, I have been lost as to what the hell he has been trying to say. I think- think- it's specifically aimed at me but so far he hasn't named an issue that I have an issue with . I think guys should **** guys if they want to. I think Satanist should worship away, freely. I think the Klan should do as they do, they have a right to exist and believe as they do. Apparently because of my christian background he is of the belief that I must think other ideals should not exist entirely, which is just not true.

[antistuff 0]

Just so we're clear here...Are you advancing the Libertarian ideal? Or are you playing that retarded contrarian game where one political side points out the hypocrisies of the other, as if that somehow negates their own?Because if you're advancing that unique, Libertarian type of intellectual consistency, bravo. Welcome aboard, brother. I guess I was remembering someone else who took a totally different position regarding freedom on the gun issue... I do that sometimes; confuse one person for another.

you misunderstood me on the gun issue. i think dressing up like john wayne and parading around with your gun to make you feel tough is stupid (and probably a good way to get yourself shot). i also think you should be able to buy a fully automatic riffle at your local supermarket. the way i feel about guns is actually a good example of somebody having personal feelings that lean one way but respecting the rights of others.

[irishguy 14]

You are not very good at this "post the opposite to show how silly it is" thing. Fail.

meh maybe, I just don't see how these issues are separate if one is against people being policed for over feeding their kids shouldn't they also be against people being policed for under feeding their kids? Where should the line be drawn? I'm in the camp that the freedom of choice argument holds little weight when it pertains to children and believe we as a society should err on the side of the best interest of the child. This is why I agree with rules/laws on protective gear for children while biking etc, laws on abuse etc. If you are doing what is in the best interest for your child instituting any rules/regulations should effect your life little to none at all but what it does is look out for the kids who aren't fortunate enough to have parents the caliber of what some in this thread claim to be.

[hblask 1]

meh maybe, I just don't see how these issues are separate if one is against people being policed for over feeding their kids shouldn't they also be against people being policed for under feeding their kids? Where should the line be drawn?

And this is the heart of the matter. My line would be if you are doing immediate intentional physical harm to your child, the state can step in. If you are unintentionally doing immediate harm, then maybe you get counseling at state expense. Otherwise, stay away. And no, "fat" isn't even close to an immediate harm. And unless the parent is *forcing* the child to overeat, it's not the parent's (legal) problem. It is their emotional and moral cross to bear, but not a legal issue.Underfeeding leads to death and physical ailments quite quickly. Over feeding leads to medical problems later in life for some people.

[vbnautilus 48]

Underfeeding leads to death and physical ailments quite quickly. Over feeding leads to medical problems later in life for some people.

Just to play devil's advocate here (I don't believe in policing fatness) why should the speed of harm be a factor at all? I could poison you with radiation very slowly over years or I could poison you quickly with cyanide, why is one worse than the other?

[hblask 1]

Just to play devil's advocate here (I don't believe in policing fatness) why should the speed of harm be a factor at all? I could poison you with radiation very slowly over years or I could poison you quickly with cyanide, why is one worse than the other?

Well, both of those would be criminal acts, so there would be no difference.The speed matters because, um, there's a reason.... well, because life is full of tradeoffs. We are all dying, we are all trying to enjoy life, we are all trying to live a long time. Those things don't always agree. Eating is fun, and who is to say how many years of your life you are allowed to sacrifice for the right to make it really fun along the way?There is such a thing as irresponsible care for children. 10 pounds overweight, no problem. 20, definitely still OK. 250 pounds overweight by age 12, yeah, time for someone to step in. I don't think the child should be taken away or the parents punished at that point. What should happen is both child and parent are educated. If that doesn't help, then we can slowly step up the intervention. So where is the line between 20 pounds overweight and 250? When the weight is causing current or imminent medical problems and the parents are not attempting to solve the problem.I know, what is "imminent". Stop asking so many questions.

[Loismustdie 0]

Well, both of those would be criminal acts, so there would be no difference.The speed matters because, um, there's a reason.... well, because life is full of tradeoffs. We are all dying, we are all trying to enjoy life, we are all trying to live a long time. Those things don't always agree. Eating is fun, and who is to say how many years of your life you are allowed to sacrifice for the right to make it really fun along the way?There is such a thing as irresponsible care for children. 10 pounds overweight, no problem. 20, definitely still OK. 250 pounds overweight by age 12, yeah, time for someone to step in. I don't think the child should be taken away or the parents punished at that point. What should happen is both child and parent are educated. If that doesn't help, then we can slowly step up the intervention. So where is the line between 20 pounds overweight and 250? When the weight is causing current or imminent medical problems and the parents are not attempting to solve the problem.I know, what is "imminent". Stop asking so many questions.

The thing is, where does it stop? How about the parent that can't afford dental care, and everything they do is reactive and not preventative? If a kid comes in and he has 6 cavities, and the parent can afford to pay for the worst 2, is that abuse, or money management? If a kid gets a nice sized cut and I elect to fix it with superglue, is that abuse, or just good sense? I save 400 bucks and the kid has a scar anyway.

[hblask 1]

The thing is, where does it stop? How about the parent that can't afford dental care, and everything they do is reactive and not preventative? If a kid comes in and he has 6 cavities, and the parent can afford to pay for the worst 2, is that abuse, or money management? If a kid gets a nice sized cut and I elect to fix it with superglue, is that abuse, or just good sense? I save 400 bucks and the kid has a scar anyway.

That's the tough question, but neither example you give seems like abuse. I grew up very poor, and all we had was emergency dentistry. If we could still eat, it didn't hurt bad enough to go to the dentist. But mainly, in that case, I think the dentist needs to explain to the parents that there are programs to help so that it doesn't come to that.And don't they fix wounds with superglue in the military in emergency situations? That's all those paint-on bandages really are, just a variation of superglue.But yeah, there will be tough questions, but I think you have to give the benefit of a doubt to the parent that they are doing there best they can unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. Then, you find ways to help them without threatening fines, jail time, or taking away the kid.

[irishguy 14]

And this is the heart of the matter. My line would be if you are doing immediate intentional physical harm to your child, the state can step in. If you are unintentionally doing immediate harm, then maybe you get counseling at state expense. Otherwise, stay away. And no, "fat" isn't even close to an immediate harm. And unless the parent is *forcing* the child to overeat, it's not the parent's (legal) problem. It is their emotional and moral cross to bear, but not a legal issue.Underfeeding leads to death and physical ailments quite quickly. Over feeding leads to medical problems later in life for some people.

Malnutrition can take along time to cause death, clearly not as long as overeating but it isn't always immeditate and not always intentional and I would say like you've discussed in other posts at some point this is when a teacher or whomever needs to step in and make the parents aware of programs etc that can help if the parents are struggling to feed their family. I also think it should be the same thing if a kid becomes obese (I don't know an exact pound point) and everyday his lunch is a bag of chips and a chocolate bar maybe it's time to talk with the folks and educate them. It's important imo to have healthy food programs in schools as well as physical activity but again staunch conservatives will argue that it's not up to the government and if little Jimmy wants a bag of chips and jug of soda for lunch it should be available and that its not the governments job to ensure that "my" kids are exercising.

[Loismustdie 0]

That's the tough question, but neither example you give seems like abuse. I grew up very poor, and all we had was emergency dentistry. If we could still eat, it didn't hurt bad enough to go to the dentist. But mainly, in that case, I think the dentist needs to explain to the parents that there are programs to help so that it doesn't come to that.And don't they fix wounds with superglue in the military in emergency situations? That's all those paint-on bandages really are, just a variation of superglue.But yeah, there will be tough questions, but I think you have to give the benefit of a doubt to the parent that they are doing there best they can unless there is compelling evidence otherwise. Then, you find ways to help them without threatening fines, jail time, or taking away the kid.

As far as the superglue thing, yeah, it's a variation on superglue. I read once where Flea was using it to close up a cut on his hand while onstage. My examples were more geared to drum up conversation branching of your correct sentiment that this is not a cookie cutter world. Different strokes for different folks if you will, and my God I would not want it to be. If we were all the same this life would suck as bad as it could possibly suck.

[BigLebowski 0]

As far as the superglue thing, yeah, it's a variation on superglue. I read once where Flea was using it to close up a cut on his hand while onstage.

I can vouch for superglue. Near every rock climber I know carries it in their bag for when they get the dreaded flapper when your finger pad has essentially been torn from your finger. Quick, cheap fix. I imagine it has as many uses as duct tape.

[Don Giovanni 0]

250 pounds overweight by age 12, yeah, time for someone to step in.

lol.i love how some of you treat the food options of children like its some fundamental freedom that our society is built on. keeping kids healthy is better for everyone. who the **** cares if they cant eat 5 snickers bars for dinner?why arnt all of you writing your congressmen about seat belts? why let some government tell you what you have to do in your own car? well, its because when some idiot crashes and goes through his windshield we all pay for it. its also not good for him. so we make them wear their seat belts despite the reduced freedom.