EPTObesity declared a disease by AMA - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nukeazerg
United States168 Posts
| ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:33 codonbyte wrote: So I just get home from the store with 2 large bags of snickers. Then I click on subscribed threads and I see this at the top and I'm like "oh right, I was posting in THAT thread before I went to the store" #FACEPALM Fuck it man, snickers are SO worth it. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1078 Posts
On June 21 2013 05:35 Mr. Nefarious wrote: I get really pissed when people say I'm "lucky" to have a high metabolism or good genetics. I played competitive ice hockey basically my entire life, watch what I eat carefully and hit the gym 4-5 times a week. I ration my meals to 560 calories per serving 5 times per day. I eat healthy foods. If you're fat; it's your decision, lack of self control or motivation. Anyone that pretends they couldn't have a killer beach body and feel great due to genetics is delusional. Being healthy is a lifestyle. You either chose to live it, put in the time and effort and have the body of your dreams and feel great due to consuming the correct type and amount of food, or you're a lazy human being that can't even put effort into the one thing that matters most, yourself. It also makes you an eyesore for the rest of us, makes it annoying for me to squeeze past your giant ass taking up an entire aisle and potentially even costs us money due to saving your fat ass from heart disease or the million other problems being overweight brings. TL;DR, Calling obesity a disease is like calling speeding a disease, it's a conscious choice just like anything else. Being healthy is a lifestyle decision, just like being fat is a lifestyle decision. Anyone that puts in a real effort to eat correctly, get a good amount of exercise and make their health a priority will see excellent results and be proud of how they look and feel. This is true, but I think it's good to be sensitive to the fact that it is definitely harder for some than others, and that increase in difficulty is not necessarily their fault. You are a great case of someone who is not only fit but also works really hard for it. I can still run 5k's even though I'm the first to admit that until recently I'd put about zero effort into my diet and fitness. | ||
|
Foblos
United States426 Posts
In laying out the case for and against the redefinition of obesity, the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health argued that more widespread recognition of obesity as a disease "could result in greater investments by government and the private sector to develop and reimburse obesity treatments." We have like thousands of treatments and all of them involve keeping yourself active. We don't need to invest to make more treatments. Just go for a walk or something V_V | ||
|
Cynry
810 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:36 nukeazerg wrote: Dr. Hilde Bruch, a pioneer in childhood obesity, that when she came to America in 1934 she couldn’t recall ever having seen so many fat children, many of whom were Depression-era poor and as malnourished as they were fat. In a time before there was a McBurger on every corner, it’s a challenge to the notion that fast food and Xbox are solely responsible for obesity in our kids I recall reading that the period during which you were born and how well people ate at this time influence heavily on how your body will store fat. Children of wartimes and such are much more prone to storing fat, as the body would think it's needed for survival. Edit : if that's true, I guess we can extend that to the way parents ate disregarding the context, I guess. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:35 On_Slaught wrote: Somebody linked this earlier. Seems like he is essentially focusing on how the caloric intake equation not telling the complete story. Only a few minutes in but seems interesting so far. I have no doubt that fat loss and gain is not quite as simple as calorie in minus calorie out, but to claim that eating less and exercising doesn't work is actually impossible. You can always eat less and exercise more and lose weight no matter what. | ||
|
Heavenlee
United States966 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote: I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. The whole setup of the study doesn't actually make sense in the context of what you're trying to support, which is genetic difference between people. It even says that all of the volunteers were slim---so what does this have to do with a genetic difference in weight gain between the obese and the slim? It's just showing some slight differences in the slim that all would likely fall within the p-value. It just completely ignores all external factors such as actual body health from things like, you know, exercising in the past, that would have an affect on metabolism that's not based on some proposed genetic "third base" that gives people an upperhand. A legitimate study would either have to have...more than 10 people...be long term..have an actual methods and results section...try to weed out external factors...show how the sample biases are eliminated...so on. This does none of those. | ||
|
nukeazerg
United States168 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9879 Posts
| ||
|
zdfgucker
China594 Posts
Odds are 99.999% you're fat because you eat too much. Complain about being fat and refuse to change and you can be pretty damn sure I won't keep back my opinion about your lazy ass. All that's required is willpower. I, too, could be eating junk food all day. But I don't. And it's not my genetics stopping me. | ||
|
Creem
Sweden254 Posts
On June 21 2013 04:04 Zaqwe wrote: Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake. That's an incredibly simple way of viewing obesity. I have personal experience with losing weight (not much, like 25 pounds) and I can tell you that counting calories is a really bad method. What I did was cut out carbs and add natural fats (yes ,even saturated, NO it's not dangerous), and I was suddenly able to eat whenever I was hungry and stop eating when I was full. I didn't count a single carb, yet I was able to rapidly lose 25 pounds and I've stayed that way (fit!) for over 2 years now. You really need to look at what you're putting in your belly. If I eat a regular dinner with protein and fat, and then add a desert filled with sugar and flour - I'm getting hungry again almost immediately afterwards, whereas if I skipped out on the desert and ate the exact same dinner portion I'd be stuffed until lunch next day. So what I'm trying to say is that the amount of calories you can eat before you feel stuffed or full greatly depends on WHAT you eat, in terms of macro nutritients and quality of food. I'd suggest anyone who's overweight to visit Mark's Daily Apple to learn by far the easiest way to lose weight and stay that way: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ | ||
|
Creem
Sweden254 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:48 zdfgucker wrote: I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Odds are 99.999% you're fat because you eat too much. Complain about being fat and refuse to change and you can be pretty damn sure I won't keep back my opinion about your lazy ass. All that's required is willpower. I, too, could be eating junk food all day. But I don't. And it's not my genetics stopping me. It's hard when nearly every single food company actively encourages you to eat junk food (and by junk food I include pasta, flour, sugar etc). Add the fact that science still believe that fat is more dangerous than carbs and it's almost impossible to make the "right" choice. In sweden for example the government put a "healthy label" on food we're supposed to eat to be healthy and not gain weight, yet some of this healthy labeled food contains more sugar than soda! | ||
|
codonbyte
United States840 Posts
Haha yup! And unlike some candies (like jelly beans, skittles, and generally most of the "fruity-flavored" candies), snickers make you feel full rather quickly, so you tend to not overeat them (compared to jelly beans, where I can eat an entire large-sized bag of them before I start to get "that slightly sick feeling" in my gut). | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:35 packrat386 wrote: I think he might be referring to urban poor populations. People suffer from a lack of available healthy food (only place to get food is convenience stores) and thus they tend to ingest a lot of fatty or high carb foods. Feel free to check me on that one, but I think that among developed countries there are high rates of obesity among those in poverty. It also has a lot to do with time. A poor, single mother working several jobs has less time to plan meals and make sure her children are getting proper nutrition than someone working one job or even staying at home full-time. Like anything worth doing, it takes time to live a healthy lifestyle, and if you don't have time you are more likely to take your kids to Wendy's. Fast food restaurants are getting better about offering healthy alternatives, but lets be honest here, no kid wants to order to the strawberry salad when you take him to McDonald's. But again, while that's an explanation for a behavior, it's no excuse. It may just take a little more effort. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1078 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote: Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. | ||
|
Heavenlee
United States966 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote: I don't have an account to actually access these journals, but simply glancing at the abstract it does appear that at least aerobic exercise results vary greatly based on genetics. I don't know enough about medicine or biology to really argue on the topic however. http://www.pbrc.edu/heritage/index.html http://www.jappl.org/content/87/3/1003.short http://journals.lww.com/acsm-essr/Abstract/2008/04000/Metabolic_Adaptations_to_Short_term_High_Intensity.3.aspx First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote: I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. | ||
|
ThePiedPiper
Canada102 Posts
On June 21 2013 03:50 Fruscainte wrote: I'm curious where overweight people are being discriminated against in the workforce? Not trying to be condescending, I've honestly never heard of this being a thing. My father, and some of his friends don't hire obesity people, not because they can't do the job but because they will probably cost x2 to x3 more in insurance, and they won't get as much work done since most of them are just lazy so they won't take the initiative to figure something out. I have friends like this, and in reality it's just laziness that is a 'disease' | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:55 codonbyte wrote: Haha yup! And unlike some candies (like jelly beans, skittles, and generally most of the "fruity-flavored" candies), snickers make you feel full rather quickly, so you tend to not overeat them (compared to jelly beans, where I can eat an entire large-sized bag of them before I start to get "that slightly sick feeling" in my gut). I get that problem all the time with gummy bears/worms. I eat like a pound of them and then, ONLY then, do I realize how shitty of a decision that was. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote: First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. So any evidence you are presented with can be explained away with one of two arguments: 1. Random nitpicks. 2. Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. Care to present evidence to the contrary other than "benefit of the doubt?" | ||
|
KookyMonster
United States311 Posts
This creates the question, since obesity is a "disease," do they consider the "cure" to be diet and exercise? That was the first thing I thought of when I read this. The thing this will (most likely) affect is health insurance, and how insurance companies will grant you insurance based on a "pre-existing condition," which in this case is being overweight. | ||
| ||
