The American Medical Assn. voted Tuesday to declare obesity a disease, a move that effectively defines 78 million American adults and 12 million children as having a medical condition requiring treatment.
The nation's leading physicians organization took the vote after debating whether the action would do more to help affected patients get useful treatment or would further stigmatize a condition with many causes and few easy fixes.
In the end, members of the AMA's House of Delegates rejected cautionary advice from their own experts and extended the new status to a condition that affects more than one-third of adults and 17% of children in the United States.
"Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately 1 in 3 Americans," said Dr. Patrice Harris, an AMA board member.
Tuesday's vote is certain to step up pressure on health insurance companies to reimburse physicians for the time-consuming task of discussing obesity's health risks with patients whose body mass index exceeds 30. It should also encourage doctors to direct these patients to weight-loss programs and to monitor their often-fitful progress.
The federally funded Medicare program, which insures an estimated 13 million obese Americans who are over 65 or disabled, already covers the costs of "intensive behavioral therapy" for obese patients, as well as bariatric surgery for those with additional health conditions. But coverage for such obesity treatments has been uneven among private insurers.
...
The new designation follows a steep 30-year climb in Americans' weight — and growing public concern over the resulting tidal wave of expensive health problems. Treatment of such obesity-related illnesses as cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and certain cancers drives up the nation's medical bill by more than $150 billion a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Projected increases in the obesity rate could boost that figure by an additional $550 billion over the next 20 years, a recent Duke University study concluded.
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."
American Medical Association has upgraded obesity from a "health disorder" (potential cause of disease) to a disease itself. Not sure what all implications this will have, but it seems like a lot of money is up in the air. I think everyone can agree that obesity is a major problem. Is this move going to help people? Might it lead to exploitation? Or maybe it won't change anything?
On the one hand this is going to increase awareness of it and make a much more proactive effort by the medical community to combat this. It's no longer a symptom or a potential cause of greater harm, it is now scientifically accepted as being inherently harmful. Hopefully this will encourage doctors to be far more persistent in their patients losing health and hopefully a lot more effort by people to lose their weight.
On the other hand, we're going to get tens of thousands of overweight people who now have a reason to stay fat because they have a DISEASE and how can they help it.
Overall this is good though. Still can't understand why they use BMI though. I've been with four personal physicians my entire life and every single one said BMI is a load of crap, Bodyfat % is what I should base my health after they recommend.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
On June 21 2013 03:49 Fruscainte wrote: On the one hand this is going to increase awareness of it and make a much more proactive effort by the medical community to combat this. It's no longer a symptom or a potential cause of greater harm, it is now scientifically accepted as being inherently harmful. Hopefully this will encourage doctors to be far more persistent in their patients losing health and hopefully a lot more effort by people to lose their weight.
On the other hand, we're going to get tens of thousands of overweight people who now have a reason to stay fat because they have a DISEASE and how can they help it.
Overall this is good though. Still can't understand why they use BMI though. I've been with four personal physicians my entire life and every single one said BMI is a load of crap, Bodyfat % is what I should base my health after.
Your physicians were correct; BMI is an antiquated metric with very negligible utility in comparison to stuff like bf %, particularly when it comes to men and their propensity to hold onto a fair bit of muscle mass.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
The point is not that fat people are being discriminated against, though I'm certain that there are many cases of this. The point is that with obesity being classified as a disease, it becomes more "protected" insofar as hiring practices are concerned.
To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Well we call diabetes a disease but you can still bring it on yourself. Just because it's a disease doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Just wanna throw that out there.
To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
On June 21 2013 03:57 AnomalySC2 wrote: It's fast food and how our lives have become completely intertwined with them.
I feel like a lot of people would be in much better shape if they just cooked at home. I know that's what really tipped the scales for me. I ate as much as I always ate and I still do eat as much I always have eaten, but I cook nearly everything and I carefully crafted my meals so that I eat for instance a lot more vegetables that are much lower calories but can eat in far larger quantities and it fills me up more.
People live fast lives and have no time to take an hour out of their day to cook though, so why not head to the local Publix and pick up a box of fresh ready to eat fried chicken for $7.99 or whatever?
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
You're a very, very, very unique case.
I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen my mom stuffing her face with half a gallon of ice cream going on about how blessed my brother is with his genetics and that's why he's so muscular and in shape. Metabolism is such a cop out argument. Genetics determines your potential, but not your actual gain or loss. No one is above the Laws of Thermodynamics. If someone performs enough activity where they naturally burn off 3000 calories per day, they can eat 2500 calories per day and they will lose weight. That's that. That's all it takes and nothing more.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
That's a good way of putting it. Essentially what this decision is doing is confusing a CAUSE with a SYMPTOM. I usually think of diseases as CAUSING symptoms. A cold (an illness) CAUSES a stuffy nose, and some medical conditions might CAUSE obesity. In this case, obesity is a SYMPTOM, just the way a runny nose is a SYMPTOM of a cold.
Classifying obesity as a disease is therefore, imo, tantamount to classifying a runny nose as a DISEASE.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
I wouldn't go that far. Some people (very few, probably less than 10%) have very legitimate issues that cause them to gain weight rapidly or have trouble losing it.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
That's a good way of putting it. Essentially what this decision is doing is confusing a CAUSE with a SYMPTOM. I usually think of diseases as CAUSING symptoms. A cold (an illness) CAUSES a stuffy nose, and some medical conditions might CAUSE obesity. In this case, obesity is a SYMPTOM, just the way a runny nose is a SYMPTOM of a cold.
Classifying obesity as a disease is therefore, imo, tantamount to classifying a runny nose as a DISEASE.
There are many diseases that are symptoms and there are many symptoms that are diseases. This is not a new phenomena. Symptoms are actually defined as the subjective descriptor of an individuals experience of a particular health phenomena, and signs are their objective counterpart. This [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptom]wiki[/url ]is fairly helpful.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
How old are you? When I was 17 I could eat an entire pizza and a chipotle burrito bowl for lunch and not gain a pound. That's not genetics, that's just puberty. I can't do that anymore
And also, I am probably going to reiterate this in most of my posts in the thread, just because it's a disease doesn't absolve the patient of responsibility. If you want to cure any disease you're responsible for taking your medicine or changing your habits. Doctors will recommend diet and exercise and it is the patient's responsibility to follow through. Even appetite suppressants require dieting and discipline, they're just supplements to an existing change in behavior. Classifying obesity as a disease doesn't give fat people a free pass to just keep being fat.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
And that's completely understandable. Being obese doesn't inherently make you incompetent at your job, assuming it's not physical labor, but if I'm interviewing two individuals who look the same on paper but one is obese and one isn't, I can infer that the obese individual doesn't take care of his body and may have health issues. I'm making a long-term investment in this employee, why would I go with him over the other guy? It shouldn't be the sole factor in a hiring decision, that would be silly, but people would be lying if they told you it wasn't a factor like everything else you notice about the person, i.e. hygiene, dress, eye contact, level of comfort, vocabulary, eloquence, etc.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
This is just weird to me.. I mean obesity is such a person to person thing I don't see how to distinguish the disease from being jsut being lazy and eating entirely too much food all the damn time.
Lots of people are fat purely from genetics, but equally lots of people are fat because they are legit lazy as fuck and eat like 3 big macs a day, and on the opposite side they are people who are skinny from pure genetics. I don't like labelling it a disease because it gives people who just want to eat and be lazy fucks an excuse, I know that's unfair to the people who are actual obese to due genetics a little but if I were to give an estimate I'd say only 1 out of every 5 obese people are obese due to genes.
Also afaik obesity isn't a disease anyway it would be genetics no? I mean it's not like a virus or bacteria or anything that makes you fat it's your genetics? I'm not an expert or anything so I'm more asking about this!
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
And that's completely understandable. Being obese doesn't inherently make you incompetent at your job, assuming it's not physical labor, but if I'm interviewing two individuals who look the same on paper but one is obese and one isn't, I can infer that the obese individual doesn't take care of his body and may have health issues. I'm making a long-term investment in this employee, why would I go with him over the other guy? It shouldn't be the sole factor in a hiring decision, that would be silly, but people would be lying if they told you it wasn't a factor like everything else you notice about the person, i.e. hygiene, dress, eye contact, level of comfort, vocabulary, eloquence, etc.
Or maybe the skinny person just has a metabolism that burns up absolutely everything they eat at lightning speed, while the fat person has an inferior metabolism that actually punishes them for their poor lifestyle choices.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Why all the hate on fat people? How exactly are they hurting you?
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
You seem to have this notion that the world needs to be fair. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Some people may need to work harder to stay in shape than others. That's the way the human body works, but it doesn't absolve them of that responsibility. In general, the reason it is so hard for a person to lose weight is BECAUSE they are so obese, either because they have so many more pounds to lose, or because physical activity is difficult. And it's not a physical obstacle, because those things are still easily doable as long as you don't overexert yourself and commit to a program, it's the mental obstacle. Obese people don't want to get off the couch and go exercise because they know if they want to make any measurable progress it will be a long, hard road, much harder than someone who just wants to lose 5-10 lbs to stay trim. But they got themselves into that situation, so it's really no excuse to complain about how hard it is to get out of it.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Just throwing it out there... Bad eating habit may not make you fat, but it probably will have consequences in a way or another. Take care of your body man.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Why all the hate on fat people? How exactly are they hurting you?
Aside from the obvious, superficial explanation in that overweight individuals are unappealing to look at, I would go with the slippery slope argument that classifying obesity as a disease means that public healthcare funds will go to treating a disease that people inflicted on themselves by being irresponsible. People have the same feelings towards drug abuse in that regard.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
I can confirm this is true, at least for me. I started a job a year ago and in December decided enough was enough and lost 55 pounds (I went from 220 to 165, and I am quite muscular too now. It was so much work but it is definitely worth it) and I get treated completely differently now, especially by people in other departments who don't know me personally. People used to be kinda condescending towards me but now I get treated with a great deal more respect. I was kinda shocked at first how big of a difference it was.
Edit: On topic, I do think this ruling may be problematic and will be abused. People who are obese by choice (it is choice no matter how much they argue that it isn't their fault. I have learned this first hand. I used to claim that being depressed or too stressed made me pudgy, but after losing all that weight I realized I was just making excuses) should not be given the same support as those who cannot help it (genetics, illness, etc.).
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Why all the hate on fat people? How exactly are they hurting you?
In Canada all our tax money goes into healthcare to help all the health problems fat people get for being fat.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
Physically: Hypothyroidism can be treated with hormone treatment. Cushing's Syndrome requires use of steroids for treatment. Both of those cause obesity, and in order to not gain weight with these conditions, you feel like you are constantly starving.
Psychologically: Depression may cause people to eat more. A rather common side-effect of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and a few others drugs used to treat psychological conditions is weight gain. There is such a thing as eating disorders as well.
These are all valid medical considerations, and can be treated.
Anorexia can be treated by eating more. Bulimia can be treated by not puking. Obesity can be treated by not being a lazy gluttonous fatass. The condescension towards people with psychological problems causing them to gain weight as opposed to losing weight is the massive bias people have in favor of skinny people over fat people.
On June 21 2013 04:13 Necro)Phagist( wrote: This is just weird to me.. I mean obesity is such a person to person thing I don't see how to distinguish the disease from being jsut being lazy and eating entirely too much food all the damn time.
Lots of people are fat purely from genetics, but equally lots of people are fat because they are legit lazy as fuck and eat like 3 big macs a day, and on the opposite side they are people who are skinny from pure genetics. I don't like labelling it a disease because it gives people who just want to eat and be lazy fucks an excuse, I know that's unfair to the people who are actual obese to due genetics a little but if I were to give an estimate I'd say only 1 out of every 5 obese people are obese due to genes.
Also afaik obesity isn't a disease anyway it would be genetics no? I mean it's not like a virus or bacteria or anything that makes you fat it's your genetics? I'm not an expert or anything so I'm more asking about this!
I don't like labeling it as a disease either. You can not label it as a disease without being unfair to people who are actually obese due to medical issues. The way you do that is you label the thing that is actually causing the obesity as a disease, and look at the obesity as a symptom of the disease.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
You seem to have this notion that the world needs to be fair. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination. Some people may need to work harder to stay in shape than others. That's the way the human body works, but it doesn't absolve them of that responsibility. In general, the reason it is so hard for a person to lose weight is BECAUSE they are so obese, either because they have so many more pounds to lose, or because physical activity is difficult. And it's not a physical obstacle, because those things are still easily doable as long as you don't overexert yourself and commit to a program, it's the mental obstacle. Obese people don't want to get off the couch and go exercise because they know if they want to make any measurable progress it will be a long, hard road, much harder than someone who just wants to lose 5-10 lbs to stay trim. But they got themselves into that situation, so it's really no excuse to complain about how hard it is to get out of it.
To be fair, obesity does come alongside physical obstacles as well as mental ones. Wear and tear on joints is one of the most difficult things for the obese to work around in search of a productive workout schedule, and this is part of the reason why diet control is more important than exercise, particularly in the beginning. Getting off those first few pounds before starting up on a bunch of running or push ups can save elbows and knees a lot of pain and potentially progress halting injury.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
I can confirm this is true, at least for me. I started a job a year ago and in December decided enough was enough and lost 55 pounds (I went from 220 to 165, and I am quite muscular too now. It was so much work but it is definitely worth it) and I get treated completely differently now, especially by people in other departments who don't know me personally. People used to be kinda condescending towards me but now I get treated with a great deal more respect. I was kinda shocked at first how big of a difference it was.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
And that's completely understandable. Being obese doesn't inherently make you incompetent at your job, assuming it's not physical labor, but if I'm interviewing two individuals who look the same on paper but one is obese and one isn't, I can infer that the obese individual doesn't take care of his body and may have health issues. I'm making a long-term investment in this employee, why would I go with him over the other guy? It shouldn't be the sole factor in a hiring decision, that would be silly, but people would be lying if they told you it wasn't a factor like everything else you notice about the person, i.e. hygiene, dress, eye contact, level of comfort, vocabulary, eloquence, etc.
Or maybe the skinny person just has a metabolism that burns up absolutely everything they eat at lightning speed, while the fat person has an inferior metabolism that actually punishes them for their poor lifestyle choices.
Life isn't fair. The thin guy got a lucky metabolism, and the fat guy needs to work harder to stay in shape. Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles.
So let me see. Doctors will get richer from this. Pharmaceutical companies will get richer from this. Fast Food industries get a pass. FDA will get a pass. Food content law makers will get a pass. Standard procedure in the United States. All is well and normal.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Why all the hate on fat people? How exactly are they hurting you?
In Canada all our tax money goes into healthcare to help all the health problems fat people get for being fat.
Plus from an aesthetic standpoint, I don't like to see them.
If you don't like the way the Canadian medical system is using your tax dollars, maybe you should be calling out the canadian medical system, rather than calling out fat people.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
I can confirm this is true, at least for me. I started a job a year ago and in December decided enough was enough and lost 55 pounds (I went from 220 to 165, and I am quite muscular too now. It was so much work but it is definitely worth it) and I get treated completely differently now, especially by people in other departments who don't know me personally. People used to be kinda condescending towards me but now I get treated with a great deal more respect. I was kinda shocked at first how big of a difference it was.
Edit: On topic, I do think this ruling may be problematic and will be abused. People who are obese by choice (it is choice no matter how much they argue that it isn't their fault. I have learned this first hand) should not be given the same support as those who cannot help it (genetics, illness, etc.).
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Maybe people are comfortable with the way they are? That's never an option to some people it seems ...
In Canada all our tax money goes into healthcare to help all the health problems fat people get for being fat.
On June 21 2013 04:23 ladytr0n wrote: So let me see. Doctors will get richer from this. Pharmaceutical companies will get richer from this. Fast Food industries get a pass. FDA will get a pass. Food content law makers will get a pass. Standard procedure in the United States. All is well and normal.
Doctors are already treating obese people so, no they won't get richer. Pharmaceutical companies might see marginal gains from an increase in appetite suppressant drugs but those prescriptions are triplicate class drugs. Doctors don't like to prescribe them, they're kinda dangerous (especially to someone with heart problems like obese people are more likely to have) and they don't work without an accompanying change in behavior. So there won't be a massive spike in those sales.
How will the FDA get a pass? They've been screaming at us for years to eat better. Food content law makers and producers have also been screaming at us to eat better. McDonald's freaking puts the calories of their food on the damn wrapper! Everytime they release a new healthy option, no one orders it. The fact that your combo meal is 1800 calories is RIGHT ON THE DAMN WRAPPER and people still keep ordering it. It's really not McDonald's fault at this point.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
How old are you? When I was 17 I could eat an entire pizza and a chipotle burrito bowl for lunch and not gain a pound. That's not genetics, that's just puberty. I can't do that anymore
And also, I am probably going to reiterate this in most of my posts in the thread, just because it's a disease doesn't absolve the patient of responsibility. If you want to cure any disease you're responsible for taking your medicine or changing your habits. Doctors will recommend diet and exercise and it is the patient's responsibility to follow through. Even appetite suppressants require dieting and discipline, they're just supplements to an existing change in behavior. Classifying obesity as a disease doesn't give fat people a free pass to just keep being fat.
I'm 21, but my dad is the same way (he eats healthy, but he didn't always and he never had to worry about his weight).
"Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately 1 in 3 Americans," said Dr. Patrice Harris, an AMA board member.
Is there no end to the weasel words in articles like this? The medical community isn't smart enough to tackle the complex issue unless it's officially voted on by a select few? Chock it up to sound bite culture.
"The greater urgency a disease label confers" also might boost support for obesity-prevention programs such as physical education initiatives and reforms to school lunch, the council added. In addition, it speculated that "employers may be required to cover obesity treatments for their employees and may be less able to discriminate on the basis of body weight."
What a dangerous reality for employers and hiring. They've already seen insurance policies begin their PPACA rise (estimated in my state to be 42% to 61% by 2014). Imagine where the increased costs for treating the chunky will end up.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Maybe fat people ARE hungry? Also, cake tastes good, man (unless it has coconut in the frosting, bleeegh). If you've had to force yourself to gain weight, then you probably have a really fast metabolism, which makes it easy for you to stay thin. Not everyone has a metabolism that is that fast, and may have to work just as hard to lose weight as you work to gain weight (or harder, even).
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
Physically: Hypothyroidism can be treated with hormone treatment. Cushing's Syndrome requires use of steroids for treatment. Both of those cause obesity, and in order to not gain weight with these conditions, you feel like you are constantly starving.
Psychologically: Depression may cause people to eat more. A rather common side-effect of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and a few others drugs used to treat psychological conditions is weight gain. There is such a thing as eating disorders as well.
These are all valid medical considerations, and can be treated.
Anorexia can be treated by eating more. Bulimia can be treated by not puking. Obesity can be treated by not being a lazy gluttonous fatass. The condescension towards people with psychological problems causing them to gain weight as opposed to losing weight is the massive bias people have in favor of skinny people over fat people.
To be fair, treating Anorexia and Bulimia isn't as simple as eating more and not puking. Often it requires psychoanalysis, and many times obesity does as well to determine the reason for certain eating habits, etc. However, it still doesn't absolve the individual, no matter their eating disorder, from seeking help and trying to get better.
This is such a shame and so horrible on so many levels.
It's the same how medical field is dehumanising, and alienating every -actual- disease with more and more complex names: most notably going from shellshock to post-traumatic stress disorder or combat stress action.
I guess that's not a popular opinion but this over-PC-fying of every little shit is really getting to me.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Maybe fat people ARE hungry? Also, cake tastes good, man (unless it has coconut in the frosting, bleeegh). If you've had to force yourself to gain weight, then you probably have a really fast metabolism, which makes it easy for you to stay thin. Not everyone has a metabolism that is that fast, and may have to work just as hard to lose weight as you work to gain weight (or harder, even).
You're repeating the same tired argument over and over again. No it's not fair that some people have to work harder to lose weight, but that's the way life works. Reality does not account for how hard it is for you to do something, and obese people shouldn't be absolved of any responsibility to get better because it's "hard."
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Maybe fat people ARE hungry? Also, cake tastes good, man (unless it has coconut in the frosting, bleeegh). If you've had to force yourself to gain weight, then you probably have a really fast metabolism, which makes it easy for you to stay thin. Not everyone has a metabolism that is that fast, and may have to work just as hard to lose weight as you work to gain weight (or harder, even).
It was hard for him to gain weight because he was exercising, meaning he was probably burning nearly as many calories as he consumed. Everything comes down to calories in and calories out. There is no human being in the world that can just generate mass without consuming a proportionate number calories. To pretend otherwise is to simply ignore basic fundamentals of thermodynamics. Find me such an individual and I'll show you a perpetual motion enginge.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
Being fat reveals a lot of character flaws.
I bet if you stopped showering people would also treat you differently.
Yes, but it's unfair because it is far easier for some people to remain skinny than for others, due to genetics. I'm not saying being fat is CAUSED by genetics, but genetics do set the "self discipline" requirement that you have to reach to remain skinny. As I said in another post, I was lucky enough to receive genetics that set my "self discipline" requirement to basically zero: I have the worst eating habits ever and I never ever seem to gain any weight. So why is it fair that I'm able to have poor self-discipline and not get judged on it, while some other guy with a similar amount of self-discipline (or lack thereof) gets judged and discriminated against for it?
Being fat and not doing anything about it is a sign you don't have any respect for yourself, if you don't respect yourself why should others?
Maybe people are comfortable with the way they are? That's never an option to some people it seems ...
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
How old are you? When I was 17 I could eat an entire pizza and a chipotle burrito bowl for lunch and not gain a pound. That's not genetics, that's just puberty. I can't do that anymore
And also, I am probably going to reiterate this in most of my posts in the thread, just because it's a disease doesn't absolve the patient of responsibility. If you want to cure any disease you're responsible for taking your medicine or changing your habits. Doctors will recommend diet and exercise and it is the patient's responsibility to follow through. Even appetite suppressants require dieting and discipline, they're just supplements to an existing change in behavior. Classifying obesity as a disease doesn't give fat people a free pass to just keep being fat.
I am 27 and I can still eat whatever and not gain weight. As long as I don't overstuff myself. I eat until I am content then stop. I am fairly certain most people would maintain their weight if they do this. Problem is, there are lots of things that make people eat when they aren't really hungry. Then there are also other things that happen inside the body which effects weight too. Example: My dad was like 130lb and 6' tall when he was 25ish, but he had a thyroid problem that went unchecked and he gained a lot of weight over a few years.
On June 21 2013 03:57 AnomalySC2 wrote: It's fast food restaurants and how our lives have become completely intertwined with them.
Fast food isn't so bad that it would cause mass obesity. It is overeating. It is unhealthy, sure... but not necessarily gigantic weight gain material.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Maybe fat people ARE hungry? Also, cake tastes good, man (unless it has coconut in the frosting, bleeegh). If you've had to force yourself to gain weight, then you probably have a really fast metabolism, which makes it easy for you to stay thin. Not everyone has a metabolism that is that fast, and may have to work just as hard to lose weight as you work to gain weight (or harder, even).
You're repeating the same tired argument over and over again. No it's not fair that some people have to work harder to lose weight, but that's the way life works. Reality does not account for how hard it is for you to do something, and obese people shouldn't be absolved of any responsibility to get better because it's "hard."
And society is there to help people who have it harder
"Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately 1 in 3 Americans," said Dr. Patrice Harris, an AMA board member.
Is there no end to the weasel words in articles like this? The medical community isn't smart enough to tackle the complex issue unless it's officially voted on by a select few? Chock it up to sound bite culture.
"The greater urgency a disease label confers" also might boost support for obesity-prevention programs such as physical education initiatives and reforms to school lunch, the council added. In addition, it speculated that "employers may be required to cover obesity treatments for their employees and may be less able to discriminate on the basis of body weight."
What a dangerous reality for employers and hiring. They've already seen insurance policies begin their PPACA rise (estimated in my state to be 42% to 61% by 2014). Imagine where the increased costs for treating the chunky will end up.
Have you ever tried, in a medical capacity, to convince someone that they should lose weight? He is completely correct that having obesity labeled as a disease will change the way the medical community tackle this. Being told you are so fat that you are straight up sick and if untreated you will die early tends to help getting through to people. People are weird like that.
On June 21 2013 04:06 Littlesheep wrote: Fat people are disgusting, stop eating so much you slobs.
User was warned for this post
warned only wth
Probably a first offense. He has under 100 posts so they probably assumed that he didn't know how things work here and decided to give him a chance to correct his behavior.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
25 here, I can still eat whatever and stay very slim. Right now I can't exercice, I'm eating a lot (healthy, mind you, but still lots of meat/eggs/nuts, and it's a recent habit, like only 2 weeks), I drink one or 2 beer a day, and I'm actually losing weight. 110 lbs right now for an average height. And it's annoying to be honest.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
Well... to be fair, I was consuming A LOT. Probably about $150-200 a week on gas station food/fast food. Mozzarella sticks, chicken tenders, two snack wraps, and a giant redbull was my lunch every day. Then two hours later I was at burger king getting two double whoppers and a coke. This went on for about a year and a half or so. It was like I was attempting my own version of Super-Size Me.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
Well... to be fair, I was consuming A LOT. Probably about $150-200 a week on gas station food/fast food. Mozzarella sticks, chicken tenders, two snack wraps, and a giant redbull was my lunch every day. Then two hours later I was at burger king getting two double whoppers and a coke. This went on for about a year and a half or so. It was like I was attempting my own version of Super-Size Me.
lol yes, the Burger King version of Supersize Me. It figures that they'd want to have their own version, to give them publicity.
Okay, that makes me feel a bit better. I'm more worried that I'll get diabetes than that I'll get obese, because you can get diabetes from eating a lot of sugar even if you aren't overweight.
My eating habits are just really irregular. I take adderall (for ADHD) and it fucks with my apetite a lot, making me forego food for a long time and then suddenly eat a whole bunch.
On June 21 2013 04:46 TheTenthDoc wrote: Wow. Surprised they didn't just stick with metabolic syndrome, most obese patients have either metabolic syndrome or are one risk factor away.
No. Most obese people have a problem with a shitty lifestyle coupled with eating too much. These would be solved by literally 20 minutes of activity a day along with eating less.
My current GF's mom has lupus as well as hyperthyroidism and is overweight. She used to be a paramedic, now she can barely stand up on days because of the pain. She doesn't eat for shit yet it looks like that's all she does. These rare cases exist but far too many claim their obesity is something out of their control.
This must be a national epidemic if 1 in 3 people in the country are "diseased". The simpler(and less phony) explanation is that the FOOD americans eat is obese and people are not active enough to balance it(and probably also eat too much of it), not that all of these people have contracted a fatness plague. You can argue the genetics side of it, but judging that the "disease rate" has climbed over time coincidentally with the proliferation of hilariously unhealthy food suggests a bit of undeniable causation.
What a fucking joke; this makes it pretty difficult to take anything said by the AMA seriously.
On June 21 2013 04:54 FragKrag wrote: insurance companies are going to have a fun time with this one...
Oh yes. I've never really understood how health insurance companies manage to make ANY profit, what with laws inhibiting their ability to do risk-assessment on potential customers. Not saying those laws are wrong, as everyone needs health insurance. Idk, insurance just confuses me @_@
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
Physically: Hypothyroidism can be treated with hormone treatment. Cushing's Syndrome requires use of steroids for treatment. Both of those cause obesity, and in order to not gain weight with these conditions, you feel like you are constantly starving.
Psychologically: Depression may cause people to eat more. A rather common side-effect of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and a few others drugs used to treat psychological conditions is weight gain. There is such a thing as eating disorders as well.
These are all valid medical considerations, and can be treated.
Anorexia can be treated by eating more. Bulimia can be treated by not puking. Obesity can be treated by not being a lazy gluttonous fatass. The condescension towards people with psychological problems causing them to gain weight as opposed to losing weight is the massive bias people have in favor of skinny people over fat people.
To be fair, treating Anorexia and Bulimia isn't as simple as eating more and not puking. Often it requires psychoanalysis, and many times obesity does as well to determine the reason for certain eating habits, etc. However, it still doesn't absolve the individual, no matter their eating disorder, from seeking help and trying to get better.
The problem with psychological disorders is that it requires an extraordinary effort to get help; otherwise they wouldn't develop into full-blown disorders. People in this thread saying "stop eating fatso" are the equivalent of people going to someone with clinical depression "nobody likes a whiny little bitch".
Some people are fat by choice. Those may even be the majority. But making such blanket statements is not much different from any other form of bias towards a group of people; at best, it's wildly insensitive.
On June 21 2013 04:57 sekritzzz wrote: I guess its time for the extremist "liberals" to force fat people to eat lettuce now. They pose a health risk to their surrounding!
LOL yeah, I can almost picture Mayor Bloomberg crafting his next piece of legislation.
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
I don't mean to be so hard on the people here, I know the TL community tend to be very sensitive and possibly more obese than your average sample population. Basically all I mean is that its unhealthy for people to carry extra weight, work on losing the weight instead of making excuses for it. Everyone will be better off if we don't accept the obesity trend as predestination.
On June 21 2013 05:00 a176 wrote: Can we be serious here?
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
Why is it necessary for us to differentiate between people who are, as you put it, "fat slobs", and people who have a disease? Why is it any of our business why a fat person is fat? Why do we always have to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in every aspect of life ever? It just seems mean.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a softy. It's just... Can't we all just get along?
On June 21 2013 04:57 sekritzzz wrote: I guess its time for the extremist "liberals" to force fat people to eat lettuce now. They pose a health risk to their surrounding!
How about just promote healthy lifestyles... For their own sake. If people show signs of not being able to control themselves in regards to anything, even if it's something perfectly healthy, can become a problem in extreme excess. The absolute freedom to choose what to do with your own body is paralleled with absolute responsibility for it, if you ruin your body completely of your own choice and understanding you've got no right to demand other people make concessions for you or that tax payers provide health services for you.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Maybe fat people ARE hungry? Also, cake tastes good, man (unless it has coconut in the frosting, bleeegh). If you've had to force yourself to gain weight, then you probably have a really fast metabolism, which makes it easy for you to stay thin. Not everyone has a metabolism that is that fast, and may have to work just as hard to lose weight as you work to gain weight (or harder, even).
You're repeating the same tired argument over and over again. No it's not fair that some people have to work harder to lose weight, but that's the way life works. Reality does not account for how hard it is for you to do something, and obese people shouldn't be absolved of any responsibility to get better because it's "hard."
And society is there to help people who have it harder
Agreed. We can help them by giving them the motivation and wherewithal to get better, not by patronizing them and telling them that it is OK to have 6,000 calories a day. You don't help someone with alcoholism or drug addiction, two very similar diseases to obesity, by looking the other way while they consume more drugs and alcohol because it's hard for them to stop.
On June 21 2013 05:00 a176 wrote: Can we be serious here?
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
Why is it necessary for us to differentiate between people who are, as you put it, "fat slobs", and people who have a disease? Why is it any of our business why a fat person is fat? Why do we always have to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in every aspect of life ever? It just seems mean.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a softy. It's just... Can't we all just get along?
It's becomes our business when it's declared a disease that is covered by insurance/medicaid. That is our money paying for their "treatment".
On June 21 2013 05:07 Kinon wrote: It's weird to have obesity in the same category with Hodgkin's disease, for example.
They're in the same category like a tree and a human are both categorically "living things." Are you seriously comparing obesity to cancer? Do you seriously think that's what the AMA is doing?
Being overweight is not so much a disease as it is a sign of overabundance in everyday life imo. Putting obesity in the same basket as cancer or alzheimers doesn't sit right with me. It is an effect of external variables and no more worrying to me than death from hypothermia. We let people do lots of stupid things that will ultimately hurt them, why is this different? It is not so much a medical issue as a cultural one. Medical issues might lead to obesity though, but that is besides the point. Correlation does not imply causation.
What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
On June 21 2013 05:00 a176 wrote: Can we be serious here?
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
Why is it necessary for us to differentiate between people who are, as you put it, "fat slobs", and people who have a disease? Why is it any of our business why a fat person is fat? Why do we always have to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in every aspect of life ever? It just seems mean.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a softy. It's just... Can't we all just get along?
because if nothing else it's bad from an efficiency point of view? Why should a certain population get to overconsume when other parts of the population are starving?
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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.
I can confirm this. I have an uncle who became obese over a period of about a year, and then went on a big diet and managed to lose all the weight.
When he became lean again, he said it was remarkable how differently people treat you when you're overweight. He's had the same job through all of it so he didn't experience hiring practices during the ordeal, but he did experience how society in general treats fat people differently.
And that's completely understandable. Being obese doesn't inherently make you incompetent at your job, assuming it's not physical labor, but if I'm interviewing two individuals who look the same on paper but one is obese and one isn't, I can infer that the obese individual doesn't take care of his body and may have health issues. I'm making a long-term investment in this employee, why would I go with him over the other guy? It shouldn't be the sole factor in a hiring decision, that would be silly, but people would be lying if they told you it wasn't a factor like everything else you notice about the person, i.e. hygiene, dress, eye contact, level of comfort, vocabulary, eloquence, etc.
Or maybe the skinny person just has a metabolism that burns up absolutely everything they eat at lightning speed, while the fat person has an inferior metabolism that actually punishes them for their poor lifestyle choices.
This doesn't actually exist, outside of maybe an extremely small part of the population, or people who have some serious metabolic disorders where there are more signs and symptoms than just obesity. Research shows that people who claim they "barely eat anything and gain weight" overeat way more than they think they do, and the people who claim they eat 3,000 calories for lunch but can't gain weight are probably eating about half that and almost nothing else throughout the day. I've gone through long periods of counting my calories for dieting/bulking and eating 3000 calories is INSANELY simple even if you aren't eating junk food.
You can talk about how people may have naturally more receptors for this or that chemical, how the reward center of their brain has some sort of anomaly, etc. but "I'm not eating a lot, I just have a slow metabolism" is almost always just straight up delusion based on anecdotes.
On June 21 2013 05:00 a176 wrote: Can we be serious here?
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
Why is it necessary for us to differentiate between people who are, as you put it, "fat slobs", and people who have a disease? Why is it any of our business why a fat person is fat? Why do we always have to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in every aspect of life ever? It just seems mean.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a softy. It's just... Can't we all just get along?
Because, regardless of what you think, when obesity reaches the levels that it has in this country, the excuse of "I choose to be fat, and it doesn't affect anyone else so that's OK" doesn't really fly anymore. The "Americans are fat slobs" stereotype not only pervades other countries' opinions of us, but our entertainment industry, how we are marketed to, what our public medical funding and research is allocated towards, and the overall happiness of the population. If you think that a third of the U.S. population being obese is only of a concern to that third of the U.S. population, you are wrong. It affects everyone. All you have to do is turn on a popular cable TV channel and see how many ads there are for fast food, soda, and beer. These things are all tasty when consumed in moderation, but they're not marketing them towards people capable of moderation, because Coca Cola makes their money off of the people who have a Diet Coke with their breakfast.
If a person truly is a hermit, and never communicates or comes in contact with another human being, ever, then he might be able to get away with the excuse that bad habit X is ok because it doesn't affect anyone but himself. But in today's age, it's simply not true for the vast majority of people.
On June 21 2013 05:00 a176 wrote: Can we be serious here?
There are obviously people who live with physical disorders they cannot control that leads to weight gain. I'm pretty sure no one has a problem with that.
And then there are obviously people who literally don't give a shit either way and are truly, fat slobs. The question is, in your mind, what % of people are actually living with a disease, or are actually lazy? In my mind, I tend to believe the latter.
On that note, we can also let them pretend cardiovascular diseases have absolutely no relation to living an overweight, unhealthy lifestyle.
Why is it necessary for us to differentiate between people who are, as you put it, "fat slobs", and people who have a disease? Why is it any of our business why a fat person is fat? Why do we always have to pick "good guys" and "bad guys" in every aspect of life ever? It just seems mean.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm a softy. It's just... Can't we all just get along?
When you start losing friends and family members to preventable CVD conditions (heart attack, stroke, etc), you start making it your business.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I cringe when someone on an airplane asks for a seatbelt extender. I don't know if I would be able to do it. I would feel so ashamed.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
Almost the same, except for the fact that secondhand smoke does cause some rather nasty externalities. Although probably not as severely judged because you can't always tell that someone is a smoker by their appearance.
My perspective on this subject is mixed. On the one hand it's easy to say "just eat healthier" or "stop eating" and condemn fat people for their "lifestyle mistakes." On the other hand, I'm 6' and weigh about 135-140 lbs, I do make a general effort to eat in a balanced way, but there have definitely been points in my life (high school) where, had I not been blessed with a ridiculous metabolism, my consistent diet of Baconators and Jalapeno Thickburgers would have surely made me overweight. There is no diet that works for everyone, and you are asking a portion of the population to deprive themselves of things that others can enjoy regularly, which I can understand would be frustrating. I think, like contraception, this is something that just needs to be given greater (and earlier) exposure to increase effectiveness and general awareness.
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I just don't get how people can continue to throw out "I don't like fat people". Get over yourselves. Not everyone is cut from the same cloth and not everyone makes the same choices that you do. Someone CAN be fat and still lead a pretty active lifestyle. For you to say that 99% of fat people are just lazy is ridiculous. The only time it's okay to be lazy is if you're thin?
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I cringe when someone on an airplane asks for a seatbelt extender. I don't know if I would be able to do it. I would feel so ashamed.
Awhile back, Southwest decided to start forcing obese customers to purchase two tickets.
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I cringe when someone on an airplane asks for a seatbelt extender. I don't know if I would be able to do it. I would feel so ashamed.
Remember that fat lady who died of liver failure (or something similar) while on vacation in Eastern Europe? The husband tried suing the flight company that rejected her emergency flight because they couldn't accommodate her fat ass. Imagine if that had happened AFTER fat-assery was declared a disease. Oh boy....
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I just don't get how people can continue to throw out "I don't like fat people". Get over yourselves. Not everyone is cut from the same cloth and not everyone makes the same choices that you do. Someone CAN be fat and still lead a pretty active lifestyle. For you to say that 99% of fat people are just lazy is ridiculous. The only time it's okay to be lazy is if you're thin?
Nah i dont mean fat, i mean obese people, like really obese. I have nothing against someone being just "fat" or a bit bigger. Should have wrote that right away, my bad.
On June 21 2013 05:19 NukeD wrote: I dont know, I do believe some of these people actually do have certain gland and hormonal issues that causes them to gain weight, but in like 99% cases its a laziness depression sort of thing. No way its a disease, absolutely no way.
I dont like fat people and I consider them to have weak character. Especially the ones who complain about their weight and want people to feel sorry bout them. Yuck
I cringe when someone on an airplane asks for a seatbelt extender. I don't know if I would be able to do it. I would feel so ashamed.
Remember that fat lady who died of liver failure (or something similar) while on vacation in Eastern Europe? The husband tried suing the flight company that rejected her emergency flight because they couldn't accommodate her fat ass. Imagine if that had happened AFTER fat-assery was declared a disease. Oh boy....
That would have been a nightmare for the airline involved. And on a side note, it goes to show you the kind of world we live in when you know that if that had happened, the guy would have ended up a millionaire. Ugh.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
If people were this upfront about it I wouldn't mind either. It is just that your exact words could be used to defend obesity and do a pretty good job at it:
"That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason."
If irrationality in regards to personal health is to be frowned upon, then it would be highly ironic to not also scrutinise the very behaviour that makes us frown in the first place.
On June 21 2013 05:30 Elairec wrote: "fat-assery" Jesus any thread relating to obesity on this forum just turns into a shitfest
Did you expect otherwise? It's a condition that can be "easily" remedied by most of the people suffering from it. When they don't, people are going to judge them for it. Whether it be on this forum, on another, or in real life. Most of the things I have read in this thread I have heard from people that I know. Sad but true.
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.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
What happend to "obesity is an epidemic, but its not a disease!" Person on first page from israel said it right, if annything it is a sympton and not a disease. Odd the medical society labels it as a disease, you would think that at least they would aply the correct terminology so that they could start the correct treatment.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
Yeah but u dont have like 450 lbs. Thats the thread topic here.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
An interesting sidenote, smoking actually makes you less hungry. I have several friends who picked up smoking again because they would gain lots of weight upon quitting.
I don't mind smokers. I don't mind people who do other drugs either. The reason I don't is because I forced myself to accept it. I would either have to scorn all substance abuse, and consequently scorn myself for drinking alcohol, or view choices of people as equally valid even if objectively bad.
I also think that being negative toward people for being anything is less helpful than being positive to them trying to stop. Positive reinforcement and all that. A simple change of tone/wording would go a long way in my oppinon.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
So long as you're willing to deal with how other people will judge you for it, no problem here.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
Yeah but u dont have like 450 lbs. Thats the thread topic here.
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.
No, you're delusional. Having a "fantastic body" like you're talking about is NOT possible for a majority of people. Yes, being healthy is entirely possible for almost everyone, but that "perfect body" isn't.
Also, many people ARE lucky to be born with a very high metabolism, even if people do (ignorantly) credit your great shape to metabolism and not your work.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
An interesting sidenote, smoking actually makes you less hungry. I have several friends who picked up smoking again because they would gain lots of weight upon quitting.
I don't mind smokers. I don't mind people who do other drugs either. The reason I don't is because I forced myself to accept it. I would either have to scorn all substance abuse, and consequently scorn myself for drinking alcohol, or view choices of people as equally valid even if objectively bad.
I also think that being negative toward people for being anything is less helpful than being positive to them trying to stop. Positive reinforcement and all that. A simple change of tone/wording would go a long way in my oppinon.
Smoking actually had the opposite effect on me. I caused massive heartburn which made me eat more and more to try and find something to stifle the pain. Quitting smoking is actually what helped me lose weight.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
Yeah but u dont have like 450 lbs. Thats the thread topic here.
No it's not. "Obesity", as classified by these organizations, includes myself. It's because of that classification that obesity is an "epidemic". Despite the views of the 'murica haters, no, the US isn't filled with 70%+ 450lb behemoths. If you're 40lbs overweight, you get stuck with the "obese" tag, and become a statistic.
On June 21 2013 05:39 Rassy wrote: What happend to "obesity is an epidemic, but its not a disease!" Person on first page from israel said it right, if annything it is a sympton and not a disease. Odd the medical society labels it as a disease, you would think that at least they would aply the correct terminology so that they could start the correct treatment.
Keep in mind how much the community profits from selling drugs to treat diseases.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
Yeah but u dont have like 450 lbs. Thats the thread topic here.
No it's not. "Obesity", as classified by these organizations, includes myself. It's because of that classification that obesity is an "epidemic". Despite the views of the 'murica haters, no, the US isn't filled with 70%+ 450lb behemoths. If you're 40lbs overweight, you get stuck with the "obese" tag, and become a statistic.
My english sucks more than I tought. I tought obese meant like really fat as 350+ lbs.
No, you're delusional. Having a "fantastic body" like you're talking about is NOT possible for a majority of people. Yes, being healthy is entirely possible for almost everyone, but that "perfect body" isn't.
Also, many people ARE lucky to be born with a very high metabolism, even if people do (ignorantly) credit your great shape to metabolism and not your work.
Metabolism is nice, but it's maybe 5% at most of what it takes to look great. I worked in a high end gym for many years when I was younger and saw a LOT of VERY overweight people completely change the way they looked. I saw countless people go from ~30%+ body fat to 12-18% and become wayyyyyyy more ripped than I am due to their dedication. People going from 280-330lbs down to 190-220 and looking and feeling great. Eating right and exercise under proper direction by professionals will achieve startling results every single time. There are very VERY few people who can't look DAMN good by even hollywood standards if you actually put in the work. No matter how you cut it, being overweight is a choice. I've seen the transformation in too many people with my own eyes too many times to think otherwise.
Some peoples bodies store more fat than others on the modern diet. People who are fat need to eat a caveman diet. Gary Taubes book goes through the science. Him lecturing @ Google
No, you're delusional. Having a "fantastic body" like you're talking about is NOT possible for a majority of people. Yes, being healthy is entirely possible for almost everyone, but that "perfect body" isn't.
Also, many people ARE lucky to be born with a very high metabolism, even if people do (ignorantly) credit your great shape to metabolism and not your work.
Metabolism is nice, but it's maybe 5% at most of what it takes to look great. I worked in a high end gym for many years when I was younger and saw a LOT of VERY overweight people completely change the way they looked. I saw countless people go from ~30%+ body fat to 12-18% and become wayyyyyyy more ripped than I am due to their dedication. People going from 280-330lbs down to 190-220 and looking and feeling great. Eating right and exercise under proper direction by professionals will achieve startling results every single time. There are very VERY few people who can't look DAMN good by even hollywood standards if you actually put in the work. No matter how you cut it, being overweight is a choice. I've seen the transformation in too many people with my own eyes too many times to think otherwise.
Everyone is capable of getting a run, but some people are born on third base. Others have to go through the effort of hitting a triple.
Maybe labeling it as a disease is not that weird. If you consider obesity to be an eating adiction (for the majority of the people , thoose who have verry bad metabolism or other physical thing excluded off course) and consider an adiction to be a disease it makes kinda sense i guess.
No, you're delusional. Having a "fantastic body" like you're talking about is NOT possible for a majority of people. Yes, being healthy is entirely possible for almost everyone, but that "perfect body" isn't.
Also, many people ARE lucky to be born with a very high metabolism, even if people do (ignorantly) credit your great shape to metabolism and not your work.
Metabolism is nice, but it's maybe 5% at most of what it takes to look great. I worked in a high end gym for many years when I was younger and saw a LOT of VERY overweight people completely change the way they looked. I saw countless people go from ~30%+ body fat to 12-18% and become wayyyyyyy more ripped than I am due to their dedication. People going from 280-330lbs down to 190-220 and looking and feeling great. Eating right and exercise under proper direction by professionals will achieve startling results every single time. There are very VERY few people who can't look DAMN good by even hollywood standards if you actually put in the work. No matter how you cut it, being overweight is a choice. I've seen the transformation in too many people with my own eyes too many times to think otherwise.
Everyone is capable of getting a run, but some people are born on third base. Others have to go through the effort of hitting a triple.
Now now. They're not people that have to go through more effort. They're suffering from a disease. They need that great triple: a cure for their disease.
I'm not overweight but recently Ive undergone a "spartan" diet consisting of whole rice 3 times a day during 5 days and supplementary whole rice "cookies" for snacks in between if youre hungry , the last 2 days you started to add some vapor cooked vegetables too)
the process was hard and at first your body gets headache from the lack of sugar (think desintoxication) but after 2 days i felt fuckin great , my body felt agile and my mind quick to react.
of course this was planned along my nutrition consultant (she advised me to do it as its good for the liver) but the best thing i took from it is realising with how little you can make a day and how most of the things we eat have sugar in one way or another , and the one telling you this was a guy (me) who put like 3 spoons of sugar in every coffee.
we eat to fill needs that we create to ourselves , its not that were hungry most of the time ; what most people with overweight needs is education about food and diet , and be willing to learn.
On June 21 2013 06:03 ROOTFayth wrote: is it a psychological disease?
Obesity is not, but the eating disorders that can cause it are. If you are treating an eating disorder, you need psychoanalysis. If you're treating obesity, you need diet, exercise, and possibly psychoanalysis as well to get the other two under control.
On June 21 2013 05:12 Fenris420 wrote: What worries me is how easily some will judge fat people simply for being fat. Who cares why or whether it is possibly to avoid it? The underlying point is that people have different priorities, which is sort of obvious considering how easy it is to stay fit if you prefer that over other things. To me, bashing fat people is the same kind of intolerance as any other bashing of a group of people. I don't get it.
That's just human nature, which is hardly going to just change without reason. It doesn't help that individuals have some influence over their weight, compared to race and such. Makes it slightly more publicly permissible. Either way, it's human nature to judge people based on appearances, and that's not changing.
Im just interested, whats your opinion on smokers?
The parallels to smoking stick in my mind as well. Smoking is already intensely discouraged and regulated, and the lung cancer it causes is treated as a disease. I think cigarettes and shitty food are very similar in their addictive and health ruining effects. I wonder if they can or should be eradicated in the same manner.
But that's the thing, you can't get rid of lung cancer by running 4 miles a day. Yeah, I'm a fattie and I smoke (although trying to quit, kinda), and I'm well aware what I have to do to lose it and keep it off, and frankly yes, I'd rather be inside playing Magic or LoL or what the fuck ever else I want to do then getting up and sweating my ass off. I did 5 years of that sort of shit in the Army and it bored me to death. Sure, I was down to 155 and could run 10 miles no problem, but it's far more enjoyable to be 220 and sitting on my ass.
Not sure what the point of this is in response to the person you quoted. You're an overweight smoker and instead of being active you prefer playing video games. That's pretty much the stereotype of what makes someone become obese; you don't want to put in the effort to be healthy and prefer easy comforts. It's an unattractive attitude to many, and I find it justified. You might be perfectly fine with it, but people can still judge you for these negative personality traits without it being some terrible, crippling bias against your civil rights (not that you are, but others are saying this).
No, you're delusional. Having a "fantastic body" like you're talking about is NOT possible for a majority of people. Yes, being healthy is entirely possible for almost everyone, but that "perfect body" isn't.
Also, many people ARE lucky to be born with a very high metabolism, even if people do (ignorantly) credit your great shape to metabolism and not your work.
Metabolism is nice, but it's maybe 5% at most of what it takes to look great. I worked in a high end gym for many years when I was younger and saw a LOT of VERY overweight people completely change the way they looked. I saw countless people go from ~30%+ body fat to 12-18% and become wayyyyyyy more ripped than I am due to their dedication. People going from 280-330lbs down to 190-220 and looking and feeling great. Eating right and exercise under proper direction by professionals will achieve startling results every single time. There are very VERY few people who can't look DAMN good by even hollywood standards if you actually put in the work. No matter how you cut it, being overweight is a choice. I've seen the transformation in too many people with my own eyes too many times to think otherwise.
Everyone is capable of getting a run, but some people are born on third base. Others have to go through the effort of hitting a triple.
Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
On June 21 2013 06:03 Meatloaf wrote: I'm not overweight but recently Ive undergone a "spartan" diet consisting of whole rice 3 times a day during 5 days and supplementary whole rice "cookies" for snacks in between if youre hungry , the last 2 days you started to add some vapor cooked vegetables too)
the process was hard and at first your body gets headache from the lack of sugar (think desintoxication) but after 2 days i felt fuckin great , my body felt agile and my mind quick to react.
of course this was planned along my nutrition consultant (she advised me to do it as its good for the liver) but the best thing i took from it is realising with how little you can make a day and how most of the things we eat have sugar in one way or another , and the one telling you this was a guy (me) who put like 3 spoons of sugar in every coffee.
we eat to fill needs that we create to ourselves , its not that were hungry most of the time ; what most people with overweight needs is education about food and diet , and be willing to learn.
What do you mean with your body having headaches ? I've been cutting sugar pretty much altogether (some fruits every few days and that's it) and I've been getting weird pains in tendons and ligaments.
- There is growing evidence that once you are obese/eat unhealthy for whatever reason, it can get exponentially more difficult to stop eating. "It is similar to what happens with chronic drug abuse." This is only made worse by how companies are scientifically designing food to be addictive to the brain (dozens of articles on this subject). I remember hearing a more recent article than this one on NPR this year but I can't find it atm.
I'd be really interested in getting the opinion of somebody who is overweight (and trying to lose weight) AND who is addicted to something, like drugs or alcohol (and trying to drop it). How similar are they in difficulty? While the "withdrawals" of eating less may not be as volatile (simply feeling funny) are they as powerful a motivator to get back on?
Personally I think the strongest argument that can be given to an obese person is the life/death one. Considering the dangers of heart disease/attacks/diabetes, if you can convince somebody that they are losing weight to save their life then they have that extra motivation when they don't want to get on the treadmill or want to get that burger.
On June 21 2013 06:19 crazyweasel wrote: Capitalism made people obese, obesity is a disease, therefore capitalism is a disease.
This is some terrible logic, even by general forum standards. As for capitalism causing disease, obesity makes people less productive, so there is an economic incentive against it. Capitalism doesn't like inefficiency...
On June 21 2013 06:21 Striborg wrote: Is there somewhere I can petition to make alcoholism a disease? I don't want to feel left out.
I though alcoholism already was considered a disease.
it is by AMA standards.
"The American Medical Association (AMA) had declared that alcoholism was an illness in 1956. In 1991, The AMA further endorsed the dual classification of alcoholism by the International Classification of Diseases under both psychiatric and medical sections."
On June 21 2013 06:03 Meatloaf wrote: I'm not overweight but recently Ive undergone a "spartan" diet consisting of whole rice 3 times a day during 5 days and supplementary whole rice "cookies" for snacks in between if youre hungry , the last 2 days you started to add some vapor cooked vegetables too)
the process was hard and at first your body gets headache from the lack of sugar (think desintoxication) but after 2 days i felt fuckin great , my body felt agile and my mind quick to react.
of course this was planned along my nutrition consultant (she advised me to do it as its good for the liver) but the best thing i took from it is realising with how little you can make a day and how most of the things we eat have sugar in one way or another , and the one telling you this was a guy (me) who put like 3 spoons of sugar in every coffee.
we eat to fill needs that we create to ourselves , its not that were hungry most of the time ; what most people with overweight needs is education about food and diet , and be willing to learn.
What do you mean with your body having headaches ? I've been cutting sugar pretty much altogether (some fruits every few days and that's it) and I've been getting weird pains in tendons and ligaments.
I got this crazy headache the first two days , my Nutritionist said because of the diet making my blood pressure lower.
didnt got pains in wrists or nothing but my GF did have pain in the articulations sometimes , it really must depend on the person how the sugarless diet affects you the first days.
think that I went from sugar everyday (and i used to take a lot of it!) to none... no fruit , no nothing so the first days were hell.
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote: Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
You may be right, but sources are a good thing in a thread like this.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote: Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
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
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:19 crazyweasel wrote: Capitalism made people obese, obesity is a disease, therefore capitalism is a disease.
Many poor populations have been fat eating less than 2000 calories a day.
Um, what? No.
Obesity rates correlate fairly strongly with how rich/developed a country is.
Although I'm pretty sure his point about capitalism was a joke.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote: Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote: Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
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/
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!
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.
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).
On June 21 2013 06:19 crazyweasel wrote: Capitalism made people obese, obesity is a disease, therefore capitalism is a disease.
Many poor populations have been fat eating less than 2000 calories a day.
Um, what? No.
Obesity rates correlate fairly strongly with how rich/developed a country is.
Although I'm pretty sure his point about capitalism was a joke.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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'
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.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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?"
It's more of a psychological "disease" than a physical one. My close friend is morbidly obese, and the way he explained it to me was that he feels like he is addicted to food, specifically junk food. So while I don't necessarily buy the whole "oh, I have a disease and therefore I am excused in eating whatever blah blah," I do think that we have to consider what others are going through, and that tearing them down is not going to solve the problem one bit.
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.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
In my experience, those immune from gaining weight are not immune from diabetes and friends.
A disease is an abnormal condition that affects the body of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs.[1] It may be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases usually affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with many diseases can alter one's perspective on life, and their personality.
Good grief wtf is wrong with people and being so ready to pass judgement? Growing up, I don't think we could have been more healthy or responsible with our eating habits, yet my parents were slightly obese and my mother acquired diabetes. This isn't exclusive to poor families, or fast food junkies... there are serious issued with nutrition in the US. Monoculture and processed foods with artificial preservatives are the alternative to a Big Mac and you want to blame the consumer? Just wow.
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!
You jumped onto the anti-carb train. Carbs are good. It's just that protein is more filling. Honestly, everyone should read what this guy is writing: http://www.leangains.com
The only thing that people (who go low-carb ) do right is increasing the amount of protein they eat. That doesn't make carbs bad, it just means you had bad eating habits before.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
In my experience, those immune from gaining weight are not immune from diabetes and friends.
Yeah lol, I have slowed down a lot. And my mom fed me good healthy food nearly every night. The baconators were fun but usually it was a shit ton of homecooked well balanced goodness. I love my momma!
On June 21 2013 03:46 farvacola wrote: This opens up a whole new can of worms insofar as discriminatory hiring practices and obesity are concerned.
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'
And now that it's officially a "disease", employers looking to hire someone will shy away from obese people because they are now "protected". Any obese employee who becomes disgruntled can file against the employer for discrimination against their obesity, when it more likely simply because they weren't a good employee. Knowing this, employers can pre-emptively just not hire them in the first place.
Sounds like a way to shift the focus off of the food industry. So me and my ex-wife would eat one meal a day in the States (not even fast food), then return to Italy and eat three times a day- and pasta (often the only meal we would eat per day in the States) would just be the first course for dinner... and we LOST WEIGHT in Italy. Were we just diseased in America then?
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Everyone can control their obesity. It's simply a matter of caloric intake.
Physically: Hypothyroidism can be treated with hormone treatment. Cushing's Syndrome requires use of steroids for treatment. Both of those cause obesity, and in order to not gain weight with these conditions, you feel like you are constantly starving.
Psychologically: Depression may cause people to eat more. A rather common side-effect of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, and a few others drugs used to treat psychological conditions is weight gain. There is such a thing as eating disorders as well.
These are all valid medical considerations, and can be treated.
Anorexia can be treated by eating more. Bulimia can be treated by not puking. Obesity can be treated by not being a lazy gluttonous fatass. The condescension towards people with psychological problems causing them to gain weight as opposed to losing weight is the massive bias people have in favor of skinny people over fat people.
Anorexia and bulimia are specific mental disorders. People do not get diagnosed with anorexia just because they are underweight. The goal of treatment is in fact to get them to "eat more" (or rather, have healthy eating habits).
If this supposed disease were gluttony, you might have a point. That way it would be clear that the primary symptom is eating too much, and the goal of treatment would be to reduce food consumption.
The bias here actually seems to be in favour of obese people. With anorexia there is no need to dance around the issue. We all acknowledge that the goal of treatment is to have them eat more. Yet with obesity to even mention that they need to eat less causes people to be offended and make indignant posts like yours.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
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/
Simple, but accurate.
Someone can avoid any changes in the types of food they eat and still lose weight just by counting calories (and consequently eating less). Avoiding high calorie low nutrition food like carbohydrates can help meet goals but at the core of it reduction in total calories is what counts.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract.
Would "not extracting calories from the food" qualify as a black hole? A partially efficient metabolism is perfectly plausible.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote: I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote: Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
pretty sure both eating less and increased exercise both work.
generally you get thinner as you are starved to death or worked to death...
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract.
Would "not extracting calories from the food" qualify as a black hole? A partially efficient metabolism is perfectly plausible.
If you've got incomplete catabolism then you've got a LOT of problems, especially when you start shitting out food that hasn't been broken down.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
Same, and now I'm trying to put on weight to get to a reasonably healthy level, and I realise just how hard it is for someone used to running on 1100~ calories to more than double your daily intake consistently.
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote: I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote: I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
I was born in a log cabin I built myself. Why can't more people be like that?
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
Mh you guys really got me thinking. And I think you're right. I mean, I do eat a lot 3 times a day plus some snacks, but all in all it's mostly vegetables. Today was like 4 bacon stripes, 3 eggs, ~150gr of chicken, fistfull of almond. Some rice and a shitton of veggies. Almost no exercice since a week now, lost around 3-4kgs. I'm gonna up the quantities and see how that goes, especially as my wrist will soon be healed (fina-fucking-lly). Time to crush that belief about metabolism I guess. Edit : oh wow, almost a blog post that is >< Guess by detailing what I ate I am asking those who know about how much calories that is.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought.
Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man.
I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day.
Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Fat people just eat more than thin people, how is that being lazy?
I know a lot of fat people who regularly go to the gym, but fail to lose weight because after the gym they shove down a truckload of food, essentially making the gym useless even though it still does build muscle.
And really on topic, if you want to lose weight, you don't have to cut down all that much on your eating. Calculate how much you eat per day, usually, say you eat 3000calories/day, first just reduce it by 200 or something, and drop the amount you eat by a few hundred every week, go to the shop AFTER you eat, so you won't be hungry in there and be tempted to buy more stuff. It will take some time, and picking up gym does help by a great deal if you stick to your calorie amount, when you think about it, it doesnt even require much discipline. If you have trouble, just have your friend throw all the sweets and sodas and candies in the carbage for you and check regularly if you're slipping, it's much easier when somebody's looking out for you.
You will want to start eating again, you will think "Being fat can't be THAT bad now can it?" and well honestly it's not all that bad, it's up to you, but losing weight improves your self-esteem and makes you feel... Lighter, and if you just can, get someone to either diet with you, or even more preferably someone who has lost weight and knows how hard disclipline can sometimes be to help you. I've been there, it helps, alot.
Also, you will need to want to lose weight, back before I started, my parents were pushing me for it and everytime they tried to talk to me about it I would say "Why? I don't mind being fat." Because I really didn't give a shit about how much I weighted, until I got my first girlfriend and wanted to look good for her, and in the process of doing that realized that it also helps me.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Hm, will wait to see the actual impact of this classification before passing too much judgement.
Instinctively, I am rather against this. Obesity is, like somebody else put it, an observable condition that may be caused by a shitload of differing underlying medical conditions or lifestyle choices. To classify it as a disease seems strange, in that it could standardise something and how it is treated, when it's not a good candidate for such broad strokes being applied.
Additionally, I see this as potentially an extension of what's happening with the US system and mental health conditions and the prescription drug culture. There is rife overdiagnosis of mental health problems, and subsequently drugs intended to regulate such conditions, because there is a commercial imperative in various parts of the overall system to over-medicate.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
'Political correctness industry', as you put it is creating the conditions of 'tolerance' that cultural shifts towards an abdication of personal responsibility.
Big pharma and the food industry are going to love it.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Reverse situation here... I can't just wing it with losing weight. If I eat as much as I want, I'm about keeping my weight, but it creeps up slowly over the months and years. I guess this happens mostly because of alcohol. In a way, calculating EVERYTHING about the meals and drinks and cooking myself seems like the easiest way for me to go about losing weight. This means a plan that sets everything that will be eaten in a week, and nothing outside of that plan. It counts every table spoon of oil involved in cooking, every apple as a snack, etc.
In experiments with modifying that plan about food for the week, I didn't see any changes when using different amounts of carbohydrates, fat, proteins and alcohol... it was always the calories that determined my weight over time. Fast food and frozen food also didn't seem different, the calories mentioned on the box worked just like home-made food when planning.
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote: I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
Calling other people "lazy slobs" wasn't insulting to others, though? You're a funny little hypocrite. I think it's a little ridiculous how the majority of people on this thread seem to think people are either 100% lazy and irresponsible, or not at all. As if there's no grey area or that genetics don't affect things. I can agree that hard work can generally overwhelm other factors. But I still think you're scum to speak so condescendingly to other people. Too bad your parents never taught you respect.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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?"
...So let me get this straight. It's a random nitpick to say that maximum oxygen uptake increase from aerobic activity isn't related to a genetic cause behind metabolism to the point it gives some people a massive advantage in weight loss/weight gain? It's a random nitpick to say that another link isn't relevant to anything? It's a random nitpick to say that HIIT temporarily increasing your metabolism isn't related to a genetic cause behind metabolism in regards to weight loss/weight gain? There's obviously some differences in obese people with hormone function + neurological/psychological differences for things like reward centers and satiety, but that's completely different than claiming you barely eat anything and still can't lose weight, or you eat 5000 calories a day and can't gain weight. And it's nearly impossible to say
And um, yes, anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. I also not to tend to believe in ghost stories and people who claim they've seen angels with haloes.
Those aren't nitpicks, it's called having some basic scientific logic behind what you believe in. Unlike you, I don't allow myself to get convinced of a viewpoint because a BBC article informs me a small group of skinny people ate a lot of ice cream and gained different amounts of weight. I try to actually, you know, verify it makes sense.
And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
On June 21 2013 03:49 Fruscainte wrote: On the one hand this is going to increase awareness of it and make a much more proactive effort by the medical community to combat this. It's no longer a symptom or a potential cause of greater harm, it is now scientifically accepted as being inherently harmful. Hopefully this will encourage doctors to be far more persistent in their patients losing health and hopefully a lot more effort by people to lose their weight.
On the other hand, we're going to get tens of thousands of overweight people who now have a reason to stay fat because they have a DISEASE and how can they help it.
Overall this is good though. Still can't understand why they use BMI though. I've been with four personal physicians my entire life and every single one said BMI is a load of crap, Bodyfat % is what I should base my health after they recommend.
People don't want to have any diseases, this is 100% the right move. And no, for the vast majority of the population the BMI correctly predicts morbidity and mortality increase. It is also very practical and easy to understand for most people. Finally, the body fat % isn't too useful, because morbidity and mortality rates are more closely related to visceral fat, which isn't correctly assessed by fat %, something much simpler, abdominal circumference, has a much better correlation with poor outcomes in most patients.
On June 21 2013 08:23 Heavenlee wrote: And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
So you don't provide evidence to the contrary, and you think any evidence for this position is insufficient? ...well there's nothing more to be said here, is there?
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate. [/QUOTE]
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
On June 21 2013 08:23 Heavenlee wrote: And why would I provide evidence to the contrary? I wasn't the one making any claim. I make almost no claims in regard to human biochemistry or nutrition. How can you possibly make a valid claim about something that can't actually be observed in progress? At best you could do some sort of longitudinal study since birth of a massive group of people, find people that seem to be the exact same level of weight, height, body fat measured with an accurate enough system like water immersion, fitness level, and health, then try to do a control group and an experimental group. But you still would be unable to tell whether there is some genetic difference in metabolism.
So you don't provide evidence to the contrary, and you think any evidence for this position is insufficient? ...well there's nothing more to be said here, is there?
Not really. What evidence do you want me to provide? And yes, I think most evidence is insufficient, but you could try and provide me an actual paper that would begin to minorly convince me in that direction, sure. I've been looking for the Ethan Sims paper but there is no actual publication of it I can find.
And there is nothing more to say here because the claim was stupid to make in the first place. That's the point. If you think my methods of trying to determine whether a claim is valid or not are "nitpicky" and ridiculous, then you can just continue believing whatever you hear just because. Oh, by the way, peanut butter causes cancer. And aspartame does too. And chocolate. And bananas. Vaccines cause autism. Blood is blue. Pluto is a planet. lalala
Fucking shit, if this seriously starts a reassessment of insurance coverage in the states I'd get a good laugh about it. It will just a matter of how long. I went to my Rheumatologist today and passed a cardiologist's office in the lobby. There could not possibly have been anyone there under 250lbs.
If anything the government should concern themselves with the cost of eating healthy. I go through between 3-4k calories a day in the summer months and it costs a fuckton just to keep myself fed. I'm conscious about what I eat and I cook my own food and because of that it's an arm and a leg. I can see why people would consider the fast food alternative I just don't get why they consume it so much.
The most frequent comment I overhear about Americans from foreigners when I'm overseas is their weight problems. Idk if every overweight person in a foreign country is American but I'm relatively certain that's what most foreigners think. And it's fucked up because it has some semblance of truth in its roots.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Case in point.
Thank you very much for linking that video. I'm definitely bookmarking it, as it looks interesting. I guess that explains why my mom is always saying that "Fat Free!!" on the food label means nothing if it's loaded with sugar.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
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?)
[quote]
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Did you really count everything in actual numbers to try to gain weight? A hamburger doesn't have many calories. The German McDonalds Hamburger is 255 kcal, for example. I'd need about 10 of those a day to gain weight. It feels much more than it actually is, and I'd feel sick of it, I'm pretty sure.
EDIT: I looked the numbers up, and I lied a bit. A good sized burger that feels like a real meal will surely be 500 kcal. Those tiny $1 hamburgers are the only ones that are 250 kcal.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote: Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenitahavenrth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously.
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.
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:
On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
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?)
[quote]
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.
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
Yeah I read a similar posit in a journal a few months ago, I'll try and find the link when I have time between lessons tomorrow and post it here but interesting stuff.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
I'll give this video a fair chance later, but On_Slaught's description makes it sound quite silly.
"Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. "
We're talking about humans here, not plankton. There is a human brain actively taking every bite of food that goes down their throat. Human beings are responsible for their own food intake, not hormones, not the weather, not discrimination, etc.
I've always wanted to read Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories, even though I hear it's pretty dense. I may start later on. His viewpoint does make sense and the whole "calorie in v calorie out" thing is a bit obnoxious.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:34 Fenris420 wrote: [quote]
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.
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: [quote]
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote. Taubes may state things like hormones are more to blame than just pure calories, but he will also say you will gain weight from excessive consumption of things like carbs due to things like insulin sensitivity increasing. And if you think you eating a surplus of calories of hamburgers, fudge, and chips won't make you gain weight, you really do live in some fantasy world.
edit: by the way, if anyone cares about my anecdote, I was always underweight for my age. Then I started eating a lot more than I normally did (my maintenance of around 2.3ishk) and I gained weight (with 3-4k) . Because I ate in a somewhat healthy fashion and watched my calories, I gained muscle and small amounts of fat. Now that I am no longer trying to gain, and am too lazy to forcefeed myself, I am currently maintaining my weight. Gasp, turns out despite thinking when I was young that I was eating quite a bit, I actually wasn't---and when I bumped my calories up by around 500-1000, I started to gain weight in a linear fashion. Real mindblowing stuff you discover when you start counting your calories and weighing out your food.
Just trying to sum my understanding of it all, cause it's getting messy...
So, fat is energy stored due to different factors, but the one you can modify is carb intake if you want to lose weight. You can also reduce your overall calories intake under your outtake to lose fat, because it makes you burn the stored energy.
People with trouble for gaining weight most likely don't want fat, but muscles. This recquires enough calories of any kind, but most importantly to just work out. If you want weight no matter what, you need excess calories and carbs ? Does that sound about right ?
On June 21 2013 08:52 Cynry wrote: Just trying to sum my understanding of it all, cause it's getting messy... So, fat is energy stored due to different factors, but the one you can modify is carb intake. You can also reduce your overall calories intake under your outtake to lose fat, because it makes you burn the stored energy. People with trouble for gaining weight most likely don't want fat, but muscles. This recquires enough calories of any kind, but most importantly to just work out. If you want weight no matter what, you need excess calories and carbs ? Does that sound about right ?
Pretty much. You don't necessarily need many carbs to gain muscle, though it's probably much easier for a lot of people if they introduce carbs. Or if they cycle them on the weekends. Most people who do things like keto or low-carb diets are doing it for weightloss though.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
I'll give this video a fair chance later, but On_Slaught's description makes it sound quite silly.
"Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. "
We're talking about humans here, not plankton. There is a human brain actively taking every bite of food that goes down their throat. Human beings are responsible for their own food intake, not hormones, not the weather, not discrimination, etc.
He does a good job of explaining why that idea is ridiculous.
I liked this part (not necessarily definitive of above- there's more to it than just this). From the video: (paraphrasing) "if you were invited to a dinner with really tasty food and told to bring your appetite, what would you do?"
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
You are the one missing his point. He's saying you need to start counting the calories and that your estimates of how much you were eating are plain wrong.
Short of a few very rare medical conditions, your metabolism is determined by your weight, body fat percentage and activity level. Bodies consume energy at the nearly the exact same rate when you adjust for those three factors.
On June 21 2013 08:52 Cynry wrote: Just trying to sum my understanding of it all, cause it's getting messy... So, fat is energy stored due to different factors, but the one you can modify is carb intake. You can also reduce your overall calories intake under your outtake to lose fat, because it makes you burn the stored energy. People with trouble for gaining weight most likely don't want fat, but muscles. This recquires enough calories of any kind, but most importantly to just work out. If you want weight no matter what, you need excess calories and carbs ? Does that sound about right ?
About right. I didn't gain a pound for around 5 years, but working out finally made me gain about 10 pounds fairly quickly. Unfortunately I quit working out and lost it all haha. When it comes to losing weight that isn't muscle, diet counts for far more than exercise.
That's very true. Go look up at how much exercise you need to burn off 1000 calories worth of junk food. It's something ridiculous like jogging 15 miles.
On June 21 2013 09:00 SnipedSoul wrote: That's very true. Go look up at how much exercise you need to burn off 1000 calories worth of junk food. It's something ridiculous like jogging 15 miles.
Yeah, I know people trying to lose weight, and they just don't want to hear it. I tell them, "would you rather run 8 miles, or not eat that cupcake?" They think they can splurge if they just do twenty more sit ups. The food intake is the major problem, not the sedentary lifestyle.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. I know EXACTLY what your argument is and I'm calling you delusional. For some reason you keep thinking me and others aren't understanding what you're saying. We are. It's just dumb. The difference is hormonal and neurological/psychological, with a SMALL genetic component. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
EDIT: By the way, you may in fact have some weird thing where you can eat 5000 calories and not gain weight (you don't) but that doesn't mean it's genetic either. Because there's this thing you've lived called a life, and various things you've done and chosen in that life can affect your metabolic rate.
We're not really going on about Taube are we? There's so many things wrong with so many things he's ever said and done, and the only reason he's considered at all relevant is because his "research" is seen as a get out of being blamed for being fat free card. Look up any criticism of his work and you'll quickly find he's both a hypocrite and only telling half-truths. Lyle McDonald surmised it best on his website in the comment section of a piece he did about insulin and fat.
The problem I have with Taube’s book is this: after criticizing folks for cherry picking their data, he does the exact same damn thing. He starts with an incorrect/out of date 1980 paper (suggesting that the obese eat the same as the lean) and then goes looking for reasons why this is the case, concluding that it’s insulin. He then carefully ignores all data that doesn’t agree with him including an enormous amount of data showing that the obese under-report their true food intake (which is why the 1980 survey is garbage For someone who ‘spent 5 years raiding the research’, he mainly just selected data that agreed with his pre-formed conclusion, ignoring a tremendous amount of current research that did not. And that a lot of people keep insisting on a metabolic advantage that NO study has ever been able to measure doesn’t change the fact that NO study has ever been able to measure it. I’d point you to the study by Brehm for example: “The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82.” Which directly measured both resting energy expenditure and thermic effect of food after a low- and high-carb meal. Results? No difference in resting energy expenditure and a higher TEF after the carb-based test meal. If the metabolic advantage exists, it should be measurable with current technology. And no study has been able to find it EVER (it’s always inferred by changes in weight). And bodybuilders have gotten to sub 10% for a couple of decades with carb-based diets so what Poliquin says doesn’t seem to be that relevant here. Which isn’t to say that lowcarb diets don’t work for a lot of people. But they work because people eat less, not because of any metabolic magic. Understand? I’m not anti-lowcarb diets (my first book is about nothing but them), but I am against people preaching magic voodoo that doesn’t exist.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
Some people have to work harder to lose weight just like some people have to work harder to graduate from university.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
For the people who don't want to listen through a 1.5 hour video, the University of California network made a series of short videos that describe the issue at hand.
I'll put the full playlist of 6 videos in a spoiler below, but it agrees with the information provided by Gary Taubes specifically about an insulin heavy diet being the great problem with obesity. + Show Spoiler +
On June 21 2013 09:16 RockIronrod wrote: We're not really going on about Taube are we? There's so many things wrong with so many things he's ever said and done, and the only reason he's considered at all relevant is because his "research" is seen as a get out of being blamed for being fat free card. Look up any criticism of his work and you'll quickly find he's both a hypocrite and only telling half-truths. Lyle McDonald surmised it best on his website in the comment section of a piece he did about insulin and fat.
The problem I have with Taube’s book is this: after criticizing folks for cherry picking their data, he does the exact same damn thing. He starts with an incorrect/out of date 1980 paper (suggesting that the obese eat the same as the lean) and then goes looking for reasons why this is the case, concluding that it’s insulin. He then carefully ignores all data that doesn’t agree with him including an enormous amount of data showing that the obese under-report their true food intake (which is why the 1980 survey is garbage For someone who ‘spent 5 years raiding the research’, he mainly just selected data that agreed with his pre-formed conclusion, ignoring a tremendous amount of current research that did not. And that a lot of people keep insisting on a metabolic advantage that NO study has ever been able to measure doesn’t change the fact that NO study has ever been able to measure it. I’d point you to the study by Brehm for example: “The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82.” Which directly measured both resting energy expenditure and thermic effect of food after a low- and high-carb meal. Results? No difference in resting energy expenditure and a higher TEF after the carb-based test meal. If the metabolic advantage exists, it should be measurable with current technology. And no study has been able to find it EVER (it’s always inferred by changes in weight). And bodybuilders have gotten to sub 10% for a couple of decades with carb-based diets so what Poliquin says doesn’t seem to be that relevant here. Which isn’t to say that lowcarb diets don’t work for a lot of people. But they work because people eat less, not because of any metabolic magic. Understand? I’m not anti-lowcarb diets (my first book is about nothing but them), but I am against people preaching magic voodoo that doesn’t exist.
This is why, like I said earlier, I find any definite claims on nutrition and biochemistry to be pretty stupid most of the time. It's almost impossible to actually study the process in its natural setting.
On June 21 2013 09:00 SnipedSoul wrote: That's very true. Go look up at how much exercise you need to burn off 1000 calories worth of junk food. It's something ridiculous like jogging 15 miles.
Depends what kind of exercise you're doing. 1000 calories can be burned in a little over an hour of intensive mixed martial arts training. Both diet and exercise are key for managing calories, and I say this as an amateur combat athlete who has to make weight for tournaments and fights.
On June 21 2013 08:07 SnipedSoul wrote: Obesity is a disease and the cure is healthy diet, exercise, and a heaping tablespoon of willpower!
Declaring obesity a disease probably won't do anything except let obese people say "It has nothing to do with the choices I make, it's a disease!"
I'm not trying to rag on overweight people, but I really don't see how this is going to be beneficial in any way.
It's beneficial to the political correctness industry, which now has a new victim group to profit from.
'Political correctness industry', as you put it is creating the conditions of 'tolerance' that cultural shifts towards an abdication of personal responsibility.
Big pharma and the food industry are going to love it.
Of course people who choose fast food and unhealthy/overeating will benefit the food industry and pharmaceuticals. It's a choice. Now when government comes in and says, "We're gonna choose for you!" -- that's the abdication of personal responsibility. You've got it all backwards.
It's real fun for politicians to scream big pharma and the rest, as you do, to reap votes by portraying themselves as defenders of a victim class. It's been done with race, sexual orientation, income level, and the rest. Obesity will be no different.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. I know EXACTLY what your argument is and I'm calling you delusional. For some reason you keep thinking me and others aren't understanding what you're saying. We are. It's just dumb. The difference is hormonal and neurological/psychological, with a SMALL genetic component. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
EDIT: By the way, you may in fact have some weird thing where you can eat 5000 calories and not gain weight (you don't) but that doesn't mean it's genetic either. Because there's this thing you've lived called a life, and various things you've done and chosen in that life can affect your metabolic rate.
Your ad hominem isn't very flattering. The fact that you think humans in different areas of the world never adapted to the nutrition that was locally available is interesting to say the least. If you don't want to debate that's fine, but don't call me an idiot or delusional. Especially since you have failed to provide evidence for your claim that genetics have nothing to do with diversity. I don't really have time to argue Darwin here, nor the means to link you to anything on what he did. I guess I'll just say - evolution is cool.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
Hmm just wondering, did anyone ever do a comparison study looking at obesity in Japan vs America? I'm sure genetics is one component, but diet must be a core component as well right?
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. I know EXACTLY what your argument is and I'm calling you delusional. For some reason you keep thinking me and others aren't understanding what you're saying. We are. It's just dumb. The difference is hormonal and neurological/psychological, with a SMALL genetic component. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
EDIT: By the way, you may in fact have some weird thing where you can eat 5000 calories and not gain weight (you don't) but that doesn't mean it's genetic either. Because there's this thing you've lived called a life, and various things you've done and chosen in that life can affect your metabolic rate.
Your ad hominem isn't very flattering. The fact that you think humans in different areas of the world never adapted to the nutrition that was locally available is interesting to say the least. If you don't want to debate that's fine, but don't call me an idiot or delusional. Especially since you have failed to provide evidence for your claim that genetics have nothing to do with diversity. I don't really have time to argue Darwin here, nor the means to link you to anything on what he did. I guess I'll just say - evolution is cool.
Your condescension of acting like I'm incapable of understanding your simple argument isn't very flattering. Where did I say that humans in different areas of the world never adapted to the locally available nutrition...? I am debating, your debating happens to be just saying random things then repeating them as if I don't understand your argument. Well, NOW I'm failing to understand your argument because you're acting like I said that genetics have nothing to do with diversity and randomly decided to bring up evolution.
I also literally just said genetics is part of obesity, but a small part that is overshadowed by hormones, calorie consumption, and psychological/neurological factors. What are you even rambling about at this point? What does adapting to locally available nutrition even have to do with ANYTHING lol? Are the fish that the Native Americans ate different on a molecular and macronutrient level than the fish that the Chinese and Egyptians ate? Did their plants contain different starch? Is anyone even talking about the various eating habits of ancient humans in regards to anything at all? Is a gram of protein in my body 4 calories but in an Asian's body 3? That would certainly be an uh, interesting argument.
edit: by the way, you've probably already read this and are maybe replying but I assume your argument here is that people became used to eating different diets based on their regions, right? Doesn't really make sense and you can see that obesity is a very recent epidemic. Especially in America. It's an extremely oversimplistic viewpoint and assumes that there were just drastically different diets between all sorts of regions to the point that within 20,000 years we developed significantly different metabolic pathways or something. Even though I've yet to see any real study showing a solely genetic-ethnic risk factors for obesity.
On June 21 2013 03:53 Tien wrote: Won't change a thing.
It's a completely voluntary mental disorder.
This is exactly right. Laziness and complacency. "Genetics" is a hilarious excuse.
Although I tend to agree with this, we must still entertain the possibility that someone is fat by genetics. Such a case is probably exceedingly rare though.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that.
If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote. Taubes may state things like hormones are more to blame than just pure calories, but he will also say you will gain weight from excessive consumption of things like carbs due to things like insulin sensitivity increasing. And if you think you eating a surplus of calories of hamburgers, fudge, and chips won't make you gain weight, you really do live in some fantasy world.
edit: by the way, if anyone cares about my anecdote, I was always underweight for my age. Then I started eating a lot more than I normally did (my maintenance of around 2.3ishk) and I gained weight (with 3-4k) . Because I ate in a somewhat healthy fashion and watched my calories, I gained muscle and small amounts of fat. Now that I am no longer trying to gain, and am too lazy to forcefeed myself, I am currently maintaining my weight. Gasp, turns out despite thinking when I was young that I was eating quite a bit, I actually wasn't---and when I bumped my calories up by around 500-1000, I started to gain weight in a linear fashion. Real mindblowing stuff you discover when you start counting your calories and weighing out your food.
You don't simple just start "gaining muscle and small amounts of fat" by eating healthy. Either you were working out or doing some kind of resistance/cardiovascular training because excess calories don't just simple decide they want to turn into muscle.
edit: a lot of people also think that when they work out, "your fat turns into muscle" or something entirely foolish like that.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
Hmm just wondering, did anyone ever do a comparison study looking at obesity in Japan vs America? I'm sure genetics is one component, but diet must be a core component as well right?
He actually did a short comparison at the end talking about breast cancer in Japanese women and how low risk they are in Japan and increases when they come to the US. His conclusion was adding more sugar intake to an already carb heavy diet. Unfortunately, this is where I have a disconnect from his findings (which overall were really spot on) since I had spent so much time living in Italy (back and forth between Italy and the States for a period of time). His conclusion at the end seems contrary to the Mediterranean diet which is fairly high in both sugar (although lower than the US) and carbs (pasta!) and the people over there are generally very fit and there is nowhere near the obesity epidemic like in the US.
So I am once again left with my anecdotes hoping science can figure it all out lol.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote. Taubes may state things like hormones are more to blame than just pure calories, but he will also say you will gain weight from excessive consumption of things like carbs due to things like insulin sensitivity increasing. And if you think you eating a surplus of calories of hamburgers, fudge, and chips won't make you gain weight, you really do live in some fantasy world.
edit: by the way, if anyone cares about my anecdote, I was always underweight for my age. Then I started eating a lot more than I normally did (my maintenance of around 2.3ishk) and I gained weight (with 3-4k) . Because I ate in a somewhat healthy fashion and watched my calories, I gained muscle and small amounts of fat. Now that I am no longer trying to gain, and am too lazy to forcefeed myself, I am currently maintaining my weight. Gasp, turns out despite thinking when I was young that I was eating quite a bit, I actually wasn't---and when I bumped my calories up by around 500-1000, I started to gain weight in a linear fashion. Real mindblowing stuff you discover when you start counting your calories and weighing out your food.
You don't simple just start "gaining muscle and small amounts of fat" by eating healthy. Either you were working out or doing some kind of resistance/cardiovascular training because excess calories don't just simple decide they want to turn into muscle.
edit: a lot of people also think that when they work out, "your fat turns into muscle" or something entirely foolish like that.
Well yeah, I worked out, and have been working out consistently since February 04, 2008, while doing sports + some lifting before that. I should've clarified I exercised as well. I was just talking strictly in a nutritional sense of my calorie intake. I stupidly assumed (no sarcasm) it would be obvious that anyone who is bulking with a calorie surplus to gain weight is also exercising.
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote: [quote] If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote. Taubes may state things like hormones are more to blame than just pure calories, but he will also say you will gain weight from excessive consumption of things like carbs due to things like insulin sensitivity increasing. And if you think you eating a surplus of calories of hamburgers, fudge, and chips won't make you gain weight, you really do live in some fantasy world.
edit: by the way, if anyone cares about my anecdote, I was always underweight for my age. Then I started eating a lot more than I normally did (my maintenance of around 2.3ishk) and I gained weight (with 3-4k) . Because I ate in a somewhat healthy fashion and watched my calories, I gained muscle and small amounts of fat. Now that I am no longer trying to gain, and am too lazy to forcefeed myself, I am currently maintaining my weight. Gasp, turns out despite thinking when I was young that I was eating quite a bit, I actually wasn't---and when I bumped my calories up by around 500-1000, I started to gain weight in a linear fashion. Real mindblowing stuff you discover when you start counting your calories and weighing out your food.
You don't simple just start "gaining muscle and small amounts of fat" by eating healthy. Either you were working out or doing some kind of resistance/cardiovascular training because excess calories don't just simple decide they want to turn into muscle.
edit: a lot of people also think that when they work out, "your fat turns into muscle" or something entirely foolish like that.
It is very common for men to more or less spontaneously gain muscle mass without working out between the mid-teens and mid-twenties. Bulking up is sort of the final stage of male puberty.
And when people work out, they both tend to gain muscle mass and lose body fat. I'm not sure what is entirely foolish about describing that as fat turning into muscle, though individual fat cells are not transforming into muscle.
On June 21 2013 03:53 Tien wrote: Won't change a thing.
It's a completely voluntary mental disorder.
This is exactly right. Laziness and complacency. "Genetics" is a hilarious excuse.
Although I tend to agree with this, we must still entertain the possibility that someone is fat by genetics. Such a case is probably exceedingly rare though.
I always think it's funny whenever somebody confidently proclaims that there is absolutely no genetic contribution to obesity in some individuals. It's basically the same as stating "I'm fucking ignorant and damn proud of it".
It turns out there's a neuropeptide called "ghrelin" and a hormone called "leptin" that are encoded by GENES in humans and other animals. These molecules are directly involved in feelings of hunger and satiety. A *very well* understood process occurs involving those molecules that contribute to normal regulation over eating tendencies.
If an individual possesses a genetic derangement at ghrelin or leptin loci then it follows that obesity may result from that abnormality.
If genetics play such a huge role in determining someone's weight how come obesity has become a problem only recently? I doubt the human genome has undergone a drastic change over the last 2-3 generations.
I've always thought obesity is symptomatic of a variety of diseases, not a disease itself. Sounds like this is intended to be for something along the lines of EOE though hm.
Is a fever a disease now too? Is a sore throat a disease? I'm pretty sure obesity is a symptom of other problems in most cases just like fever and sore throat... Well I guess I can't be pretty sure about that any more since it's officially its own disease now. Hmm..
On June 21 2013 03:53 Tien wrote: Won't change a thing.
It's a completely voluntary mental disorder.
This is exactly right. Laziness and complacency. "Genetics" is a hilarious excuse.
Although I tend to agree with this, we must still entertain the possibility that someone is fat by genetics. Such a case is probably exceedingly rare though.
I always think it's funny whenever somebody confidently proclaims that there is absolutely no genetic contribution to obesity in some individuals. It's basically the same as stating "I'm fucking ignorant and damn proud of it".
It turns out there's a neuropeptide called "ghrelin" and a hormone called "leptin" that are encoded by GENES in humans and other animals. These molecules are directly involved in feelings of hunger and satiety. A *very well* understood process occurs involving those molecules that contribute to normal regulation over eating tendencies.
If an individual possesses a genetic derangement at ghrelin or leptin loci then it follows that obesity may result from that abnormality.
The issue is that this could only be true for a tiny minority of those who are obese today, given what we know about historical obesity trends.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
YES!
EDIT: Since it is declared as a disease now and require medical treatment... + Show Spoiler +
On June 21 2013 10:23 MichaelDonovan wrote: Is a fever a disease now too? Is a sore throat a disease? I'm pretty sure obesity is a symptom of other problems in most cases just like fever and sore throat... Well I guess I can't be pretty sure about that any more since it's officially its own disease now. Hmm..
Just to be even more obnoxious and pedantic in this thread, a symptom is something only the patient can feel, like nausea and sore throat. A sign is something anyone can see or measure, like vomiting and fever. They beat that shit into our heads.
obesity isn't a disease imo It can be caused by some diseases/genetic defects etc but even with those issues one can adopt a diet and lifestyle and perhaps medication allowing them to be as slim as anyone. This move I think is damaging because it justifies people's laziness a gluttony and will possibly increase the obesity problem
If this helps obese people become less obese I (obviously) really like this change.
Having a dad that used to workout like a madman, biking 100miles+ in weekends on a grandma bike in his youth, but once kids hit he gained weight like crazy and haven't managed to go down.
That is a story that many share, and once you reach that big amount of weight it can be really hard despite discipline, if one simply doesn't have the knowledge of great diat and effective training for starters then it doesn't matter that you are willing to do anything 100% because you don't know what to put that effort into.
Myself, prior to 2 years ago, I never worked out and I had periods I ate 0,5-1 litres of ice cream a day, hotdogs, pasta etc for meals, no vegetables, and I ate 3 average sized meals a day+deserts and snacks in the weekends. Despite all that I remained a bit on the low end with weight, not unhealthy thin by any means but definitly thin.
My point being that there are many obese people that simply have really bad genetics and due to that become overweight making it very hard mentally to reach a desired shape, there are many obese people with the will and determination to work on losing weight, but simply lack the know-how, and if this change increases the help for those groups of people I think it is great, because both of those groups have a large number of people that with some help and guidance can lose a lot of weight and be a lot more healthy as a result.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
25 here, I can still eat whatever and stay very slim. Right now I can't exercice, I'm eating a lot (healthy, mind you, but still lots of meat/eggs/nuts, and it's a recent habit, like only 2 weeks), I drink one or 2 beer a day, and I'm actually losing weight. 110 lbs right now for an average height. And it's annoying to be honest.
Its well known throughout the medical community that your metabolism does decrease as you age. Reason why a lot of the younger generations don't experience obesity as much is due to genetics. If they carry the habits throughout their lives into the middle point of their lives it catches up with them. Although this does not mean you will go from 100lbs to 250lbs in the course of your life. It just means you can gain weight at a different pace and may even be medically obese for you body type.
All in all being fat is a combination of poor lifestyle choices and genetics. Each person has their own status quo to maintain their weight and must find that caloric number to work around it. Now the people who obviously know their limits and choose to remain fat are the people that need the help.
Guys, GUYS ! I know where the energy goes when you eat too much, don't exercice and don't eat carbs. It sets your brain on fire and you can't fucking sleep for hours ! Ezpz...
On June 21 2013 10:26 SatelliteNoodles wrote: Oh man this is ridiculous. It's up to the individual to be fat or not. Unless there are some medical complications regarding that person. Pfft!
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
YES!
EDIT: Since it is declared as a disease now and require medical treatment... + Show Spoiler +
$$$
$$$ is right. Part of this is actually to give doctors a concrete incentive to actually counsel obese patients on weight loss through diet and exercise in the U.S.'s shitty fee-for-service system. The AMA even mentions this; by classifying it as a disease they're better able to bill caring for patients to insurance providers.
As is (or was), there's a perverse economic incentive (that I don't think the vast majority of doctors care about, true) to let obesity go undealt with, as the complications associated with the condition allow for more FFS billing.
People are getting fat because they eat like shit, and the few who suffer from actual hormonal and medical disorders get overshadowed by people who have poor diet and exercise regimens.
Even if the higher caloric intake of the general population has exacerbated particular genetic tendencies towards obesity, it's not an excuse and it's probably the fault of the individual. Yeah, poor people often can only afford high carb largely unhealthy diets as a result of their poverty, but that is a shitty explanation for the massive trend of obesity.
If you're super fat, it's not genetic, it's not hormonal. Or rather, it's highly unlikely. Stop eating like a fucking troll and go walking every morning. If that doesn't work, go see a doctor and find out what's wrong with you. Because operating at a reasonable caloric deficit over an extended period of time will make you lose weight.
On June 21 2013 10:54 Elegy wrote: God, stop blaming genetics.
Look at the historical trend of obesity.
People are getting fat because they eat like shit, and the few who suffer from actual hormonal and medical disorders get overshadowed by people who have poor diet and exercise regimens.
Even if the higher caloric intake of the general population has exacerbated particular genetic tendencies towards obesity, it's not an excuse and it's probably the fault of the individual. Yeah, poor people often can only afford high carb largely unhealthy diets as a result of their poverty, but that is a shitty explanation for the massive trend of obesity.
If you're super fat, it's not genetic, it's not hormonal. Or rather, it's highly unlikely. Stop eating like a fucking troll and go walking every morning. If that doesn't work, go see a doctor and find out what's wrong with you. Because operating at a reasonable caloric deficit over an extended period of time will make you lose weight.
You can't ignore genetics but the blame shouldn't lie 100% on genetics. All that genetics do is give a unique caloric requirements to each individual to maintain,lose, or gain weight. You are right that the people who make poor lifestyle choices such as crappy diets,low exercise are just paving the way towards obesity.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
May as well. We don't drug test welfare and other forms of government aid, if drug addicts and drug dealers can do nothing all day and get a free ride through life from the government why not add obese people to the fun.
some things to consider 1. Im generalizing here, but this community is made up of people who are still relatively young. (cut me a break on this assumption, I dont know nearly as many 40+ year old video game players as I do teen/twentysomethings) Metabolisms have not slowed down yet, so it is easier to keep weight off. 2. A group of people who has time to participate in a video game community is probably on the higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum- healthy food is easier to come by. 3. seriously. Eating healthy is a lot more expensive and time consuming than cheap, fast food. Keep these things in mind when talking about a general population that has a harder time acquiring and preparing healthy food than you do.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
Currently 25 mins into that video, thanks for posting it- very informative and clears up a lot of misinformation! Some points really hitting home for me- like how incredibly skinny I was as a kid while my parents were overweight etc. :D
Everyone in this thread should watch it. Reposting for the link-paranoid.
For the people who don't want to listen through a 1.5 hour video, the University of California network made a series of short videos that describe the issue at hand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo3TRbkIrow I'll put the full playlist of 6 videos in a spoiler below, but it agrees with the information provided by Gary Taubes specifically about an insulin heavy diet being the great problem with obesity. + Show Spoiler +
Hey, just wanted to thank you for posting that, just finished watching those... very good. Whereas Mr. Taubes seemed to put the emphasis on carbs, they put more importance on sugar (which makes more sense to me).
Genetics are an excuse. Everyone, literally everyone has the ability to lose weight. There is no magic trick, there is no prescription. It's just how much self control you have.
Generics have a roll for sure. But saying they are the reason you can't lose weight is like saying you suck at basketball because you are 5'5". Yes it has effects but it ultimately its all on how hard you want to work for it.
It is their way of pulling more shit on everyone and making money. Now they can start prescribing drugs that will cause 20 other problems till you are either dead or your pockets are empty.
On June 21 2013 11:11 Akamu wrote: Genetics are an excuse. Everyone, literally everyone has the ability to lose weight. There is no magic trick, there is no prescription. It's just how much self control you have.
Generics have a roll for sure. But saying they are the reason you can't lose weight is like saying you suck at basketball because you are 5'5". Yes it has effects but it ultimately its all on how hard you want to work for it.
be careful saying that, each case is different. Im sure genetics makes it harder for some people to lose weight than others, but I know a girl that was born with something (dont know what the condition is called) that makes it almost impossible for her to lose weight. hard to blame her for her situation.
On June 21 2013 11:13 DanceSC wrote: It is their way of pulling more shit on everyone and making money. Now they can start prescribing drugs that will cause 20 other problems till you are either dead or your pockets are empty.
Not...really. There aren't very many drugs with indications for weight loss. Not that doctors want to prescribe anyway. Maybe amphetamines, but doctors don't want to prescribe them because they're a pain. Contrary to popular belief, doctors don't want unhappy patients.
Actually, this could do a lot to limit the more ridiculous supplements out there people advertise as reducing obesity or decreasing weight, since they could no longer make those claims (as they aren't structure/function anymore).
On June 21 2013 11:11 Akamu wrote: Genetics are an excuse. Everyone, literally everyone has the ability to lose weight. There is no magic trick, there is no prescription. It's just how much self control you have.
Generics have a roll for sure. But saying they are the reason you can't lose weight is like saying you suck at basketball because you are 5'5". Yes it has effects but it ultimately its all on how hard you want to work for it.
be careful saying that, each case is different. Im sure genetics makes it harder for some people to lose weight than others, but I know a girl that was born with something (dont know what the condition is called) that makes it almost impossible for her to lose weight. hard to blame her for her situation.
I'm honestly curious about this. What happens if she eats less than she currently does? Will she die before she loses weight?
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
Their bodies freaked out and went full luxus consumption because they went from prison gruel to 10,000 calories. That's more than an Olympic athlete. It's the opposite of starvation mode, where the body retains more calories when there's a shortage of intake. Those are two ridiculous extremes that aren't naturally occurring if you don't do stupid shit to your body. Without going into extremes on either side, natural "metabolism" will never make a difference of more than like 100kcal unless you have some sort of serious medical condition.
On June 21 2013 08:13 Arghmyliver wrote: [quote]
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
Or you didn't count your calories back then and are grossly overestimating how much you ate.
Okay you must be right. Is a hamburger every day more than a cup of lentil salad? Who can tell! It would be a feat of human intelligence :D! Or maybe you think you know better than everyone and refuse to consider that my memory might be better than a goldfish.
Your memory is inconsequential. As you were never counting calories in the first place, there is nothing relevant for you to remember.
Your anecdotes add nothing to the thread. People like to think of themselves as special snowflakes so are naturally biased to, for example, overestimate their caloric intake and conclude they must be blessed because they didn't gain weight. The reality is probably much more mundane and the same thing that applies to all humans: people are very bad at estimating their caloric intake.
If you truly do make calories disappear like your stomach is another dimension, I suggest you get some hard data and publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Until then, your posts add nothing to the conversation.
You have once again completely missed my point here. I don't think I'm some kind of energy wormhole. I'm saying ny diet would have been invalid for other individuals in terms of weight gain. I ate as much if not more than others some of whom were unfortunately obese. If you want to come to where I live and try to make me fat I invite you to do so hut I promise you will find it more challenging than a similiar experiment performed on other individuals. Bodies do not consume energy at the same rate. I don't know what I am doing, but I am able to eat whenever I want without fear of weight gain. I use more calories than other people I guess in myy daily activity, which is interesting considering I am pretty much a couch potatoe. My brother is the same way. Seems genetic to me
dem delusions. If you want actual proof, record all of your calories and macronutrients and look at the totals of what you eat. Since it's too much of a hassle to settle an internet argument, you won't do it. And I'll still remain completely unconvinced of your anecdote.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Even if you fed everyone on earth the exact same diet every day for their entire lives people would still have different weights and the reason, like most human differences, would be genetic. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
Look, I don't know how to say this any more clearly. I know EXACTLY what your argument is and I'm calling you delusional. For some reason you keep thinking me and others aren't understanding what you're saying. We are. It's just dumb. The difference is hormonal and neurological/psychological, with a SMALL genetic component. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else I can do to clarify.
EDIT: By the way, you may in fact have some weird thing where you can eat 5000 calories and not gain weight (you don't) but that doesn't mean it's genetic either. Because there's this thing you've lived called a life, and various things you've done and chosen in that life can affect your metabolic rate.
Your ad hominem isn't very flattering. The fact that you think humans in different areas of the world never adapted to the nutrition that was locally available is interesting to say the least. If you don't want to debate that's fine, but don't call me an idiot or delusional. Especially since you have failed to provide evidence for your claim that genetics have nothing to do with diversity. I don't really have time to argue Darwin here, nor the means to link you to anything on what he did. I guess I'll just say - evolution is cool.
Your condescension of acting like I'm incapable of understanding your simple argument isn't very flattering. Where did I say that humans in different areas of the world never adapted to the locally available nutrition...? I am debating, your debating happens to be just saying random things then repeating them as if I don't understand your argument. Well, NOW I'm failing to understand your argument because you're acting like I said that genetics have nothing to do with diversity and randomly decided to bring up evolution.
I also literally just said genetics is part of obesity, but a small part that is overshadowed by hormones, calorie consumption, and psychological/neurological factors. What are you even rambling about at this point? What does adapting to locally available nutrition even have to do with ANYTHING lol? Are the fish that the Native Americans ate different on a molecular and macronutrient level than the fish that the Chinese and Egyptians ate? Did their plants contain different starch? Is anyone even talking about the various eating habits of ancient humans in regards to anything at all? Is a gram of protein in my body 4 calories but in an Asian's body 3? That would certainly be an uh, interesting argument.
edit: by the way, you've probably already read this and are maybe replying but I assume your argument here is that people became used to eating different diets based on their regions, right? Doesn't really make sense and you can see that obesity is a very recent epidemic. Especially in America. It's an extremely oversimplistic viewpoint and assumes that there were just drastically different diets between all sorts of regions to the point that within 20,000 years we developed significantly different metabolic pathways or something. Even though I've yet to see any real study showing a solely genetic-ethnic risk factors for obesity.
I'm sorry. My main point was that we should be sensitive to the fact that its harder for some people to maintain their weight than others. Its not always a simple matter of "what the fuck are you doing, just eat healthier." The fact that I don't seem to gain weight was simply an anecdote to illustrate that people are different. I guess I was trying to say that I feel bad, I've never watched what I ate and simply ate whatever I wanted whenever I wanted and it never affected me weight-wise, but obviously that is not practical for everyone. I can understand, as someone who has never needed to do this, the difficulty one might have in doing so (esp if they, like me, never have). Maybe I was secretly starving myself like you say. I was trying to be empathetic, not trying to make excuses for anyone. I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you or be defensive, I just didn't understand why I was worthy of your derision. My apologies.
Edit: Also I wasn't suggesting that the caloric content is different between ethnicities, but rather the consumption and distribution by the body is different. Mongolians and North East Asians (Kamchatka area) - tend to be shorter and stouter due to the environment they evolved in. I think Samoans are predisposed to obesity - although this is partly due to food availability I think there have been some studies that show it is passed down through the parents. Here's an article by Brown University - http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2013/02/obesity.
Obesity is not a disease. It is an unhealthy bodily condition brought about by prolonged over consumption of food.
The word "disease" has been stripped of all meaning. Alcoholism isn't a disease and neither is obesity.
They think they are trying to help people but in reality this will just reinforce the delusion fat people labor under that their weight is somehow not in their control.
On June 21 2013 11:10 Aveng3r wrote: 3. seriously. Eating healthy is a lot more expensive and time consuming than cheap, fast food. Keep these things in mind when talking about a general population that has a harder time acquiring and preparing healthy food than you do.
That's not true. You are thinking of all the good, lean cuts of meat and vegetables and salad and whatnot, but that's not what you'll eat. That's only the stuff needed to make the meal tasty. You'll actually fill yourself up with potatoes, rice, pasta, and that's not pricey. The time component is true. It needs to go into one slot used by one of the hobbies the person has, and that's annoying if you don't actually like cooking as a hobby. The start is also very time consuming, learning skills for the kitchen.
You also have to keep in mind that the people mentioned have to eat a diet of over 4000 kcal a day to maintain their obesity, while they'd really only need 2000 kcal with a lean body (just some somewhat bullshit numbers as an example). That's half the cost right there!
You also technically don't have to eat healthy to not be obese. People can still eat cheap fast food, just have to go hungry and torture themselves 24/7/365.
I feel this is a more positive step than anything else. Now if you're having trouble losing weight (and its because you're lazy and eat like shit but don't know better) you can go to the doctor who can point you towards proven and effective weight-loss programs, with diet and exercise plans. In the past someone who was obese has just been told 'eat better' or 'do exercise'.
On top of this, for the very small minority of people who have some kind of condition that causes obesity, this will become much easier to identify and treat. When the diet and/or exercise isn't working, doctors will have incentive to test for these conditions and a new plan of action can be made. Overall it makes dealing with obesity in the population far easier than in the past.
On June 21 2013 11:35 HystericaLaughter wrote: I feel this is a more positive step than anything else. Now if you're having trouble losing weight (and its because you're lazy and eat like shit but don't know better) you can go to the doctor who can point you towards proven and effective weight-loss programs, with diet and exercise plans. In the past someone who was obese has just been told 'eat better' or 'do exercise'.
So, the positive step is the doctor telling you the same thing as everybody already knows - fix your diet and exercise?
On June 21 2013 11:35 HystericaLaughter wrote: I feel this is a more positive step than anything else. Now if you're having trouble losing weight (and its because you're lazy and eat like shit but don't know better) you can go to the doctor who can point you towards proven and effective weight-loss programs, with diet and exercise plans. In the past someone who was obese has just been told 'eat better' or 'do exercise'.
So, the positive step is the doctor telling you the same thing as everybody already knows - fix your diet and exercise?
But if you tell most people, quote: 'fix your diet and exercise', they will have absolutely no idea where to start or how to go about it. By labeling obesity a disease that needs to be treated, it sets up the proper infrastructure for doctors to give actual specific instructions to patients, and makes the educational resources for dealing with obesity more readily available. Basically it enables doctors to go one step further from 'fix your diet and exercise', to 'okay here is what you're doing wrong that has lead to you becoming obese, this is what you need to do to fix it (diet and exercise), why it works and the reasons you should be doing it. Now, begin this medically-approved weight loss schedule, the potential side-effects are blah blah, if you're having trouble for whatever reason come back etc.'
It doesn't change anything, per-say, but it does expand upon and regulate the way obesity is dealt with.
The fat slobs are basically a voting majority. They'll elect people who will pass laws protecting them and giving them money and subsidizing their bad behavior.
The inmates are now running the asylum.
This obesity epidemic will ruin the United States in the long term. The damage to the economy and just the overall health of the population. The world's greatest super power brought to it's knees by double cheeseburgers and mountain dew.
On June 21 2013 10:54 Elegy wrote: God, stop blaming genetics.
Look at the historical trend of obesity.
People are getting fat because they eat like shit, and the few who suffer from actual hormonal and medical disorders get overshadowed by people who have poor diet and exercise regimens.
Even if the higher caloric intake of the general population has exacerbated particular genetic tendencies towards obesity, it's not an excuse and it's probably the fault of the individual. Yeah, poor people often can only afford high carb largely unhealthy diets as a result of their poverty, but that is a shitty explanation for the massive trend of obesity.
If you're super fat, it's not genetic, it's not hormonal. Or rather, it's highly unlikely. Stop eating like a fucking troll and go walking every morning. If that doesn't work, go see a doctor and find out what's wrong with you. Because operating at a reasonable caloric deficit over an extended period of time will make you lose weight.
Yeah, it really is amazing how fast people's genetics have changed in 30 years! Look at this "disease" sweep the nation, guess it's contagious.
Isn't obesity more of an addiction? I would consider it more similar to alcoholism or drug addiction than a disease. Its not like obesity can just start from nowhere unless you have a medical condition that leads to it.
Edit: As an obese person myself, I feel like I have the capacity to change my body and lifestyle, but it is quite easy to fall back into old habits at times (like someone who cant get rid of their addiction to alcohol during hard times, or someone who cant go another day without a cigarette).
On June 21 2013 13:10 Takasu wrote: Isn't obesity more of an addiction? I would consider it more similar to alcoholism or drug addiction than a disease. Its not like obesity can just start from nowhere unless you have a medical condition that leads to it.
Some people are definitely addicted to food. However the fools at the AMA have also classified addictions as a disease.
Which South Park lampooned beautifully.
I'd love someone who is an alcoholic or an obese tub tell someone dying of brain cancer "Hey, I've got a disease too!"
I'm thinking the FDA and the AMA continuously put out new drugs and food additives to increase revenue by getting people to eat garbage artificial food which in turn gives them diabetes, cancer or obesity in this case; then they put out new drugs too "combat" these diseases running rampant but in most cases these drugs such as dietary pills and chemotherapy like treatment end up worsening the problem or just hiding symptoms. It's all a super greedy corporate agenda to make mass amounts of money while controlling the population (concealing and banning cures to cancer and such things, or not allowing further research). I'm sure there are a lot of officials with a good soul and actually want to help people but the ones at the very top do not give a fuck. My 2 cents feel free to debate, i'm probably just another crazy conspiracy theorist.
On June 21 2013 11:10 Aveng3r wrote: some things to consider 1. Im generalizing here, but this community is made up of people who are still relatively young. (cut me a break on this assumption, I dont know nearly as many 40+ year old video game players as I do teen/twentysomethings) Metabolisms have not slowed down yet, so it is easier to keep weight off. 2. A group of people who has time to participate in a video game community is probably on the higher end of the socioeconomic spectrum- healthy food is easier to come by. 3. seriously. Eating healthy is a lot more expensive and time consuming than cheap, fast food. Keep these things in mind when talking about a general population that has a harder time acquiring and preparing healthy food than you do.
Bread and water is cheap.
It's simple, fat people are inevitably lazy or undisciplined. I do not know a single fat person who works out regularly and doesn't eat like an idiot. Not one. They either do not stay active to a reasonable level, or they eat improperly all the time.
On June 21 2013 13:14 SergioCQH wrote: It's funny how a bunch of TL posters think they know the definition of disease better than a preeminent professional organization of physicians.
Really absurd, but that's the Internet right? Where a bunch of dorks with computers turn into experts.
I don't know...
I find it kind of funny how you could take this seriously.
I mean, come on, eating too much and having poor self-discipline is now a DISEASE? Really?
Rofl, this is pretty pathetic. I'm sure that there are some people who watch an add for fast food and can't help themselves but eat it, but the vast majority of people are just being lazy/stupid/indulgent or a combination. When I see people have to get lifted out of their houses because they were too fat when they died, I don't feel too good knowing that my tax dollars have to go towards that sort of excess.
But you know, whenever someone argues personal responsibility in pretty much anything they get shut down. Don't want to be blaming the victim after all.
I was obese once. Then I started exercising and stopped eating poorly. Now, I'm not longer obese. I had the obese disease and I cured myself.
Perhaps there are individuals who are obese and who, if they undertook actions similar to mine, might be forever obese. For them, perhaps, it makes sense to call it a "disease".
On June 21 2013 13:14 SergioCQH wrote: It's funny how a bunch of TL posters think they know the definition of disease better than a preeminent professional organization of physicians.
Really absurd, but that's the Internet right? Where a bunch of dorks with computers turn into experts.
I don't know...
I find it kind of funny how you could take this seriously.
I mean, come on, eating too much and having poor self-discipline is now a DISEASE? Really?
The science is showing that it is not as simple as saying someone is eating too much or having poor willpower etc though. I struggle with the semantics of it, but understand they are likening it to addiction. Don't really care what they call it if it advances understanding of it though.
On June 21 2013 13:14 SergioCQH wrote: It's funny how a bunch of TL posters think they know the definition of disease better than a preeminent professional organization of physicians.
Really absurd, but that's the Internet right? Where a bunch of dorks with computers turn into experts.
I don't know...
I find it kind of funny how you could take this seriously.
I mean, come on, eating too much and having poor self-discipline is now a DISEASE? Really?
The science is showing that it is not as simple as saying someone is eating too much or having poor willpower etc though. I struggle with the semantics of it, but understand they are likening it to addiction. Don't really care what they call it if it advances understanding of it though.
Ugh...I don't want to get into it, because it will cause an inevitable derail, but in a nutshell:
Not caring for the specificity of the wording, or having the meaning of words clearly defined and thus subject to change is very dangerous for a field of study. Be precise. Be concise. Say what you mean to say. Don't call addiction a disease, call it addiction.
Purposeful linguistic obfuscation is a tell-tale sign of intentions (purposeful or otherwise) to influence the thought processes regarding the subject.
Aka: peoples feelings>scientific and academic rigor=sign of faltering scientific institutions. The AMA should be called on their bullshit, and hard.
Wow, that's pretty surprising that they would call it a disease O.o... what's more surprising is the percentage of obese people, I never realized we had so many :O.
On June 21 2013 13:18 Hyperbola wrote: I'm not sure how this ruling will pan out, but on the topic of fat acceptance... I believe Scooby says it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ilubYTOM1ls
On June 21 2013 13:14 SergioCQH wrote: It's funny how a bunch of TL posters think they know the definition of disease better than a preeminent professional organization of physicians.
Really absurd, but that's the Internet right? Where a bunch of dorks with computers turn into experts.
I don't know...
I find it kind of funny how you could take this seriously.
I mean, come on, eating too much and having poor self-discipline is now a DISEASE? Really?
The science is showing that it is not as simple as saying someone is eating too much or having poor willpower etc though. I struggle with the semantics of it, but understand they are likening it to addiction. Don't really care what they call it if it advances understanding of it though.
Ugh...I don't want to get into it, because it will cause an inevitable derail, but in a nutshell:
Not caring for the specificity of the wording, or having the meaning of words clearly defined and thus subject to change is very dangerous for a field of study. Be precise. Be concise. Say what you mean to say. Don't call addiction a disease, call it addiction.
Purposeful linguistic obfuscation is a tell-tale sign of intentions (purposeful or otherwise) to influence the thought processes regarding the subject.
Aka: peoples feelings>scientific and academic rigor=sign of faltering scientific institutions. The AMA should be called on their bullshit, and hard.
I actually don't disagree with you on that. As I see it, there's probably two paths to take from here. Create new medication to "treat" this "disease" (most likely) or make fundamental changes to the food industry regulating sugars and fructose (very unlikely). You make a fair point.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
It took me a summer of drinking at least a few beers a day and eating tons of pork and pistachios (both high in fat) to gain 10-15 lbs. Of course, I was working out pretty heavily as well, so a good amount of that weight gain isn't fat, and mind you, lifting isn't like cardio when it comes to burning calories, so my "exercise" wasn't as helpful as one would think when it comes to losing weight. That diet was really bad, so it surprises even me that there is much, much worse dietary behaviors that millions of Americans are into. Seriously, something needs to be done about it. 80+ million people aren't the result of "genetics." Mexico has the same issue with super fatty food, while no other Latin American country has anywhere near the obesity problems that Mexico has.
EDIT: I saw someone mention Scooby. That guy is awesome, and he's absolutely right. I came home after my summer internship with a noticeable beer gut. I accepted I fucked up, and got to getting rid of it, and I did. Scooby really puts in the effort to teach people who to be fit and eat right. Great guy.
On June 21 2013 13:10 Takasu wrote: Isn't obesity more of an addiction? I would consider it more similar to alcoholism or drug addiction than a disease. Its not like obesity can just start from nowhere unless you have a medical condition that leads to it.
Some people are definitely addicted to food. However the fools at the AMA have also classified addictions as a disease.
Which South Park lampooned beautifully.
I'd love someone who is an alcoholic or an obese tub tell someone dying of brain cancer "Hey, I've got a disease too!"
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "disease." It literally just means that there's something wrong with you. In fact, treating a lot of these self-imposed diseases as diseases means that it gets a lot easier to treat them by making the individual in question stop killing themselves.
If the person with brain cancer got it by knowingly sticking radioactive material onto their head, would you have much sympathy for them either?
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
That is completely wrong. My mother was damn near a gourmet cook, and we ate a VERY healthy and varied diet growing up, yet my parents were slightly obese and mother had acquired diabetes. They could not have been more responsible.
The real cause has more to do with the low quality/nourishment of food in the US, and the makeup of processed ingredients and sugars it contains.
On June 21 2013 10:23 MichaelDonovan wrote: Is a fever a disease now too? Is a sore throat a disease? I'm pretty sure obesity is a symptom of other problems in most cases just like fever and sore throat... Well I guess I can't be pretty sure about that any more since it's officially its own disease now. Hmm..
Just to be even more obnoxious and pedantic in this thread, a symptom is something only the patient can feel, like nausea and sore throat. A sign is something anyone can see or measure, like vomiting and fever. They beat that shit into our heads.
the more you knoowwwwww
Oh are you a medical student or something? That's cool. I learned something today! Thanks, friend.
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
That is completely wrong. My mother was damn near a gourmet cook, and we ate a VERY healthy and varied diet growing up, yet my parents were slightly obese and mother had acquired diabetes. They could not have been more responsible.
The real cause has more to do with the low quality/nourishment of food in the US, and the makeup of processed ingredients and sugars it contains.
Like I said, almost all cases. Not all. Genetics doesn't even explain any notable fraction of the 80+ million obese people. I don't think the quality of processed ingredients here is of much worse quality than in most parts of the world. It's pretty bad overall almost anywhere.
If it's considered a "disease," imagine what effect this will have on insurance companies and their policies. Is it "preventable?" Should it be insured by everyone, or just those highest at risk, or at all?
On June 21 2013 15:14 cLAN.Anax wrote: If it's considered a "disease," imagine what effect this will have on insurance companies and their policies. Is it "preventable?" Should it be insured by everyone, or just those highest at risk, or at all?
No change, really, except that anti-obesity programs would now perhaps be paid by insurance. Heart disease, joint problems, and so on are already handled by the system.
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
That is completely wrong. My mother was damn near a gourmet cook, and we ate a VERY healthy and varied diet growing up, yet my parents were slightly obese and mother had acquired diabetes. They could not have been more responsible.
The real cause has more to do with the low quality/nourishment of food in the US, and the makeup of processed ingredients and sugars it contains.
Like I said, almost all cases. Not all. Genetics doesn't even explain any notable fraction of the 80+ million obese people. I don't think the quality of processed ingredients here is of much worse quality than in most parts of the world. It's pretty bad overall almost anywhere.
So first, we need to determine the nutritional benefits of corn.
Corn is low in saturated fat and cholesterol, as well as sodium. It's also a good source of dietary fiber, thiamin and folate. However, 82 percent of the calories in this food are from carbohydrates. This high-carbohydrate content is why corn can be used to make corn syrup a low-priced sugar alternative.
Corn on the cob is probably not the best vegetable to eat because there are many more vegetables that are healthier, contain less sugar and have more nutritional content. Corn is also mildly inflammatory, meaning that it causes inflammation in the body. This is most likely due to the fact that corn can raise blood sugar very quickly.
This is important because as Michael Pollan points out: "More than a quarter of products in the average American supermarket now contain corn or its derivatives" (I believe this includes livestock as well- chicken is made up of quite a bit of corn for example). It is also important if you watched any of the videos posted in this thread which talk about the effects of sugars and carbohydrates on diet and obesity. And lastly, it is important because of the issue of "personal responsibility" being harped on by so many. There's your "responsible" alternative to fast food. Alternatives to corn as vegetables or other produce? Then there is the issue of monoculture.
I'm not very informed on the subject,but currently obese people have to pay higher premiums right? Would making it a disease mean it won't be legal to charge the more?
On June 21 2013 13:10 Takasu wrote: Isn't obesity more of an addiction? I would consider it more similar to alcoholism or drug addiction than a disease. Its not like obesity can just start from nowhere unless you have a medical condition that leads to it.
Some people are definitely addicted to food. However the fools at the AMA have also classified addictions as a disease.
Which South Park lampooned beautifully.
I'd love someone who is an alcoholic or an obese tub tell someone dying of brain cancer "Hey, I've got a disease too!"
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "disease." It literally just means that there's something wrong with you. In fact, treating a lot of these self-imposed diseases as diseases means that it gets a lot easier to treat them by making the individual in question stop killing themselves.
If the person with brain cancer got it by knowingly sticking radioactive material onto their head, would you have much sympathy for them either?
I tried to point out the bolded very early on in this thread which sadly went ignored. This is however the primary reason for labeling obesity as a disease.
EDIT: Also, a disease does not by definition have to be non-self inflicted.
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
That is completely wrong. My mother was damn near a gourmet cook, and we ate a VERY healthy and varied diet growing up, yet my parents were slightly obese and mother had acquired diabetes. They could not have been more responsible.
The real cause has more to do with the low quality/nourishment of food in the US, and the makeup of processed ingredients and sugars it contains.
Is it possible that what you think was "VERY" healthy, really wasn't? Can you list some example meals and the method of preparation? No judgement or implication, I'm just interested in the anecdote.
I think its sort of harsh that since people think that obesity is a somewhat self inflicted ailment that it oughtn't qualify as a disease.
To use a non-obesity example. I have acute achilles tendinitis, which was brought about by a combination of naturally weak tendons and bad exercise practices (went from 0 to full steam too fast). I could have completely avoided the situation that I'm in through things like better stretching and easing into the exercise that I was doing (or completely eliminating high impact exercise), genetics aside. However, because of the natural weakness of my tendons I ended up hurting myself through activity that might not have been so damaging for most people. Does it still qualify as a disease?
I'm not a health professional, and I don't know enough about it to comment much on the causes of obesity, but I feel like a lot of evidence/articles point to the fact that it is likely that there is SOME genetic predisposition towards these things. I guess my argument is, even if eating less and exercise could prevent 100% of obesity cases, I don't think it changes whether it should be counted as a disease.
The problem with your argument is that most people in most countries in the world are not obese, so it certainly isn't genetics for almost all cases of obesity. The cause is laziness and not just poor diet, but extremely poor diet.
That is completely wrong. My mother was damn near a gourmet cook, and we ate a VERY healthy and varied diet growing up, yet my parents were slightly obese and mother had acquired diabetes. They could not have been more responsible.
The real cause has more to do with the low quality/nourishment of food in the US, and the makeup of processed ingredients and sugars it contains.
Is it possible that what you think was "VERY" healthy, really wasn't? Can you list some example meals and the method of preparation? No judgement or implication, I'm just interested in the anecdote.
I can try hehe. I consider myself extremely lucky in this regard. She would cook just about everything one could imagine (and in America way more actually). Must have been the fact she was English... Anyway to answer you, typically: meat, vegetable, starch and a bowl of salad. She would often get pretty exotic, beef tongue stew, goose for Xmas dinner (exotic in the US at least), Thanksgiving dinners that would take her a week or so to prepare, homemade spaghetti sauce or Birthday cakes, many things from libraries of cookbooks that I don't even remember today. How many American kids can say they had homemade paella? I was forced to eat liver and broccoli and Brussels sprouts and lima beans. I don't think there was anything that I haven't at least tried. :D
On top of all of this, I was an extremely skinny kid. So much so that my parents took me to the doctor to get checked out because my collar bone stuck out so strikingly and disturbing. Yet they had health issues people seem to relate to fast food junkies. I remember they were always conscious about it and paid attention to whatever the new diet fads were (and tried most of them). This nonsense about responsibility is completely dense imo.
On June 21 2013 16:10 eronica wrote: Why is there so few obese sc2 programmers ?
A lot of them recognize that their job involves a lot of inactivity, so they generally budget some time for work out programs etc. Or at least that's what I've heard.
On June 21 2013 16:09 Velr wrote: That does not sound healthy.. Just good :D.
Which is fine as long as you don't overdo it.
Well, when I say healthy, I am going with the fact of the diet being so varied which I had always heard was really good for you. Keep in mind my parents weren't the ones indulging in the homemade Birthday cake for example. :D
But the anecdote I usually talk about which really opened my eyes was travelling back and forth between the States and Italy. I was never obese, but from one meal a day in the US to three in Italy- where pasta was just the first course for dinner usually- I actually lost weight. This wasn't just a one-off either, this happened a half dozen or so times going back and forth like this. I'm finally feeling like I am putting some pieces of my anecdotal puzzles together.
It's hard to tell if this is a good choice or not.
On the one hand, obesity is a serious problem in our country and is the cause for an alarming number of health problems. There needs to be serious research done into not only preventing obesity but figuring out why it is so rampant to begin with.
On the other hand, a disease is generally perceived as being something that is out of the victim's control. It makes for an interesting semantic argument when we look at something like liver cancer, which is defined as a disease but is caused almost exclusively (to my knowledge, definitely not a doctor here) by a person's abuse of alcohol. Yet it is undeniable that liver cancer is a disease that we have to treat very seriously.
Likewise, obesity is caused almost exclusively by a person's life style choices. There are definitely people who can't control it, but those people are a serious minority. Labeling obesity as something that cannot be controlled by the victim could do more harm than good, as people who are already making excuses for their poor life style choices and health will now have a valid medical scapegoat.
Regardless, I think it's important that physicians do away with BMI as a measure of obesity. It's absolutely ludicrous. My girlfriend is 5'2'' and curvy, but not obese in any sense of the word. Yet she went and had a free biometrics test done and was labeled obese due to her BMI, which is absurd (not to mention incredibly damaging for a woman's self-esteem). So technically, according to this new ruling, she has a disease because her BMI is over 30, despite a higher BMI being an uncontrollable product of her physical makeup.
It's no disease, it's a cultural problem. If you drink softdrinks instead of water, eat snacks full of sugar and fat instead of fruits and are neglecting to do any form of sports, well... what do you expect? Calling it a disease just upgrades it to a higher taboo in problematic countries. That's not a good idea, because the first step to deal with a problem is to speak about the problem.
I was a bit more chubby two years ago (I wasn't unhealthy obese, just a bit plump) and I can tell you that it is not fun - you are confronted with your problem often. This can make someone really sad, I don't really want to be in the position of a kid with such a problem. But on the other hand, if the highly obese guy never gets reminded about his problem, he may see it as unchangeable. Until he dies because of a heart attack at the age of 35.
And genetics IS an excuse (at least to a certain degree). I can do a lot of sports and eat very healthy without seeing a lot of change (I'm talking about running 6 to 10 miles 4 to 5 times a week, doing daily workouts and eating absolutely no junkfood, sugary food - except fruits and vegetables - and drinking a lot of water - I looked healthy and stuff, but far from what you expect me to look since I did this for half a year without breaking any of those habits). While if I'm undergoing a stressful time and can't focus on that - boom - 10 more pounds in a few weeks.
On June 21 2013 16:18 Fix637 wrote: It's hard to tell if this is a good choice or not.
On the one hand, obesity is a serious problem in our country and is the cause for an alarming number of health problems. There needs to be serious research done into not only preventing obesity but figuring out why it is so rampant to begin with.
On the other hand, a disease is generally perceived as being something that is out of the victim's control. It makes for an interesting semantic argument when we look at something like liver cancer, which is defined as a disease but is caused almost exclusively (to my knowledge, definitely not a doctor here) by a person's abuse of alcohol. Yet it is undeniable that liver cancer is a disease that we have to treat very seriously.
Likewise, obesity is caused almost exclusively by a person's life style choices. There are definitely people who can't control it, but those people are a serious minority. Labeling obesity as something that cannot be controlled by the victim could do more harm than good, as people who are already making excuses for their poor life style choices and health will now have a valid medical scapegoat.
Regardless, I think it's important that physicians do away with BMI as a measure of obesity. It's absolutely ludicrous. My girlfriend is 5'2'' and curvy, but not obese in any sense of the word. Yet she went and had a free biometrics test done and was labeled obese due to her BMI, which is absurd (not to mention incredibly damaging for a woman's self-esteem). So technically, according to this new ruling, she has a disease because her BMI is over 30, despite a higher BMI being an uncontrollable product of her physical makeup.
I am sorry, but you missed on almost all accounts.
A disease is not something that is outside of the victims control. And obesity is not completely within the control of a patient (though the coping mechanisms of many an obese is not exactly helpful in limiting the weightgain) - as argued plenty of times throughout this thread.
Liver cancer can be caused by many other things. Hepatitis just to mention one.
BMI should not be done away with, but it should not be used brainlessly. It is cheap, simple and very well correlated with a wide range of conditions. However flawed it is, it is still a great screening tool when applied correctly.
The AMA has specifically chosen to label obesity as a disease, NOT an illness. All of you are arguing whether or not it should be an illness. (Click for explanation)
The only thing that worries me about calling it a "disease" is in the solution... or rather, "treatment". If it ends up as just an excuse to create new artificial medications without actually addressing the fundamental problems of the food industry, then labeling it as a "disease" could end up being a cop out and missing the forest for the trees.
Also, this is the AMA we're talking about. A politically right leaning organization with a historically strong lobby against universal health care etc.
Disease is just an abnormal condition. Is carrying too much fat an abnormal condition? Dont make up different definitions of the word based on personal beliefs
On June 21 2013 16:48 nota wrote: Disease is just an abnormal condition. Is carrying too much fat an abnormal condition? Dont make up different definitions of the word based on personal beliefs
Same goes for you. Disease refers to a condition which impairs normal function. When you are obese and can't walk up to the third floor, you are impaired.
EDIT: Big Pharma is not going to benefit from this unless they figure out some new pathway to target. The amount of drugs that have been tried with extremely limited or zero effect is staggering. Novo Nordisk had a somewhat promising drug in the pipeline which got delayed by the FDA for at least another 3 years.
All diseases do not requiring medication - take a broken bone for example.
On June 21 2013 16:48 nota wrote: Disease is just an abnormal condition. Is carrying too much fat an abnormal condition? Dont make up different definitions of the word based on personal beliefs
Same goes for you. Disease refers to a condition which impairs normal function. When you are obese and can't walk up to the third floor, you are impaired.
EDIT: Big Pharma is not going to benefit from this unless they figure out some new pathway to target. The amount of drugs that have been tried with extremely limited or zero effect is staggering. Novo Nordisk had a somewhat promising drug in the pipeline which got delayed by the FDA for at least another 3 years.
All diseases do not requiring medication - take a broken bone for example.
My statement was not made opposing what the AMA decided. I was more referring to people in this thread saying they dont view it as a disease because of xyz.
On June 21 2013 16:48 nota wrote: Disease is just an abnormal condition. Is carrying too much fat an abnormal condition? Dont make up different definitions of the word based on personal beliefs
Same goes for you. Disease refers to a condition which impairs normal function. When you are obese and can't walk up to the third floor, you are impaired.
EDIT: Big Pharma is not going to benefit from this unless they figure out some new pathway to target. The amount of drugs that have been tried with extremely limited or zero effect is staggering. Novo Nordisk had a somewhat promising drug in the pipeline which got delayed by the FDA for at least another 3 years.
All diseases do not requiring medication - take a broken bone for example.
My statement was not made opposing what the AMA decided. I was more referring to people in this thread saying they dont view it as a disease because of xyz.
On June 21 2013 16:24 Prugelhugel wrote: It's no disease, it's a cultural problem. If you drink softdrinks instead of water, eat snacks full of sugar and fat instead of fruits and are neglecting to do any form of sports, well... what do you expect? Calling it a disease just upgrades it to a higher taboo in problematic countries. That's not a good idea, because the first step to deal with a problem is to speak about the problem.
Too true. If I go to a McDonalds here in Japan a large size fry or drink is roughly equivalent to a small in America. All portions here are toned down extremely from what I grew up knowing. After living in many other countries besides America I have learned truly it really isn't a disease and people are just stupid and don't care about what or how much they are putting into their body, and how quickly it all adds up to becoming obese.
On June 21 2013 16:24 Prugelhugel wrote: It's no disease, it's a cultural problem. If you drink softdrinks instead of water, eat snacks full of sugar and fat instead of fruits and are neglecting to do any form of sports, well... what do you expect? Calling it a disease just upgrades it to a higher taboo in problematic countries. That's not a good idea, because the first step to deal with a problem is to speak about the problem.
Too true. If I go to a McDonalds here in Japan a large size fry or drink is roughly equivalent to a small in America. All portions here are toned down extremely from what I grew up knowing. After living in many other countries besides America I have learned truly it really isn't a disease and people are just stupid and don't care about what or how much they are putting into their body, and how quickly it all adds up to becoming obese.
Whether or not a person's actions can affect obesity has no affect on it being defined as a disease.
If you smoke tobacco, you might get lung cancer. If you drink sodas everyday, you might get fat.
Fat as a symptom of a disease means it is a disease, just like how other diseases can lead to other problems as well. The reason it wasnt considered a disease before is because you had to eat a lot of food in order to get obese to the point where it starts causing hypertension, heart problems, etc.
The bigger problem behind this is what the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are going to do with this...
On June 21 2013 17:18 imBLIND wrote: If you smoke tobacco, you might get lung cancer. If you drink sodas everyday, you might get fat.
Fat as a symptom of a disease means it is a disease, just like how other diseases can lead to other problems as well. The reason it wasnt considered a disease before is because you had to eat a lot of food in order to get obese to the point where it starts causing hypertension, heart problems, etc.
The bigger problem behind this is what the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are going to do with this...
If big pharma had an adequate treatment, it would already be implemented. Disease or not wouldnt affect people wanting to lose weight.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
Well sure you should do something against it (like a diet change + sports and stuff) if you are weighing too much, but still bash over those people is something that really freaks me out, because they've nothing done to anybody by being fat.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
There are already people with severe obesity who do not work and collect disability as a result, taking no action to change their situation.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
There are already people with severe obesity who do not work and collect disability as a result, taking no action to change their situation.
But thats something very different. If you are sooo fat (which is far beyond simple obesity) that you cant work at all, than it is often too late and you need help from outside like surgery etc..
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
There are already people with severe obesity who do not work and collect disability as a result, taking no action to change their situation.
But thats something very different. If you are sooo fat (which is far beyond simple obesity) that you cant work at all, than it is too late.
Then what are you actually trying to argue?
People who are fat and too lazy to prevent or change their situation can (and do) collect disability. This is what the first poster you quoted stated would happen (it already does), and you took insult to.
Those who are fat and still work obviously will not.
its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
How is something self-inflicted a disease? Are gambling addiction and alcoholism also considered diseases in US? Well. I don't agree with this definition.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
Not that I'm a proponent of the TL WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE or anything but to just accept what experts say because they are defined as experts (We don't really know WHY this is in most cases) seems a bit uh...stupid...
I'm sure there has been plenty of times where you've watched TV and an expert has said something that you think is bullshit. In many cases the subject at hand isn't even fully defined yet so opinions are still very much divided. There may actually be several people here who has studied this extensively.
On June 21 2013 18:15 Xayoz wrote: How is something self-inflicted a disease? Are gambling addiction and alcoholism also considered diseases in US? Well. I don't agree with this definition.
Alcoholism actually is considered a disease. You must understand that a disease is actually a very open ended definition. In the grand terms it's simply an abnormal condition that affects an organism. A disease does not need to be out of one's control to be qualified as a disease.
Obesity is not acceptable but I believe people could use a bit more empathy when considering this subject. I was extremely fat years ago and now I'm going through a diet and getting really fit. What the guys complaining about fat people need to understand is that food and sugar cause a physical addiction, much like any hard drug. It's scientifically proven and it's a fact. Fat people need to overcome a strong addiction and while doing that force themselves to do a lot of running and gym which is harder to do than for other people because their body struggles walking or doing stairs alone.
On June 21 2013 03:57 codonbyte wrote: To be honest I don't see this having any real effect on how much treatment patients get for obesity. Doctors already know that being obese is unhealthy, and I'm pretty sure most people who are fat already know it's unhealthy but are unable to lose weight for one reason or another (self-discipline, succumbing to temptation, slower metabolism, etc.). I don't see how classifying obesity as a disease is going to deal with any of those issues.
On June 21 2013 03:45 Lycaeus wrote: "It's not my fault I'm fat, I have a DISEASE"
Yes, I know we all love to call out fat people for their often-times poor eating habits and lack of self-discipline. However, I don't think that's really all that fair.
Sure, having a lack of self discipline may be what ultimately causes obesity many times, however genetics determines how much any individual person is punished for a lack of self-discipline.
I'll use myself as an example. I was blessed with a ridonkulously fast metabolism. I have never had to worry about my weight, no matter how poor my eating habits. I'll often eat an entire box of oreos or 2 (big) bags of jelly beans after a long day of work. Last night I ate an entire gallon of ice cream.
Yet I am never punished for these poor eating habits in the slightest, simply because of my genes, while some other person with poor eating habits may be getting obese, even if their eating habits are better than mine (not great, but still better than mine).
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
Edit: With that rant out of the way I would like to say that I think this decision is ridiculous because it's confusing the causes with their symptoms (i.e. a obesity is a symptom of something, either poor lifestyle or a medical condition, etc.). I made another post in this thread that goes into that more.
See, I disagree. I used to be like you when I was younger. I've never had to exhibit self-control or practice moderation while eating and never learned how to. When I hit the age of 22 or so my metabolism started slowing down and my poor eating/health habits started catching up with me. Gas station food for lunch every day, a doughnut for breakfast every morning, a pack of cigarettes a day, pizza on Fridays and binge drinking on the weekends. This went on for a LONG time and I went from weighing 145-150lbs from 10th grade all the way til 21 to now weighing 200-220lbs. Then one day I decided to lose the weight because I thought I looked disgusting. I quit smoking and drinking and started eating healthy while also working out. It's now two years later and I weigh 160-165lbs and am in the best shape of my life.
One could argue that it would be much harder for me, someone who had spent a lifetime of suffering no consequences from his eating habits, to begin practicing moderation. As opposed to someone who has been (allegedly) attempting to practice moderation for a while. Their problem is that they are COMFORTABLE, they have nothing driving them to put down that doughnut and now they even have an EXCUSE not to. It's pathetic if you ask me.
Oh nooooes!! I'm 21 right now!! Don't tell me that my life of eating whatever the hell I want and never having any consequences for my actions is about to end!! D:
I turn 22 in september. I MUST make the most of these last few months of unlimited consumption of crappy food and candy and ice cream!!! *runs off to buy a couple gallons of ice cream and a few kilograms of jelly beans*
25 here, I can still eat whatever and stay very slim. Right now I can't exercice, I'm eating a lot (healthy, mind you, but still lots of meat/eggs/nuts, and it's a recent habit, like only 2 weeks), I drink one or 2 beer a day, and I'm actually losing weight. 110 lbs right now for an average height. And it's annoying to be honest.
ok just wondering, where do you live and what do you consider average height? For most of the western world I think its around like 5'9" to 5'10" (175 -178 cm) at which 110 lbs (50 kg) sounds near anorexic. I am 6'1 (185cm) and roll in right around 200 (90 kg). I don't consider myself skinny but I run 5k a few times a week and used to do a lot of weight training from 16-24 (haven't had any equipment since moving) so more or less while I am not rocking a sixpack I do consider myself pretty healthy. I can't imagine losing 3 or 4 inches and almost cutting my weight in half. Jesus dude.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
Not that I'm a proponent of the TL WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE or anything but to just accept what experts say because they are defined as experts (We don't really know WHY this is in most cases) seems a bit uh...stupid...
I'm sure there has been plenty of times where you've watched TV and an expert has said something that you think is bullshit. In many cases the subject at hand isn't even fully defined yet so opinions are still very much divided. There may actually be several people here who has studied this extensively.
On June 21 2013 18:15 Xayoz wrote: How is something self-inflicted a disease? Are gambling addiction and alcoholism also considered diseases in US? Well. I don't agree with this definition.
Alcoholism actually is considered a disease. You must understand that a disease is actually a very open ended definition. In the grand terms it's simply an abnormal condition that affects an organism. A disease does not need to be out of one's control to be qualified as a disease.
of course, just accepting whatever someones telling you, especially without providing sources (regardless of what they claim to be) is basically what my post is about!
On June 21 2013 03:57 AnomalySC2 wrote: I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
You're a very, very, very unique case.
Well, I guess that makes me unique too
I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want, and I've had a BMI of 19 for the last ~20 years. I'm fairly certain that I'd be pretty fat if it weren't for my genetics I'm not saying that fat people don't have a choice, it's just that their genetics play a part in how fast their obesity problem spirals out of control.
American food is in general awful for the body and completely unnatural with big companies controlling everything and adding the chemicals they want in the food. Because they are so big and have so much power, they aren't controlled, make false publicity on the healthiness of the food and add to the society of mass consumption that is the US.
This society of consumption, the add of chemicals and sugar/salt in mass quantity plus the false publicity resulted in the obesity in the US or at least part of it there may be over factors but I think they are the main ones.
Ofc it's good to treat it as a disease because it leads to death but the thing to change would be the system. Government ask consumers not to buy but the global system want them to. It's like telling us not to consume electricity to preserve the planet, to use bicycle instead of cars but hell big companies destroys the earth and it's them who sells everything.
The system should change, American society in general should change.
Edit : Also in a few cases being a little fat has to do with genetics but not being obese, I mean not at all. Obese people have mostly eaten shit all the time. For the skinny people, it has a lot more to do with genetics, people that are so skinny they have health problems most of the time have bad habits too. For sure if you are basically skinny you can get a little fat but you have to put a ton of efforts. I weight 62 kg for 1m74. Before I was at like 55kg but god it was hard. I had to eat snacks and meat all day long to take a kg and then run, lift, push/pull up all weak. It was so fucking annoying.
On June 21 2013 03:57 AnomalySC2 wrote: I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
You're a very, very, very unique case.
Well, I guess that makes me unique too
I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want, and I've had a BMI of 19 for the last ~20 years. I'm fairly certain that I'd be pretty fat if it weren't for my genetics I'm not saying that fat people don't have a choice, it's just that their genetics play a part in how fast their obesity problem spirals out of control.
So you're maintaining calorie balance right now. If you added 2000 calories onto your current diet you would gain weight. The biggest misconception is the way people judge how much they eat and extrapolate that into meaning they can eat whatever they want. People have different standards and some people who might get full after a salad with extra dressing and feel 'stuffed' if they eat a bar of candy differ quite a lot from people who can eat a whole pizza and still feel like they need an extra snack.
There's also the situation which is common amongst skinny nerds where they devour some calorie dense thing like a bag of chips and a pizza, and then they can zone out and work on their computer or play games for almost the whole day without eating, but of course they won't think of this and still feel like they stuffed their face this particular day. Meanwhile some other person might've had the same meal but in the time that other person was zoned out on the computer he was snacking constantly, possibly adding up to 1500 calories in that time span.
My point is that outside a controlled setting where you measure the exact calories you take in the human perception can skew the situation far into either direction and bypassing several rigorous studies about calorie intake and human metabolism in favor of some 'bro science' is quite lacking.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
I can bet you million bucks that obesity have more to to with anxiety than it has with laziness. Calling fat people lazy are just a way for people to feel superior over others.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
I can bet you million bucks that obesity have more to to with anxiety than it has with laziness. Calling fat people lazy are just a way for people to feel superior over others.
Anxiety or not you cant be obese without eating a lot. I agree anxiety most probably has a lot to do with acummulating fat (from my own experince during college) but not that much to make you weight a metric ton. Sure you can be a bit bigger or just fat because of anxiety but not as fat where its a health problem.
Eating unhealthy is the biggest culprit. Processed foods with additives, food with so much salt and/or sugar that it lasts 5 years on the shelf. Portions are another issue but they are a result of how poorly nutritive these products are, not to mention the blood sugar rollercoaster that ensues. You dont feel "full" as fast, and you're hungry again within a short period.
Seems dubious that genetic variations could account for such disparity, everyone stems from the same few prehistoric tribes, and the various populations are like 99.99% alike in terms of DNA. The things that vary are cultural. Populations with the greatest longevity share similarities (good nutrition, healthy social interactions with peers, low stress, relatively active life (does'nt imply gym memberships, only implies that they dont spend 18 hours a day sitting at a desk or watching tv).
-Get rid of terrible food altogether, if you want an occasionnal treat find an alternative that is made from organic products and not full of additives. Eat ice cream or chocolate from an artisan shop, not out of the grocery. -Get moving, walking 1 hour+/day is all the exercise you need out of your day, provided you eat normal -Lower your stress level, by identifying the causes and eliminating or alievating them. Again, exercise and diet helps a lot to maintain proper equilibrium. High expectations from society and peers are seldom positive.
Fat and slim people alike are victim to these problems, and they both exert a pretty heavy toll on health care costs. Fat people, and I guess smokers as well, are just easier to stygmatise because their problem is apparent.
I think that they are doing this not because they care whether or not obesity is considered a disease, but in order to use the government's money in order to create more resources to help people become more healthy. Not that I think it will work, but I feel they will try to use treatments through wellness psychology. Overall though, imo, people hate being told what to eat so not much will change.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
gehehehe your reply is quite amusing considering its exactly what my post is about x)
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
gehehehe your reply is quite amusing considering its exactly what my post is about x)
Gehahaheh hue hue Im glad I cheered you up, I was laughing aswell when writing that comment hahha.
Whenever me and my dad drive in a car and see a fat person riding a bike (or dear god one time we saw one riding a horse) we drow slowly by them, push the horn and laugh and cheer that person. So amuzing indeed.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
That sounds really tough. But to it sounds more as a kind of bad habit, like smoking or something, than a real disease. Obesity is just as much a disease as being addicted to cigarettes (with the exception of when it really is a disease).
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
I can bet you million bucks that obesity have more to to with anxiety than it has with laziness. Calling fat people lazy are just a way for people to feel superior over others.
Plenty of people eat less when anxious too though. If you are feeling sick to the stomach with nerves/stress/worries, it can feel hard to put stuff down there (in other people's cases keep it down). Do that regularly and maybe it's an eating disorder, but if it's just on occasion, or probably shouldn't affect their weight much. Exercising in small amounts, on the other hand, is probably going to make more a difference to not exercising at all (other than getting in and out of a car...).
I think a much bigger example of this "laziness" though is that so many people use the excuse that "healthy food is more expensive", which in many places simply isn't true; it can even be cheaper. Eating healthily can and usually does require more effort though, more preparation of food ingredients. Some people are too slim from trying to eat healthily but lazily by only buying expensive pre-packaged salad mixes, buying pre-made healthy meals from cafés, restaurants etc. and simply not getting enough food/energy into their bodies as a result.
Not all people who complain about healthy food being more expensive have weight problems though and perhaps this is where genetics been kind to them. Genetics certainly play a part but for most people, they won't be the only deciding factor. You can't just use them as an excuse on their own, à la "Imbalance! Imbalance! My genetics UP! Nerf OP slim people!" T_T
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
gehehehe your reply is quite amusing considering its exactly what my post is about x)
Gehahaheh hue hue Im glad I cheered you up, I was laughing aswell when writing that comment hahha.
Whenever me and my dad drive in a car and see a fat person riding a bike (or dear god one time we saw one riding a horse) we drow slowly by them, push the horn and laugh and cheer that person. So amuzing indeed.
NukeD, if I'm understanding NEEDZMOAR correctly, he's saying your statement here:
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
is just what he's referring to here:
Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even
Great, maybe one day willpower and choice won't be such romanticized concepts that we don't need to have a 20 page discussion on whether obesity is an actual problem.
All in all, this will not change the perception of obese people for the public; it'll probably increase people's negative perception now that obese people have even more excuse to be obese or cried so hard to classify it as so. Decreasing the rate of obesity is the only good thing that could come out classifying obesity as a disease; everything else about obesity, well picking on fat people just got easier.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
That sounds really tough. But to it sounds more as a kind of bad habit, like smoking or something, than a real disease. Obesity is just as much a disease as being addicted to cigarettes (with the exception of when it really is a disease).
I think most people agree on smoking being an addiction, regardless if there is a habitual component in smoking. Furthermore many people see a social component in smoking, and here lies another similarity with overeating (which causes obesity): In our past eating was attributed to either nutrition or an occasion of social gathering. Most obese people and smokers in general (well except Party-Smokers) consume their drugs alone and way beyond nutritional requirements.
Difference is mainly in the perception of people who do smoke (mundane in the past, cool today maybe) and fat people (lack of willpower etc, im a fat-shamer, I know)
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
I can bet you million bucks that obesity have more to to with anxiety than it has with laziness. Calling fat people lazy are just a way for people to feel superior over others.
Plenty of people eat less when anxious too though. If you are feeling sick to the stomach with nerves/stress/worries, it can feel hard to put stuff down there (in other people's cases keep it down). Do that regularly and maybe it's an eating disorder, but if it's just on occasion, or probably shouldn't affect their weight much. Exercising in small amounts, on the other hand, is probably going to make more a difference to not exercising at all (other than getting in and out of a car...).
I think a much bigger example of this "laziness" though is that so many people use the excuse that "healthy food is more expensive", which in many places simply isn't true; it can even be cheaper. Eating healthily can and usually does require more effort though, more preparation of food ingredients. Some people are too slim from trying to eat healthily but lazily by only buying expensive pre-packaged salad mixes, buying pre-made healthy meals from cafés, restaurants etc. and simply not getting enough food/energy into their bodies as a result.
Not all people who complain about healthy food being more expensive have weight problems though and perhaps this is where genetics been kind to them. Genetics certainly play a part but for most people, they won't be the only deciding factor. You can't just use them as an excuse on their own, à la "Imbalance! Imbalance! My genetics UP! Nerf OP slim people!" T_T
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
I like how you say people "suffer" from obesity like its a disease. Hey folks look at that guy, he suffers from that new being fat disease, poor him :/
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
gehehehe your reply is quite amusing considering its exactly what my post is about x)
Gehahaheh hue hue Im glad I cheered you up, I was laughing aswell when writing that comment hahha.
Whenever me and my dad drive in a car and see a fat person riding a bike (or dear god one time we saw one riding a horse) we drow slowly by them, push the horn and laugh and cheer that person. So amuzing indeed.
NukeD, if I'm understanding NEEDZMOAR correctly, he's saying your statement here:
Its more that people suffer from severe laziness and/or lack of character and thats why they're obese (excluding ones that genuinly have hormonal or whatever health issues that causes them to be obese).
Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even
Yup thats what I meant, Also, there are plenty of places in the US where takeout food and fast food meals are a lot cheaper and definitely more easily accessible than groceries/healthy food, just saying.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Case in point.
Before immediately jumping on the Taubes train take a step back and think about it.
Taubes is correct when he says, “Those who get fat do so because of the way their fat is regulated.” But they still couldn’t get fat without eating too many calories for their particular metabolism, and if a way can be found to decrease their calorie intake to a level appropriate for their metabolism, they will lose weight.
What about weight loss itself? If Taubes’ thesis is correct, we would expect studies to consistently show a strong superiority of low-carb diets for weight loss. This 2010 study showed no difference in weight loss between low fat and low carb diets over a 2 year period, although low-carb dieters had more favorable changes in lipids. A 2009 study in NEJM compared weight loss from diets with different compositions of fat, protein and carbohydrates and found that low-carb diets were not superior, and that clinically meaningful weight loss results from weight loss diets “regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” An accompanying editorial suggests that behavioral factors are more important to weight loss than the type of diet, and that a total environmental approach is needed.
Taubes says right off the bat that “these competing ideas should be tested” and admits that such testing has not been done; but since obesity is such a serious problem, he says it is urgent that we institute his diet recommendations now, without waiting for the evidence. Yet he criticizes the low-fat diet campaign for doing just that: we went beyond the evidence and instituted society-wide changes based on inadequate data, with what Taubes considers to be disastrous results. How can he be so certain we should go beyond the evidence this time?
The whole thing is a good read though if you have time.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
That's been a thing for a while. Not sure how I feel about this. Obviously part of a person's weight is based on factors beyond their control, such as their genetics, but I don't think a person can just catch obesity. That much comes from lack of dieting and exercise. They mention the need for "Behavior modifying programs" to fight obesity; so does that define it more as a mental illness or addiction? You wouldn't go to a behavior modifying program to fight asthma or cancer.
Also I like how it says they ignored the advice of experts. There really is no gain from calling it a disease
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
There are already people with severe obesity who do not work and collect disability as a result, taking no action to change their situation.
But thats something very different. If you are sooo fat (which is far beyond simple obesity) that you cant work at all, than it is too late.
Then what are you actually trying to argue?
People who are fat and too lazy to prevent or change their situation can (and do) collect disability. This is what the first poster you quoted stated would happen (it already does), and you took insult to.
Those who are fat and still work obviously will not.
On June 21 2013 03:50 Attica wrote: Are people going to be getting disability now because they are fat and lazy.
oh yeah ofc you are lazy if you are fat. what a stupid comment
If you were fat and not lazy, you wouldn't need to collect disability.
Still dumb. Being fat does not hinder you to do the same work as your normal weighing colleagues or do your studies with the same effort and sucess. If you really think this, you are either a douche or a fascist who thinks that only a healthy body can be useful and all that weird shit.
Well except for physical exhausting work (which is done by only a small percentage of the workforce in modern industrialized countries.).
There are already people with severe obesity who do not work and collect disability as a result, taking no action to change their situation.
But thats something very different. If you are sooo fat (which is far beyond simple obesity) that you cant work at all, than it is too late.
Then what are you actually trying to argue?
People who are fat and too lazy to prevent or change their situation can (and do) collect disability. This is what the first poster you quoted stated would happen (it already does), and you took insult to.
Those who are fat and still work obviously will not.
and what would you do, just let them die ?
I haven't given my viewpoint, only explained what the originally quoted poster was getting at to answer a kneejerk reaction.
Ive never been fat except briefly but really, why wouldn't it be a disorder? We call mental disorders for a class of the more general spectrum 'disease', and with good reason. There is a lot of evidence for how genetics and environment influence a person leading to obesity, so surely obesity is a type of mental disorder.
People go under some illusion that because something is "mental" or has to do with behaviour, then it is somehow "magical". Every mental event is a physical event. There is no free will. Your brain "chooses" what you will do in any given situation before youre even consciously aware of making a choice. In the light of this, it's quite obvious how obesity is to be classified as an illness, and I find it more interesting why people have such an inate urge to belittle and ridicule fat people in the first place. Its like an itch, people just HAVE TO do it it seems. My suspicion is that it partly is an evolutionary function going haywire, ie if we in a group dislike a certain behaviour it will go away. This may have worked millenia ago for other things, but fat people today will only eat more if belittled hence people are not only being cruel, they are being so unwarranted.
So the question is, did any of you making shitty arguments as to why obesity isn't an illness have any choice in the matter? Probably not.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Its not really as simple. Often depression and stress have something to do with it. Its not something that you just get rid off like the fat. Loosing weigth takes years, but getting rid of that mental state is even harder, and having to deal with both Things at the same time can seem impossible for the person.
Since I moved to the states it is a rarity to have a day pass without me spotting the most repulsive human being I've ever seen. Seriously, how do you even get that fat? Some of those whales even have kids. How do they fuck?
At Lunch yesterday I threw up after I saw one of them wearing leggings. Gross.
On June 21 2013 23:04 Cattlecruiser wrote: Since I moved to the states it is a rarity to have a day pass without me spotting the most repulsive human being I've ever seen. Seriously, how do you even get that fat? Some of those whales even have kids. How do they fuck?
At Lunch yesterday I threw up after I saw one of them wearing leggings. Gross.
Since I started browsing this thread there hasn't been a day without me spotting some guy exposing his disgusting opinion about fat people. Seriously how can you get so stupid ? Some of these even believe their ideas are worth sharing. Will they shut up ?
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
I've known very few fat people who don't know 100% why they are fat. They know what they should do, yet they cant find it in themselves to do it. Brain chemistry and structure comes into play at this point. Genetics isnt just some magic card you can throw around in one sentence and then go "hey its just a personal choice durp durp". It influences every aspect of being, in this case a bad combo of genes and environment creates a brainstructure with a prefrontal cortex unable to handle the strong impulses generated by the brain. I actually find it quite ridiculous how you portray grown up people. Sure there are those people among the obese, but to think that the general "fat person" is just too retarded to realize that eating less and working out more would result in weightloss is pretty sad actually. If that were true, surely they would be sick, as in mentally challenged. Are you suggesting that the majority of fat people are mentally challenged?
Do you think shaming fat people into being thin works? As with any addiction it will not. Show some compassion instead and perhaps they will get to the point where they can feel good about themselves without that dopamine from cakes and cookies.
As with any farfetched and nonfactual idea, people draw from the absurd or occasional occurrence in order to defend their view, instead of actually looking at the facts and god forbid taking a good look at ones own beliefs. This is religious thinking at its worst. How about you ask yourself why you view others through such shitty lenses?
I'm sure everyone fat bashing in this thread going on about how repulsive they are to look at workout 3-5 times a week and look like pro athletes right? Because scrawny people are just utterly disgusting and repulsive to look at. I mean do you people have any self respect? You are all just so lazy, I mean why don't you do something about that? It must mean you're too damn lazy and have no self respect to do anything about it.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
Hell yes he does! That skin problem had better fix itself after all that he's accomplished! He deserves to look like a speedo model for that amazing display of self-discipline. People like that are inspiring for the rest of us and will be richly rewarded if there's any justice in the universe (although I kind of gave up on justice in the universe a long time ago ).
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
Hell yes he does! That skin problem had better fix itself after all that he's accomplished! He deserves to look like a speedo model for that amazing display of self-discipline. People like that are inspiring for the rest of us and will be richly rewarded if there's any justice in the universe (although I kind of gave up on justice in the universe a long time ago ).
More muscle helps, but this problem can actually take up to 2 years to solve itself.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
You can't remove the excess skin without a surgical intervention.
It depends on how long he was that fat and how young he is. But with that much extra skin, I'm going to say he lost that weight WAY too fast. If you lose weight at a moderated pace, your skin will naturally stay tight as you lose the weight. It only gets like that when you drop all of your weight at once.
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
You can't remove the excess skin without a surgical intervention.
It depends on how long he was that fat and how young he is. But with that much extra skin, I'm going to say he lost that weight WAY too fast. If you lose weight at a moderated pace, your skin will naturally stay tight as you lose the weight. It only gets like that when you drop all of your weight at once.
Will surgery be able to get rid of the excess skin? And if so, is it a simple and straightforward operation?
On June 21 2013 20:14 NeVeR wrote: these days everything is a disease
The society we live in today is terrified of responsibility.
Everything is a disease, everything is a disorder, nothing is ever anyone's fault.
It's society's fault, or the media, or your parents, or the teachers, or the schools, or the government.
Nobody wants to be held responsible for anything, even their own actions. There's always something to explain away or justify or defend yourself.
We'd rather our kids weigh 300 lb and have high self esteem, to go along with their heart disease and diabetes, than dare hurt their feelings.
This is pretty much what I think whenever I hear anyone say they have any mild disease
"Oh I have mild Asperger's" No you're more then likely just socially awkward.. "I have ADHD" No you just don't want to focus/ actually work... "I'm Bi polar" No you're just a cunt....
I know some people legitimately have those conditions but 8/10 people claiming them just want some excuse to act like idiots and have no consequences for their actions etc.. It really frustrates me how so many people flat out refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and life and just blame it on what ever disease or condition they see on tv or read about in magazines etc.
Sorry if this rant got a little off topic it just pisses me off!
On June 21 2013 21:06 Kaeru wrote: Hahaha this is so funny. If I was fat as hell I would now call to my boss and say "Sorry I have to stay home from work this week, I feel really fat."
Sure there are genetics involved as people are claiming. Some people have hard time gaining weight (me!). Some people have hard time losing weight... But still it is nothing but a personal choice. Being fat is not a disease it's being lazy and incompetent.
I have NEVER meet a fat person that does correct exercise 3-5 times per week and thinks about what he/she eats. What I have meet are fat people sitting at McDonalds eating 10 burgers and crying over their weight "Buhu it's my genetics I'm so fat". NO. Shut the fuck up and put some effort into life and maybe you'll get in shape.
Yeah, it won't take a week. or a month. But maybe 1-2 years to loose weight. Shit I get so angry at this topic... Sad.
Hats down to that guy. I only hope that hanging skin problem will fix itself over time cos he fckin deserves it.
You can't remove the excess skin without a surgical intervention.
It depends on how long he was that fat and how young he is. But with that much extra skin, I'm going to say he lost that weight WAY too fast. If you lose weight at a moderated pace, your skin will naturally stay tight as you lose the weight. It only gets like that when you drop all of your weight at once.
Will surgery be able to get rid of the excess skin? And if so, is it a simple and straightforward operation?
Yup. There's a procedure called a "body lift" where a cosmetic surgeon removes the excess skin. I believe it requires general anesthesia which carries not insignificant risks but it's not like a cosmetic clinic is a slaughterhouse. You can get the surgery and not worry.
Although there is usually pretty bad scaring and your skin still isn't perfectly tight. But both of those things will resolve themselves in time and at least you can wear a shirt without looking lumpy and weird.
On June 21 2013 20:14 NeVeR wrote: these days everything is a disease
The society we live in today is terrified of responsibility.
Everything is a disease, everything is a disorder, nothing is ever anyone's fault.
It's society's fault, or the media, or your parents, or the teachers, or the schools, or the government.
Nobody wants to be held responsible for anything, even their own actions. There's always something to explain away or justify or defend yourself.
We'd rather our kids weigh 300 lb and have high self esteem, to go along with their heart disease and diabetes, than dare hurt their feelings.
This is pretty much what I think whenever I hear anyone say they have any mild disease
"Oh I have mild Asperger's" No you're more then likely just socially awkward.. "I have ADHD" No you just don't want to focus/ actually work... "I'm Bi polar" No you're just a cunt....
I know some people legitimately have those conditions but 8/10 people claiming them just want some excuse to act like idiots and have no consequences for their actions etc.. It really frustrates me how so many people flat out refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and life and just blame it on what ever disease or condition they see on tv or read about in magazines etc.
Sorry if this rant got a little off topic it just pisses me off!
It's a pain in the fucking ass. As an occasional close-to suicidal, consistent depressive, I will fucking gut the next person who gets some medical note excusing them from academic study because they are 'bipolar'. Everybody has to have some niche mental condition in lieu of being an interesting person, it's pathetic.
Worse is how terrified people are of being sued for mental health discrimination that some of these cuntbags are never called on their nonsense, essentially self-diagnosed cries for attention.
So many people are like that over here, god knows what it's like in the States where that culture seems more developed.
Obesity may be a symptom, but it also causes many problems, so in that sense it still makes sense to say its a disease. We all know being fat increases chance of developing cancer, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and heart disease, so it seems to fit the requirements of a type of disorder - because it clearly causes problems in the body.
And just because it can be "acquired" voluntarily doesn't mean that it can't be a disease. I think Klondike mentioned it earlier...you can do a lot of things voluntarily that will lead to contracting various diseases, like smoking cigarettes to develop lung cancer (apparently cancer can be classified as a type of disease).
I don't think classifying a disease "lets people off the hook" as others are suggesting. If you change the wording from just being a fat person to actually having a disease, then to me it shows that what they have is serious and they need to take it as seriously as any other disease. Its not just extra weight that looks unappealing, it has serious health risks (obviously), but when its labelled a disease its clearer to see that for the general public.
I mean just look at all of the well-known "genuine" diseases out there...no one would say that they're off the hook if their behaviour leads them to have a higher risk of contracting any of those diseases. No one wants to be diseased! And since this is clearly a preventable disease, I don't really see the issue with escaping personal responsibility here.
edit: Then again maybe some people would like to be diseased. I guess it can be a psychological crutch...oh I can't do that, I'm diseased. Help me I'm diseased!! lol
Everything is a disease, everything is a disorder, nothing is ever anyone's fault.
It's society's fault, or the media, or your parents, or the teachers, or the schools, or the government.
Yeah, it's actually like we live in a society we interact with! Like what do you think, that humans make their decisions in a vacuum? You are influenced by your environment, there is no "free decision making" that only happens in your head, people are made out of stuff that follows the rules of physics like everything else on this planet, i never understood why people think humans are like magical beings that make all their decisions "freely".
And that may seem like a philosophical discussion, but it's actually a really important point when it comes to how we treat people who mistreat their own body.
And another important point, there are a lot of diseases that are influenced by personal life choices. People seem to draw a magical line between obesity and everything else. If you smoke to much you will damage your lung and other parts of your body, if you drink too much you increase your risk for liver damage and cancer. You also increase your cancer risk by not eating enough vegetables, drinking tea/coffee or working out. Most illnesses people get treated for ar at least (heavily) influenced if not caused by their lifestyle decisions. If you treat persons like they're all responsible for what they do(which i still think is stupid) people should at least be consistent.
On June 22 2013 00:29 Toasterbaked wrote: Obesity is a symptom...
Or you just eat too much. Either way, it isn't a disease.
Yeah; "at best" compulsive eating and/or metabolic-related issues are a disease, but certainly not obesity itself.
What the AMA did was just some sort of legal cop-out and/or misguided attempt at directing change. There might be some benefits but: - It's a double edged sword - Truth/accuracy is an important thing regardless of whether it results in good or bad outcomes.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
When making claims about obese people being lazy, you really need to remember that everything is relative. If you're fit and normal weight, it doesn't mean that an over weight or obese person is lazy ass human being becaue they're not exercising as much as you are and because they don't eat as healthy as you do. People have different interests and goals in their lives. Also, people really don't always act so rationally as many seem to think. Of course we can make decisions, but often we just have stupid and unhealthy habits that we don't really think about. Most smokers probably know about lung cancer but often it doesn't stop them. If you have ever played SC2, you probably have done something irrational and stupid in a game for no real reason. We aren't 100% objective and rational all the time.
Nervous system and endocrine system are really tangled to each other and function of them really do alter our behavior. Extreme case being depression. There really is not "the people who have a gland malfunction" and "healthy people". It's a spectrum. And our lifestyle does alter the brain over time. Anorectic can't just start eating a lot. They need to change their way of thinking about food and themselves. And a lot of similar things are very likely to be included in obesity. Also the amount of hunger felt varies between people. Hunger isn't your own decision but more just a work of autonomy nervous system and endocrine system. Eating habits alter your hunger over time, so that too makes it harder to lose weight once you already are obese.
And people who are bringing thermodynamics to the discussion: please don't. Of course conservation of energy applies to biological systems. But it's not about what's possible and what's impossible. If people are judging people because of their lifestyles, then you really have to think relatively. A fat guy can get fit and a fit guy can get fat. The process may be harder for some people than others. There's a lot of genetics, epigenetics, endocrinology and psychology to consider to really judge how easy it is to a given person. Don't say someone is lazy-ass-stupid-not-thinking-about-his-health-moronfagdick just because you are not fat. They may have their own passions and priorities, their own thing. And yes, they have access to public health care. Should we ban alcohol because it's unhealthy (I totally would, but I see why majority of people at least in western society wouldn't) ?
Also, metabolism has much more to it than just conservation of energy. In general, yes, if you eat more, you have more energy to store or use, and vice versa if you eat less. But metabolism is so complex that reducing physiology to thermodynamics doesn't bring anything to the table. I mean, there are millions of things that body uses energy to just when you're sitting on your butt doing nothing. Then when you add your actions and body's reactions to them, so much stuff can happen that you can't just generalize it to be the same for every person.
I do have opinions on drugs and alcohol, but I'm not saying to anyone that they re fucking disgusting because they drink in order to get drunk. And getting drunk really isn't pro-healthy. I also WOULD LIKE to see more educated people who could discuss about science and programming with me, but everyone doesn't care about those topics. Everyone doesn't really care that much about their health (most people do care, but the level of caring really varies). Or some people get more enjoyment from eating. Or some people get more enjoyment from aerobic exercise. I mean, how many times have you heard about running high or something? I have bicycled a-shit-ton of kilometers and done some running too, but it really wasn't euphoric or anything, even though I had periods when I was in a pretty good (bicycling) shape. It gets kinda ok-ish after a while, but never really that enjoyable (for me). Of course a person who gets a good feeling after a run is going to like running. And that's good for him.
No, I'm not obese and I have never even been close to that.
What I'm trying to say is that yes, obesity probably is mostly caused by the obese people themselves, and they should lose some weight. But when someone is already obese, the situation has much in common with anorexia and it's not easy to get healthy. Shitting on them is just childish and very unnecessary. Only thing I have problem with is people making assumptions about people beyond their eating and exercising habits just by their weight. And people claiming their views as physiological facts and pulling numbers out of their asses.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
I had always thought that obesity was more of a symptom than a disease.
Honestly though, in response to the wall of text above, did you have to write that much to convince us that you were undecided? You don't seriously consider drug and alcohol addiction to be diseases too, do you? Homosexuality was once considered a disorder; that doesn't make it true.
This is the medical equivalent of saying the Earth is flat.
You know why they did this? So that doctors could bill insurance companies for all the drugs and procedures that can now be billed to medicare because of this carefully orchestrated classification. That's all.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
meh depends totally on what effects this will have in the end. if that just ends in another "but i haz disease! dont blame me!" thing with maybe even pharma industry jumping in (adhd anyone) then its terrible and just another way to claim that its not your fault.
if they finally get serious about this and for example kick the bullshit food and soda companies out of their schools its nice.
On June 22 2013 03:46 dUTtrOACh wrote: I had always thought that obesity was more of a symptom than a disease.
Honestly though, in response to the wall of text above, did you have to write that much to convince us that you were undecided? You don't seriously consider drug and alcohol addiction to be diseases too, do you? Homosexuality was once considered a disorder; that doesn't make it true.
This is the medical equivalent of saying the Earth is flat.
You know why they did this? So that doctors could bill insurance companies for all the drugs and procedures that can now be billed to medicare because of this carefully orchestrated classification. That's all.
Not sure if you are answering to me ore ZasZ, even though mentioning wall of text makes me think this is an answer to me.
You can cause yourself an addiction by consuming too much something (alcohol, cigarettes, food etc.). When you have that addiction, the condition could be classified as a disease, but I don't really care what it's classified as because it doesn't have an effect on the physiology of the condition. If I had to choose, I wouldn't call obesity a disease.
No idea why you are bringing homosexuality and flat earth up. My post was more a comment on people who were mocking obese people. So technically it was off-topic.
And still not sure if you even were answering to me because I really didn't comment if obesity is a disease or not.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
On June 21 2013 18:05 NEEDZMOAR wrote: its incredible how everyone in this thread suddenly became an expert on obesity, what causes it and people who do suffer from it! Hey why dont you guys phone up AMA, tell them about your knowledge and insta replace their experts? Just be careful about mentioning your sources (internet/ your ass) cuz it might not seem very legit in their eyes even though all of you are obviously 100% right about what youre saying!
Read the story carefully, please. This applies to everyone.
members of the AMA's House of Delegates rejected cautionary advice from their own experts
So their own experts were cautious of making this change. Why, then, did the AMA make this declaration?
after debating whether the action would do more to help affected patients get useful treatment
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."
So then, it has nothing to do with the science, or the medical experts. They just care about getting people more help.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
And all of this is just a way to focus Health Care providers to cover more services and treatments that help people control their weight, rather than treating the effects of being obese. The decision is more political, rather than social. The AMA wants to make weight control a priority for Health Care providers.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Fascinating stuff, because I actually do count my calories instead of just saying "I eat a lot of food" and know exactly how much I eat, and when I eat my maintenance I don't gain weight, when I eat below it I lose weight, and when I eat above it I gain weight. It's like magic or something.
EDIT: And by the way, pretty sure the entire fitness community, especially bodybuilders who diet for shows, will give their own anecdotes that mirror mine. Except theirs are based on actually measuring how much they're eating.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:56 Fruscainte wrote: [quote]
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote: [quote]
[quote]
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote: [quote]
[quote]
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
On June 21 2013 03:56 Kazius wrote: There are proper medical conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as diseases.
There are psychological conditions that cause obesity. Those should be treated as mental illness.
This mocks both of those. Obesity is a symptom, in which case this is an unneeded definition, or a choice, which makes a farce of people with actual problems.
Exactly my thoughts on it. Suddenly all the people who are obese because of bad lifestyle choices are grouped with people who can't control their obesity.
Exactly what I thought as well.
I couldn't think of a more obvious example for something being a symptom rather than a disease.
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
Eating disorder treatment is rarely covered by insurance. Some insurances also already covered obesity-related surgeries and things of the sort. What are you talking about?
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
Eating disorder treatment is rarely covered by insurance. What are you talking about?
That greatly depends on the treatment, but they do cover therapy and doctors visits, but not the most intensives care groups and other specialty clinics.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:56 Fruscainte wrote: [quote]
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
Eating disorder treatment is rarely covered by insurance. What are you talking about?
That greatly depends on the treatment, but they do cover therapy and doctors visits, but not the most intensives care groups and other specialty clinics.
Is anorexia even officially considered a disease? Or just an eating disorder? Like I said in my edit, there are already a lot of treatments covered by insurance for obesity. Including surgeries if deemed necessary.
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote: [quote]
[quote]
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:31 TheRealPaciFist wrote: [quote]
[quote]
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
On June 22 2013 05:36 TigerKarl wrote: Not a single funny fat joke in this topic, just random kids trying to sound smart. Saddest day on my life on TL.
Your mom is so fat, the AMA classified her obesity as a disease.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
Eating disorder treatment is rarely covered by insurance. What are you talking about?
That greatly depends on the treatment, but they do cover therapy and doctors visits, but not the most intensives care groups and other specialty clinics.
Is anorexia even officially considered a disease? Or just an eating disorder? Like I said in my edit, there are already a lot of treatments covered by insurance for obesity. Including surgeries if deemed necessary.
Health care providers love to deny that claim or put unreasonable requirements in place to qualify. Some include proving that the treatment is 100% necessary and there is no other way for the person to loose weight. But they are really vague on what qualifies as "proof".
Its the classic dance of health care providers and their love of denying stuff. Its like when they denied people for having childhood diabetes until the government told them to knock it off.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
Undereating and self-starvation are not considered diseases...anorexia is. There's quite a bit of difference. Just because you can point out the physiological manifestation of overeating (like you can with...everything...since everything a human does has a physiological reason) doesn't excuse a behavior.
And it being a disease does not excuse the behavior. All it does is force health care providers to cover treatment for it. People who have anorexia still have to fix the problem, they just receive medical coverage for therapy the use to treat it. Now the same applies to being obese.
Eating disorder treatment is rarely covered by insurance. What are you talking about?
That greatly depends on the treatment, but they do cover therapy and doctors visits, but not the most intensives care groups and other specialty clinics.
Is anorexia even officially considered a disease? Or just an eating disorder? Like I said in my edit, there are already a lot of treatments covered by insurance for obesity. Including surgeries if deemed necessary.
You are correct. Anorexia is not a disease, it is simply an eating disorder.
Obese people may have an eating disorder (compulsive gluttony?) but obesity would just be a consequence of such a disorder. It is silly to classify obesity itself as the disorder (or disease).
It seems this is purely political. Nobody wants to offend fat people by pointing out their affliction is 100% a consequence of their eating habits.
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:40 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
some scientist came up with a perfect weight to height ratio so if you are in those bounds, you arn't fat, but a pound over you are obese, i dont follow AMA they are a bunch of idiots that get paid our tax dollars to come up with bull!@#$.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 22 2013 03:57 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Fascinating stuff, because I actually do count my calories instead of just saying "I eat a lot of food" and know exactly how much I eat, and when I eat my maintenance I don't gain weight, when I eat below it I lose weight, and when I eat above it I gain weight. It's like magic or something.
EDIT: And by the way, pretty sure the entire fitness community, especially bodybuilders who diet for shows, will give their own anecdotes that mirror mine. Except theirs are based on actually measuring how much they're eating.
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote:
On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote: To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control.
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
And what exactly is your expertise in this subject? I'd like a little more than "hurr hurr I know what I'm talking about" before I'll believe that dieting for an obese person is just as bad as withdrawal from heroin, which can cause nausea, vomiting, insomnia, fever, etc. etc. "It's hard" isn't a good enough excuse, sorry. A lot of things worth doing are hard.
And I never said it shouldn't be a disease, in fact I stated quite the opposite. I think it's a more grey area than drug addiction, but it requires treatment therefore it can be a disease. My problem is with the official designation of it as a disease causing people to use it as an excuse to be lazy and what sort of public funding we can expect to be allocated to treating what is self-inflicted for the vast majority of people.
Again, if calling it a disease will get more money into the hands of people who can lower the percentage of Americans who are obese, I'm all for this move. If this is just a political move to protect the ego's of overweight people who want to blame anything or anyone but themselves for their condition, I disagree.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
It's not my fault my grades are bad, I have ADHD It's not my fault I have a drug addiction, I have a disease It's not my fault I'm morbidly obese, I have a disease
Because really, who actually wants to be accountable for their actions.
On June 22 2013 06:11 paradox719 wrote: It's not my fault my grades are bad, I have ADHD It's not my fault I have a drug addiction, I have a disease It's not my fault I'm morbidly obese, I have a disease
Because really, who actually wants to be accountable for their actions.
If they didn't have those labels, they would just find another excuse. But the people who do want to be held accountable and treat those problems(like myself with ADHD) like to have them labeled, studied and the treatment for those things covered by health insurance.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:19 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
I'm having a hard time carrying a conversation with you because you seem to struggle with basic logic.
Overeating is to obesity as depression is to.... depression? No. Overeating is to obesity as PTSD is to... PTSD? No.
Your attempts at analogies fail so horrifically I wonder if you are doing it on purpose. I recommend you stop trying to use analogies.
At any rate I am glad you can tacitly acknowledge that my post was 100% factually accurate in every regard, and unassailable from any aspect.
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
Obesity is a disease.Even if it is self inflicting by overeating it is still a desease just as suicide is.Considering the imense number of deaths and health issues deriving form obsesity I do believe that people with both natural and self inflicted disorders should consult a specialist
I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.
I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though.
On June 21 2013 04:06 ZasZ. wrote: [quote]
Your logic kind of breaks down when you get to sexually transmitted diseases. Aside from rape, a person who contracts an STD did so due to their own carelessness or complacency, but STD's are still very real diseases.
It really comes down to how you define the word disease, and whether or not victims act like victims or act like survivors. People are right in that too many people use "I'm sick! Alcoholism/Obesity/Drug Addiction is a disease!" as an excuse to be apathetic in their recovery, like it's out of their control. That's wrong, and the AMA would do well to clarify and say that just because obesity is a disease, it does not mean you have an excuse to stay obese.
But if you look at the condition medically, I have a hard time calling it a "disease." Alcoholism has very specific, well-researched effects on the mind and body, especially when the person is deprived of alcohol. In that way you can suffer from the disease of alcoholism. It doesn't mean that person should be pitied or excuses should be made for them because of their condition, it just is what it is.
If this designation of obesity as a disease puts more money into the hands of people that can actually reduce the percentage of Americans who are obese, I have no qualms with the promotion. If all this does is cause more people to be excessively overweight, stressing out our medical infrastructure and explaining away their self-abuse by saying they have a disease, then we have a problem.
It all comes from the preconception that we have, for whatever reason, that a person who suffers from a disease should be pitied, no matter the disease or circumstances behind it. A child with Leukemia or a young woman with breast cancer should be pitied. The 60-year old chain smoker with lung cancer and the 350 lb man who needs a quadruple bypass should not. But they all have diseases that require treatment, whether we like it or not.
From the way people are describing it, I keep getting the impression that obesity is (ignoring for a moment the cases where it is an actual disease, a la glanular disorder) an addiction, and they're classifying addictions as diseases. I'm coming from a different realm of addiction, and "You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times." strikes a freaking bone with me, it sounds exactly what I go through with regards to my completely not-food-related addiction
But obesity is an addiction like video gaming or porn are addictions. You feel compelled to do it mentally or psychologically, but you won't go through the withdrawal symptoms that an alcoholic or heroin addict go through if you start eating less. There is a legitimate physiological effect that drug addiction has on the body beyond just putting on a few pounds, which is why I have no problem classifying them as diseases. Withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs are capable of killing people and I don't think the same can be said of dieting.
That's incredibly false. Certain foods like high amounts of sugar, release pleasure hormones in your brain. "Food" in general isn't an addiction but there are certain combinations of fat, sugar, and salt (conveniently found in almost every fast food item) that absolutely has a narcotic effect on the brain. And one of the reasons dieting is so hard is precisely because of the withdrawl symptoms. The first few days or weeks of your diet are MISERABLE because your brain is literally releasing fewer happy hormones.
One of the reasons it's so easy for skinny people to stay skinny or just lose a couple of pounds and it's so hard for fat people to get skinny is because of those symptoms. There is an element of discipline that can't be ignored but I'm shocked at how many people in this thread have such strong opinions without knowing any of the medical science that went into this decision.
If you're seriously comparing the "narcotic" effect that certain foods can have on the brain to the real narcotic effect of narcotics on the brain AND comparing dieting to what people addicted to narcotics go through when they are detoxing, I don't really know what to tell you. I get it that it hurts, physically and mentally, to change your diet severely. It's not just about being hungry, but can manifest itself in other physical symptoms. But it is not detoxing and you can't die from reducing your daily caloric intake from 6,000 calories to 3,000. In fact, if you have the time and the commitment, you can slowly change your diet and exercise habits to lose the weight over time, a luxury that drug addicts rarely have access to if they want to get clean.
And I never said it was as easy for fat people to get in shape than it is for thin people to stay in shape, I'm not sure why you're putting those words into my mouth. I know it's harder. Tough shit. They got themselves in that hole, and they have to get themselves out if they want to be healthy. And since their poor health, when aggregated at the scale that obesity is at in this country, affects all of us, it's our business too.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Fascinating stuff, because I actually do count my calories instead of just saying "I eat a lot of food" and know exactly how much I eat, and when I eat my maintenance I don't gain weight, when I eat below it I lose weight, and when I eat above it I gain weight. It's like magic or something.
EDIT: And by the way, pretty sure the entire fitness community, especially bodybuilders who diet for shows, will give their own anecdotes that mirror mine. Except theirs are based on actually measuring how much they're eating.
i pity you then, if you truly count every calory.
Why? It's a pain in the ass in the beginning but eventually as you plan your meals you only rarely need to keep actively counting. I generally have the same thing every morning for breakfast and lunch so I really only need to worry about my dinner. And since I cook for myself I eat whatever I put into a recipe, not too hard.
I'd like to think it's my charming personality and winning smile that helps me in the ladies department but an 8 pack doesn't hurt. Honestly it's pretty low maintenance once you get below your goal BF%. At this point I mainly count out my calorie intake so that I don't go hella under on my long ride days.
This thread is a perfect example of how people will get easily upset about anything, the actual article is about how you can now go make a doctor's appointment and get a weight loss plan from a medical professional and it will be under your insurance, this is pretty much unarguably a Good Thing, as before people don't want to pay for a doctor's appointment if insurance doesn't cover it, so they're vulnerable to all sorts of weight loss scams.
This really has nothing to do with responsibility or anything, people just like to get mad.
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:57 Zaqwe wrote:
On June 22 2013 04:40 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
Of course you don't know what to tell me. You're talking outside of your area of expertise. You're just saying they're different because you've heard they're different even though science has demonstrated that they're far more similar than you think.
And to the post above me, I have read the story. The concern is about increasing government involvement in healthcare and that healthcare may get more expensive because of insurance now paying for obesity treatment. Their concerns weren't medical.
And saying that obesity isn't a disease because it's caused by overeating is like saying lung cancer isn't a disease because it's caused by smoking.
Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat.
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
I'm having a hard time carrying a conversation with you because you seem to struggle with basic logic.
Overeating is to obesity as depression is to.... depression? No. Overeating is to obesity as PTSD is to... PTSD? No.
Your attempts at analogies fail so horrifically I wonder if you are doing it on purpose. I recommend you stop trying to use analogies.
At any rate I am glad you can tacitly acknowledge that my post was 100% factually accurate in every regard, and unassailable from any aspect.
Arguments with people such as yourself are pointless. Discussion is not your aim, but to brow beat the other party into submission with overly simplistic statements and boiling down complex issues to a mathematical sort of logic. Concepts such as intent, nuance and context are lost on you. Your goal is to claim victory over the other party, rather than discuss any issue.
So yes, eating lots of food makes you fat and if you eat less food, you may lose weight. You have proven that fact and no one can dispute it.
On June 22 2013 05:56 nerdraging.610 wrote: most of america isnt even fat.
some scientist came up with a perfect weight to height ratio so if you are in those bounds, you arn't fat, but a pound over you are obese, i dont follow AMA they are a bunch of idiots that get paid our tax dollars to come up with bull!@#$.
Yeah, this is a good point that hasn't been discussed much. Obesity is based on BMI, which is incredibly flawed. I know a guy who works out every day, he can out run me, out lift me, everything. But he's technically overweight, according to BMI.
I have a BMI of about 27.6, so in theory I am overweight (although as has been pointed out this does not say much at all, as I have much wider statue as many others). I demand being allowed to park in handycapped parking spots, because my genetic disease handycaps my ability of movement to severe degrees and I cannot be expected having to walk that far!
seriously, declaring it a disease does not really help in the long run. It might ease some actions, but only for taking care of the damage, not of the source. I would rather see much stricter control of food and its ingredients. Greed and competition has led to a an increase of ingredients that boost appetite, cheap filling material, some aroma to taste as good as possible, a ton of stuff that just helps to keep the food in shape such as emulsifier, plus preversative materials to keep the food from rotting for years, especially in fast food restaurants, but present in more stuff than one would imagine. This mixture pretty much HAS to transform the average person into a fatty, with the exception of few gifted with a body that can process much of anything without gaining weight and those who seek regular exercise.
I also do understand that some people just have genetics to be slightly more overweight than others, but that is no absolvation to weight double as much as one should with comparable size/statue.
That is in fact not true, as the body craves food the same way that someone who smokes craves a cigarette. Claiming that someone can just stop being obese by not eating is like saying someone can cure being anorexic by sitting down to a good meal. Both are false.
I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
On June 22 2013 05:06 TSORG wrote: [quote]
thats simply false (if by overconsumption you mean consuming more than you need or burn in a day), i eat alot of fast food and sugar and i havent exercised (due to a knee injury) for 3 years, but i havent gained weight, and although i have lost some muscle, i havent gained much fat.
Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
Kind of off-topic but I think it is a mistake to blame quantity of food rather than quality. Give someone 1000 calories worth of steak and potatoes and they will be full if not stuffed. However, add on to that a soda plus sauces and dressings full of oil and sugar and you can easily add 500+ calories without getting more full. I would say the staples of a typical American diet are not starch, meat and vegetables, but oil, sugar and salt.
There's a world of difference between hand crafted pasta and microwave mac and cheese. The problem is that the latter is cheap and considered "the norm". It is ironic that the country has so much wealth yet such an abundance of shitty, non nutritious food. If people live only on stuff like mac and cheese, it is no wonder they feel constantly hungry and tired and thus start taking in excess calories.
On June 22 2013 05:14 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
[quote] Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I think his point is one of the best that's been presented in this thread, namely, that behavior is the problem here, not the signs of the behavior. Focusing on the signs and not the behavior reduces personal responsibility and creates a moral hazard which can increase it's occurrence.
On June 22 2013 05:14 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] I'm sorry, what did I say that was "not true"?
You went off on a little tangent about how tragically difficult it is for fat people to have self control, but nothing you said actually refuted my post.
In fact, I am completely correct.
[quote] Ah, another special snowflake whose magical body defies the laws of physics.
Thanks for your anecdote. It's so very valuable and useful.
Now give us a detailed journal of daily calories consumed for the past ~4 months, plus routine weigh ins (weekly is okay) and maybe people will actually believe you.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
On June 22 2013 05:56 nerdraging.610 wrote: most of america isnt even fat.
some scientist came up with a perfect weight to height ratio so if you are in those bounds, you arn't fat, but a pound over you are obese, i dont follow AMA they are a bunch of idiots that get paid our tax dollars to come up with bull!@#$.
Yeah, this is a good point that hasn't been discussed much. Obesity is based on BMI, which is incredibly flawed. I know a guy who works out every day, he can out run me, out lift me, everything. But he's technically overweight, according to BMI.
Scientists came up with that classification based on long-term health outcomes associated obesity/overweight. BMI, while imperfect, is the best metric when cost is taken into account. CDC guidelines for obesity/overweight:
"There are a number of accurate methods to assess body fat (e.g., total body water, total body potassium, bioelectrical impedance, and dual- energy X-ray absorptiometry), but no trial data exist to indicate that one measure of fatness is better than any other for following overweight and obese patients during treatment. Since measuring body fat by these techniques is often expensive and is not readily available, a more practical approach for the clinical setting is the measurement of BMI; epidemiological and observational studies have shown that BMI provides an acceptable approximation of total body fat for the majority of patients. Because there are no published studies that compare the effectiveness of different measures for evaluating changes in body fat during weight reduction, the panel bases its recommendation on expert judgment from clinical experience."
BMI is not a helpful metric for all individuals, but it is the best metric for alerting physicians that an individual might have a weight problem that could cause long-term health problems.
Mo money for doctors, decided by... doctors, what a coincidence
as it states, the designation of obesity as a disease simply means that more patients can be reimbursed for it, through government or insurance..ie doctors make more money by "treating" it ...this will also likely raise the cost of insurance for people labeled as overweight/obese because insurance will be paying more money for it (they don't eat costs, they pass them on to you).
if you are overweight or obese, you know it. You can blame it on genetics, call it a disease, or w.e you want, but it doesn't change your weight. If you want to be healthy, you need to be proactive and work at it, some more than others (life isn't fair).
On June 22 2013 06:11 paradox719 wrote: It's not my fault my grades are bad, I have ADHD It's not my fault I have a drug addiction, I have a disease It's not my fault I'm morbidly obese, I have a disease
Because really, who actually wants to be accountable for their actions.
If under-eating and self starvation can be considered a disease, the same goes for over eating. They are both based on the persons mental ability to control how much food they intake. It being a disease does not mean anything beyond how it is treated by the health care industry and the coverage people get. Self control has nothing to do with the discussion, it factors little into the reasoning why the AMA classified being obese as a disease.
If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
On June 22 2013 07:12 Prplppleatr wrote: Mo money for doctors, decided by... doctors, what a coincidence
as it states, the designation of obesity as a disease simply means that more patients can be reimbursed for it, through government or insurance..ie doctors make more money by "treating" it ...this will also likely raise the cost of insurance for people labeled as overweight/obese because insurance will be paying more money for it (they don't eat costs, they pass them on to you).
if you are overweight or obese, you know it. You can blame it on genetics, call it a disease, or w.e you want, but it doesn't change your weight. If you want to be healthy, you need to be proactive and work at it, some more than others (life isn't fair).
More like more money for insurance companies, hospitals, and bureaucrats. The government certainly will not be helped by this; obesity is an incredible economic drain on medicare and Medicaid because of the high cost of obese patients. I don't see the disease designation reducing costs on those programs. Also, many overweight/obese individuals are not actually aware of their health situation. Overweight/obese families have a different view of normal weight.
On June 22 2013 05:39 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] If those are considered diseases the flip side would be that overeating, not obesity, is a disease. Obesity would simply be a symptom of the overeating "disease".
You have no trouble cutting to the heart of the issue when it comes to people who are unhealthily thin, but when it comes to unhealthily fat people you remove personal responsibility from the equation. Why is that?
And just to clarify, you are tacitly admitting that my post you called "not true" was actually 100% true and you were mistaken, right? Not to sound like a broken record but I'd like an explicit admission of error from you.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
No you're still wrong. Personal responsibility and the reasons why people gain to much weight has nothing to do with the AMA decision to label being obese as disease. They are not concerned with that and it has little to do with the argument. Being labeled a disease is so treating it will be covered by health care providers.
I can give myself diabetes by eating to much sugar over a longer period of time. Self inflected or not, it is still considered a disease.
I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
Obesity impairs normal function, it affects almost all of the systems of the body. Compared to normally functioning people, it IS an abnormal condition.
On June 22 2013 05:53 Zaqwe wrote: [quote] I'm going to go ahead and quote my post which you said was "not true" verbatim and in full:
"Although smoking can cause lung cancer, quitting smoking certainly does not cure it.
"On the contrary this obesity "disease" is guaranteed to result from over consumption of calories and will immediately be "cured" if the afflicted person stops cramming so much food down their throat."
Please be very specific and show me what, if anything, is not true in the above quoted text. Otherwise admit you are wrong.
Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
Obesity impairs normal function, it affects almost all of the systems of the body. Compared to normally functioning people, it IS an abnormal condition.
Normal body functions only become impaired after obesity has caused a real disease, like heart disease or diabetes. Until then their body is working just as every other human body does.
It's a risk factor for disease but not a disease itself.
The longer I let this dictionary definition sink in the more preposterous calling obesity a disease seems.
Patient: "Doctor, when I eat more calories than I burn my body stores those calories as fat. Help!" Doctor: "Working as intended."
On June 21 2013 03:57 AnomalySC2 wrote: It's fast food and how our lives have become completely intertwined with them.
I feel like a lot of people would be in much better shape if they just cooked at home. I know that's what really tipped the scales for me. I ate as much as I always ate and I still do eat as much I always have eaten, but I cook nearly everything and I carefully crafted my meals so that I eat for instance a lot more vegetables that are much lower calories but can eat in far larger quantities and it fills me up more.
People live fast lives and have no time to take an hour out of their day to cook though, so why not head to the local Publix and pick up a box of fresh ready to eat fried chicken for $7.99 or whatever?
I suspect that a lot of skinny people are thin for the same reason that I am: genetics. And therefore it's never quite sat right with me to go around labeling fat people as being lazy and having no self-control.
You're a very, very, very unique case.
I can't tell you the amount of times I've seen my mom stuffing her face with half a gallon of ice cream going on about how blessed my brother is with his genetics and that's why he's so muscular and in shape. Metabolism is such a cop out argument. Genetics determines your potential, but not your actual gain or loss. No one is above the Laws of Thermodynamics. If someone performs enough activity where they naturally burn off 3000 calories per day, they can eat 2500 calories per day and they will lose weight. That's that. That's all it takes and nothing more.
I'm ignoring the rest of this thread (because 10 pages is a bit much for a casual distinction) but I think in these "I'm lucky because genetics" cases, it's an issue of quantity. This guy probably underestimates his intake; when I was a obese, I myself, and many people I've seen who are overweight (and especially dieting), massively underestimate their intake.
Not to mention overestimate the effects of their activity.
Genetics, even at the far ends of the spectrum, is in my understanding only 300-400 calories from an average person. This is significant (800 from the 1 percentile to the 99) but not something that you can't account for with intake.
Of course, once you make the mistake, it's extremely difficult to fix. I know from experience.. and especially for women, there are many conditions that can make it even moreso. Still, don't let your kids get fat. Seriously.
Damn im close to having a disease then :/ with a bf% of 15 -.- HOW can they use BMI to measure something like this? Size =/= fat.
This mean that if this gets passed in Europe or something similar to it, big men that workout and are generally in better health than the average person will get a higher insurance premium because of it.
On June 22 2013 05:57 Plansix wrote: [quote] Much like if a depressed person can fix their mental disorder by being more positive and happy. Or someone with combat related PTSD can solve their problem by not freaking out when they hear loud noises.
In a naive, simple minded way, you are correct.
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
Obesity impairs normal function, it affects almost all of the systems of the body. Compared to normally functioning people, it IS an abnormal condition.
Normal body functions only become impaired after obesity has caused a real disease, like heart disease or diabetes. Until then their body is working just as every other human body does.
It's a risk factor for disease but not a disease itself.
The longer I let this dictionary definition sink in the more preposterous calling obesity a disease seems.
Patient: "Doctor, when I eat more calories than I burn my body stores those calories as fat. Help!" Doctor: "Working as intended."
A person could have heart disease but not notice until they have a heart attack. Does that mean that heart disease is not a disease? I don't understand the distinction you are making. If obesity causes all of these poor, abnormal health outcomes, even if it is one more step away from that outcome than a heart attack, doesn't that make it a disease according to your posted definition? If you are at higher risk for many bad outcomes, you are in an abnormal disease state. Eating too many carbohydrates and excess calories causes diabetes (working as intended?). Heart disease can be caused by the same things (working as intended?). Sorry if I'm not understanding your point correctly.
On June 22 2013 08:27 Stoli wrote: Genetics, even at the far ends of the spectrum, is in my understanding only 300-400 calories from an average person.
Well if you think about it, that's a pound every 12 days. Pretty significant in the long run.
Incidentally, what other metrics could replace BMI? Many many posts have mentioned the issues with BMI already but just coming back here.
For men, I've recalled reading that fat distribution, especially around the midriff is a lot of a correlative tell for cardiovascular problems than BMI. I'm sure you guys know a lot more.
Additionally, do the public need more nuanced information, or more simplicity when it comes to this public health issue? I find people are woefully ignorant of nutrition, and exercise outside of 'eating healthy and exercise is good'. For example, low-fat desserts that are loaded with sugars, added to a sedentary lifestyle still lead to weight gains, and I know a lot of people are unaware of this despite the seemingly omnipresent coverage of the 'obesity epidemic'
On June 22 2013 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: [quote]
well unless some other underlying issue is the cause then hes right. and lets be honest, hte vast majority just simply eat too much cause they are lazy/never knew a different style/really dig fastfood or candy etc. yes habits and the constant sugar reward are hard to shake off but that doesnt mean its always on the same level as serious mental illness. if that was the case then most like 99% on this board have a disease cause the are seriously addicted to the internet/games/porn.
most people just stuff way too much shit down their throat cause its convenient/they are used to it. no crazy deep reasons, just a habit you need to change and get through the little time you feel bad cause of it.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
Obesity impairs normal function, it affects almost all of the systems of the body. Compared to normally functioning people, it IS an abnormal condition.
Normal body functions only become impaired after obesity has caused a real disease, like heart disease or diabetes. Until then their body is working just as every other human body does.
It's a risk factor for disease but not a disease itself.
The longer I let this dictionary definition sink in the more preposterous calling obesity a disease seems.
Patient: "Doctor, when I eat more calories than I burn my body stores those calories as fat. Help!" Doctor: "Working as intended."
A person could have heart disease but not notice until they have a heart attack. Does that mean that heart disease is not a disease? I don't understand the distinction you are making. If obesity causes all of these poor, abnormal health outcomes, even if it is one more step away from that outcome than a heart attack, doesn't that make it a disease according to your posted definition? If you are at higher risk for many bad outcomes, you are in an abnormal disease state. Eating too many carbohydrates and excess calories causes diabetes (working as intended?). Heart disease can be caused by the same things (working as intended?). Sorry if I'm not understanding your point correctly.
Just because something can cause disease doesn't make the risk factor itself a disease. I would use smoking as an example. Smoking can cause lung cancer, but smokers don't actually have a disease until they lose that lottery in life and become afflicted by cancer (or other disease resulting from smoking).
Obesity is a major risk factor for a host of diseases, but itself is not a disease. Someone could be obese but still have a normally functioning body. If they lose weight they may even return to normal risk levels, just as smokers reduce their risks of lung cancer after quitting.
But once again, the AMA doesn't care what the cause is, only how treatment is applied to the health issue. They do not care that people will use the word disease as an excuse socially. Combat related PTSD is caused people joining the armed services and then going to war. All those are personal choices as well, but it is still treated by health care providers as a disordered that requires treatment. The same goes for being obese. They don't care how it happened and are only concerned with how to fix the health issue.
But obesity is just a symptom at best. The actual "disease" we are talking about here is gluttony.
In an attempt to excuse personal responsibility people are attacking the symptom (weight gain) instead of the problem (overeating).
You are dead set on trolling this thread. You points and posts have nothing to do with the AMA reasoning or the why they would label obesity as a disease. Your only purpose is to demand that people admit that gaining weight it do to eating to much. which is a give in. If that is your only goal, please leave. No one wants to have such a simplistic debate.
I don't consider it "trolling" to point out that obesity is caused by eating habits. People are personally responsible for what they put in their mouth, unless they are orally raped.
People are way too sensitive these days. Every personal shortcoming always has to be excused as the result of some external factor (disease, oppression, discrimination, etc.) instead of just admitting some people are lazy, gluttonous, or unmotivated.
Fat people are not afflicted by some external factor outside of their control. Even if they have a real medical problem that makes them prone to obesity--to be realistic, most fat people don't have such problems--they still make the final decision as to what and how much they eat.
The problem is that medically diseases aren't "some external factor outside their control." Hypertension? Within your control. Diabetes? Within your control. Calling it a disease doesn't excuse it, or make it any less of an issue. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a disease is.
If anything, the stigmatization of "being diseased" is more of a negative factor to discourage a given behavior.
When I look up definitions of disease they say things like: "impairs normal functioning", "interruption of the normal structure or function", "abnormal condition", etc.
So by those definitions I would still argue that obesity is not a disease. It is actually completely normal to gain weight when you eat too much. And when they stop overeating, they return to normal weight because their normal bodily function has not actually been interrupted at all.
Is sunburn a disease? It's not good to have a sunburn, and it carries health risks like skin cancer, but it is a completely natural and expected result of getting too much sun without sunscreen.
Diabetes is abnormal functioning of the body and requires treatment. It's not a completely natural and guaranteed result of a specific behaviour.
Obesity impairs normal function, it affects almost all of the systems of the body. Compared to normally functioning people, it IS an abnormal condition.
Normal body functions only become impaired after obesity has caused a real disease, like heart disease or diabetes. Until then their body is working just as every other human body does.
It's a risk factor for disease but not a disease itself.
The longer I let this dictionary definition sink in the more preposterous calling obesity a disease seems.
Patient: "Doctor, when I eat more calories than I burn my body stores those calories as fat. Help!" Doctor: "Working as intended."
A person could have heart disease but not notice until they have a heart attack. Does that mean that heart disease is not a disease? I don't understand the distinction you are making. If obesity causes all of these poor, abnormal health outcomes, even if it is one more step away from that outcome than a heart attack, doesn't that make it a disease according to your posted definition? If you are at higher risk for many bad outcomes, you are in an abnormal disease state. Eating too many carbohydrates and excess calories causes diabetes (working as intended?). Heart disease can be caused by the same things (working as intended?). Sorry if I'm not understanding your point correctly.
Just because something can cause disease doesn't make the risk factor itself a disease. I would use smoking as an example. Smoking can cause lung cancer, but smokers don't actually have a disease until they lose that lottery in life and become afflicted by cancer (or other disease resulting from smoking).
Obesity is a major risk factor for a host of diseases, but itself is not a disease. Someone could be obese but still have a normally functioning body. If they lose weight they may even return to normal risk levels, just as smokers reduce their risks of lung cancer after quitting.
Thank you. That helped me a lot.
Firstly, I would say that there are cancerous cells in your body all the time. You could have a small lung cancer and then it could go away naturally due to an immune system response.
Secondly, alcoholism is also considered a disease, even though theoretically not consuming alcohol would stop it.
I feel that the disease designation is meant to show that this is an abnormal state that warrants attention and change in behavior. I also think that it is somewhat arbitrary and I understand why you are saying what you are saying. Finally, obese patients rarely (almost never) lose weight permanently without intervention in the same way alcoholics rarely reform without intervention, and there are very few people in an obese state that function normally (the definition of normally is totally up for debate, but I hope you get the point I'm making, it changes the way people go about their daily lives).
It lets physicians do health and life style counseling and get reimbursed for it. That is one of the major reasons the AMA did this. I think its a good move.
On June 21 2013 07:39 On_Slaught wrote: Gary Taubes gives a VERY strong argument for why the calories equation has literally nothing to do with weight gain. He says that relying on the law of thermodynamics (which is what people are doing when they argue this) is making an 8th grade level math mistake. This law has no more impact on weight gain than the law of relativity does.
Rather his argument, for those who don't have the patience to watch the whole video, is that the common view is backwards (he goes into the history of how this was lost). Fat people don't get fatter because they eat more, they eat more because they are fat. Basic biology tells us that it has everything to do with how our hormones are influenced by our food (he goes into a lot of detail about how big genetics is to weight gain. Anybody who says it is a minor issue is completely un-grounded). The ultimate conclusion is that the specific substance which causes ALL fat creation in cells is insulin. Insulin is caused by carbohydrate intake. Therefore carbohydrate intake directly leads to fat increases. He argues that you can literally eat as much non-carbohydrated food as you want and you couldn't gain weight gain weight.
However this does not free people from personal responsibility. It happens to be that many of the best tasting food happens to create insulin so personal discipline is still a huge factor.
It's nice to actually listen to somebody who at least gives sound scientific basis for his arguments rather than the pure shit being dredged up in this thread. And even for the people not spouting pure shit, there is no basis other than the ubiquity of their stance upon which they base it.
On June 21 2013 07:30 nukeazerg wrote: Biology is not physics. Boys get lean with more muscle during puberty and girls get 50% fatter. This does not mean the girls ate more.
Biology, like all things, is subject to the laws physics. Are you just trolling or do you really think your "big bones" are the Higgs Boson and mass just appears on your body? Where the fuck do you think fat cones from?
Case in point.
Before immediately jumping on the Taubes train take a step back and think about it.
Taubes is correct when he says, “Those who get fat do so because of the way their fat is regulated.” But they still couldn’t get fat without eating too many calories for their particular metabolism, and if a way can be found to decrease their calorie intake to a level appropriate for their metabolism, they will lose weight.
What about weight loss itself? If Taubes’ thesis is correct, we would expect studies to consistently show a strong superiority of low-carb diets for weight loss. This 2010 study showed no difference in weight loss between low fat and low carb diets over a 2 year period, although low-carb dieters had more favorable changes in lipids. A 2009 study in NEJM compared weight loss from diets with different compositions of fat, protein and carbohydrates and found that low-carb diets were not superior, and that clinically meaningful weight loss results from weight loss diets “regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.” An accompanying editorial suggests that behavioral factors are more important to weight loss than the type of diet, and that a total environmental approach is needed.
Taubes says right off the bat that “these competing ideas should be tested” and admits that such testing has not been done; but since obesity is such a serious problem, he says it is urgent that we institute his diet recommendations now, without waiting for the evidence. Yet he criticizes the low-fat diet campaign for doing just that: we went beyond the evidence and instituted society-wide changes based on inadequate data, with what Taubes considers to be disastrous results. How can he be so certain we should go beyond the evidence this time?
The whole thing is a good read though if you have time.
Thanks for posting that, will go read it. Some quick notes on Taubes's video; I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions, such as the low-carb emphasis and even he made some comparisons at the end of the video where people from cultures with high carb/low sugar diets that come to America acquire health problems which would logically point to sugar. Taking pieces from Taubes and Pollan I feel like corn plays a big part mixing both sugars and carbs- making diets like Atkins fairly useless. I think the other 6-part video that was posted in this thread did a good job explaining the science. However, I do think he did a good job challenging conventional wisdom as far as blaming overeating or calories in vrs calories expended etc. He provided historical examples of Indian tribes or South American countries that were consuming much fewer calories than the recommended standard, yet still had problems with obesity. One study was factory workers in Peru (iirc) challenging the exercise paradigm.
I'm not considering it case closed yet, but I definitely feel that he is on the right track.
Edit: Read the article and agree with the criticism of the low-carb emphasis, but not with calories in/out status quo.
I feel like calling obesity a disease, and recognizing it as such will have an effect on young people, teens, people in their early 20's. It will make them feel complacent to their condition and make them feel stigmatized even more, thus making it really hard for them to find the power within them to change their habits and the way they eat. I read something the other day that saddened me quite a bit, ''there are fat people, and there are old people, but there aren't old fat people''.
there are multiple hormones in your body that control appetite(ghrelin,leptin), there are hormones that control metabolism(thyroxine), and neural circuits responsible for feeding behavior(hypothalamus). Increased ghrelin levels means more appetite, increased leptin levels means decreased appetite. When you are always eating, leptin levels are always high, receptors for it gets desensitized and eventually leptin loses its potency. Same problem with diabetes II where high insulin levels desensitize the receptors and insulin doesn't normally do its job anymore, because sugar levels are always high. Basically feeding is regulated by hormones in combination with neural circuits. When any of these are out of balance, due to environment or genes it can be easily classified as a disease.
edit: the underlying causes that lead to obesity are diseases, but obesity itself is a symptom imo. One cannot say "I have obesity", but they can have leptin resistance, insulin resistance, hypothyroidism, social factors, psych factors --> that lead to obesity
I feel that calling obesity a disease is misleading and that the current definition of obesity could lead to some very muscular people technically having the disease of being fat. On the other hand, I could see this as helping some people. Still, I doubt very much that obesity levels will sink substantially when the average American watches something like 5 hours of TV per day. I don't think this will be nearly enough to change the culture of sedentary lifestyles and poor diets.
On June 22 2013 09:14 Kickboxer wrote: If you can't sprint, you have a condition. I think it's pretty hard to argue against that.
People who sprain their ankle can't sprint. We don't call them diseased. We don't call the handicapped diseased either.
You people can't rely on horrible definitions like "impairs normal function" because then almost anything is disease.
You are talking about illnesses, not diseases. Seriously, before this discussion can be had you have got to learn to use the correct terms. You can disagree all you like with the definition of "disease", that however does not make you right.