S
Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?
- Thread starter Quinlan
- Start date
yeah i pay for one because it offers me real advantages compared to the free health care: having the choice to choose my doctors, have my own room with cable tv, have appointments in the evenings or saturday without having to skip work and all that crap
if the country didn
if the country didn
S
Shai Gar
From my religious perspective, it's against our ways to indulge. Therefore, morally wrong. What benefits does one get when he/she is corpulent? None. However, there are many benefits one can receive from being physically fit and healthy.
No.
If you are speaking in the comparative sense, that's really subjective.
"Quacks" are quite rampant today; just visit your local chiropractor or acupuncturist... Or hell, just ask your doctor for advice. About 1/3rd of anything a doctor will tell you is arbitrary opinion.
My argument was not that we ought to revert to the "good ol' times"; you asked if it had ever been done before, I pointed out that is has and that society didn't collapse into complete anarchy during this period of time.
A private entity will inherently have more transparency than a state-run one.
If UPS/Fedex/DHL loses a package you mailed with them, you can take them to small claims court.
If the USPS loses a package you mailed with them, you practically can't sue them, unless you have the ambition to take the matter to a federal court, where you will be buried in red tape...
The "evidence" for it is much the same as any other good and service on the market.
Having more firms competing in the marketplace increases supply and lowers prices.
What makes medicine exempt?
How so?
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
This thread is two different discussions. I'd split it, but I don't know where to start.
From now on, any post that talks about private/public health care will become a new thread. and all posts will be dumped into there. Want to continue the topic? Start a new thread.
From now on, any post that talks about private/public health care will become a new thread. and all posts will be dumped into there. Want to continue the topic? Start a new thread.
S
Shai Gar
S
Shai Gar
How much exactly (fat) is too much?
It's always good to have stores of energy reserves when a bad infection hits or (in some cultures/times) a year of poor crops comes round. I have heard that for women, fat around the hips, thighs, bum and breasts is very beneficial, I think it helps with girly hormones or something. Fat around the belly/waist is the dangerous kind I've heard, that is why the hourglass shape and a slim waist are considered very healthy in women.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
Those websites aren't the source of my conclusions, they simply conveniently collate the results of proper scientific studies. The true source of the information is the scientific studies themselves, I am too lazy to link directly to them but they are all referenced on those sites if your interested in tracing them back. Personally I think the studies themselves are definitely worth consideration if you're interested. I'm not writing an essay here, so I have provided enough of a link if people are really interested enough to pursue it further.
Speculation from both sides of course, so clearly not enough for me to start panicking about a broken bone epidemic.
Those figures came from the CDC themselves. This article explains it all if you want to verify; http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/162 The reason I posted it was simply to highlight just how dramatic the errors and careless scare mongering that public health officials have engaged in. That they made a monumental stuff up, is fact.
Not my point, my point was simply that you'll never be treated well if you never stand up for yourself.
Hooray so we agree!
Well I think that as a society we are being too hard and prejudging that 25% that do have good levels, that's still a whole heap of people! If we focused on behaviours rather than characteristics, then that 25% would not get caught in the crossfire.
So why do you have a problem with the characteristic, instead of the behaviours themselves? I'm also a bit less cynical regarding the motivations of others as you seem to be.
But there are big people who are no more gluttonous than anyone else right? I think most obese people probably live a typical western lifestyle, they just happen to store much more of what they eat as body fat than other people. If they are living a typical western lifestyle then it is the whole lifestyle that should be attacked, not just one of many groups partaking in that lifestyle. I think most very/morbidly/extremely obese however probably don't have "typical" lifestyles, they do pay for that with damage to their health but they are on the very ends of the spectrum (not part of the main group on a normal distribution.
Of course, everyone needs to eat sanely and exercise at every size. By focusing solely on weight, unhealthy skinny people can go on destroying their bodies because we hold the BMI up as such an important measure of health. "I don't care if my arteries are clogged, my BMI says I'm fine!" How's THAT for an excuse?
One of the most common ways of being self-destructive is yoyo-dieting, there is no one set diet that will help someone lose weight, losing very significant amounts of weight is quite a complex thing, metabolisms and appetites can be very tricky also. So people try all sorts of things, experiment, most don't work and while they're at it they are really damaging their bodies and in the long run end up heavier than those that did nothing.
I'm fine with saying that behaviours are self-destructive but I don't understand the logic in saying a characteristic is self destructive, it's neither here nor there, good or bad, it just is.
If only we could be worrying about the "unhealthy behaviour epidemic (by all sizes)", then we could actually target the problem accurately, rather than a scatter gun approach that exaperates the very thing it's trying to stop.
I personally think the western lifestyle is terribly unhealthy in a lot of ways for people of every size.
What's your point? Infections still occur in the west. I would put my money on a lot more obese and overweight people surviving a serious viral epidemic than the underweight, "normal" and very obese groups. They have reserves of energy to count on.
What I am saying is that all fat is not equal, and fat often provides surprising counter-intuitive benefits.
Where fat is stored is crucial as it makes a big difference in terms of being a health indicator.
Meh. I've pretty much ended discussion with this (same as Q) but here's something to ponder: Sumo wrestlers are fat and healthy while they train. They have extremely healthy diets, but they massively overindulge. But they don't eat junk food or candy. They drink - which adversely affects their health - but they eat natural foods (just high quantities of it).
When they *stop* training, however, and continue eating the same way, they will run into heart disease and diabetes and all the other risks...which is why they die at an earlier age. They run into complications after they retire.
Time Magazine article, Can you be fat and healthy?: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066937,00.html
ETA (more recently), Why Exercise won't make you thin: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html
When they *stop* training, however, and continue eating the same way, they will run into heart disease and diabetes and all the other risks...which is why they die at an earlier age. They run into complications after they retire.
Time Magazine article, Can you be fat and healthy?: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1066937,00.html
ETA (more recently), Why Exercise won't make you thin: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html
Last edited: