S
Shai Gar
Exercise isn't supposed to make you thin. It's supposed to aid in making you healthy.
Woah, dizzy. I just lost how my room was set out.
Woah, dizzy. I just lost how my room was set out.
Obesity: A Health crisis or a moral one?
- Thread starter Quinlan
- Start date
Oh, it's definitely an aid (sorry about the dizzy!). But there's a lot of misinformation out there about it, so I offered the article up as another viewpoint. Exercise doesn't have to kill us or make us tired. Just moving every day, walking, and doing general things is enough to keep us healthy. Staying on the internet (!) and playing video games [maybe] has more to do with keeping us unfit and unhealthy more than anything else, because we're not doing anything with our bodies except eating and sitting.
S
Shai Gar
My religion says it's alright to judge people.
My religion holds that indulgence, not COMPULSION, is good.
She's right too. Christianity holds corpulence as a sin.
My religion holds that indulgence, not COMPULSION, is good.
Christianity holds that you shouldn't judge others unless you want to be judged. However, that doesn't release everyone from judgement because one day, you WILL be judged. If you've ignored the little reminders of your own religion, then you'll be judged harshly.
She's right too. Christianity holds corpulence as a sin.
Found an interesting video series on obesity.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/33181-extreme-bodies-fat-distribution-video.htm
The sumo population is a bit different because of their fat distribution. Sub-q fat is thought to be less dangerous than the distribution of fat in other obese populations. As arby pointed out, a retired sumo can suffer health consequences because the distribution of their fat changes, as do the associated risks.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/33181-extreme-bodies-fat-distribution-video.htm
The sumo population is a bit different because of their fat distribution. Sub-q fat is thought to be less dangerous than the distribution of fat in other obese populations. As arby pointed out, a retired sumo can suffer health consequences because the distribution of their fat changes, as do the associated risks.
S
Shai Gar
You make an assumption that he is even religious. I am an atheist, I can judge away all I want.
Go ahead and split this off if you want moderator.
I agree that transparency is nice. However, transparency is not the issue. What good is transparency if you cannot afford the service period? The current system has failed to provide millions of people with health care, and this occurred even before President Clinton told the FDA to get buddy-buddy with the drug companies. The issue is that millions of people lack access to health care, and the best chance at solving that issue appears to be public health care as Europe and Canada have done.
Medicine, and drug companies, are massive; it is the largest industry in the U.S. Expecting new firms to pop up and compete effectively is like expecting small businesses to open near Wal-Mart that sell the same products as Wal-Mart. Even if the firms specialize in a specific drug or kind of drug, predatory competition practices will eventually eliminate them from the market. The larger firms will simply pick one of the competiting smaller firms, lower the price of the competiting drug so that the small firm cannot compete while taking a hit in the short term. Once the competition is eliminated, they can restore the price of the drug.
Another possibility is that deregulating drug companies will make the U.S. lose comparative advantage in drug manufacturing due to lack of government support. (Or rather ir will reveal that the U.S. doesn't have comparative advantage if that is the case).
If the government is infact artificially propping up medicine and healthcare in the same way that the Europeans are propping up their farmers, then trying to take away this kind of corporatism will result in an end to talks.
And of course, there is no guarentee that competition will lower drug and healthcare prices enough for the millions who need them to have access to them.
The state is a monopoly on violence. Get rid of the main state, and smaller states exist. There are over 90,000 governments in the U.S., assuming you don't count illegitimate monopolies on violence such as gangsters. The state also decides who gets what, when, and how; that is politics. People are not going to give up this violent competition or the corruption that is present in the current system.
How do you know that what you propose will work then?
What would stop quacks from becoming more rampant if there were no regulations enforced? I'm talking about the regulation of terms. For example, the term "psychologist" is a regulated term. Anyone can call themselves a psycho-analyst and charge for it, but doing the same with "psychologist" without the appropriate degrees and such will cause trouble with the law.
I wasn't suggesting that we give up modern technology. I don't see how a lack of regulation will yield positive results in today's economy.
I agree that transparency is nice. However, transparency is not the issue. What good is transparency if you cannot afford the service period? The current system has failed to provide millions of people with health care, and this occurred even before President Clinton told the FDA to get buddy-buddy with the drug companies. The issue is that millions of people lack access to health care, and the best chance at solving that issue appears to be public health care as Europe and Canada have done.
Medicine, and drug companies, are massive; it is the largest industry in the U.S. Expecting new firms to pop up and compete effectively is like expecting small businesses to open near Wal-Mart that sell the same products as Wal-Mart. Even if the firms specialize in a specific drug or kind of drug, predatory competition practices will eventually eliminate them from the market. The larger firms will simply pick one of the competiting smaller firms, lower the price of the competiting drug so that the small firm cannot compete while taking a hit in the short term. Once the competition is eliminated, they can restore the price of the drug.
Another possibility is that deregulating drug companies will make the U.S. lose comparative advantage in drug manufacturing due to lack of government support. (Or rather ir will reveal that the U.S. doesn't have comparative advantage if that is the case).
If the government is infact artificially propping up medicine and healthcare in the same way that the Europeans are propping up their farmers, then trying to take away this kind of corporatism will result in an end to talks.
And of course, there is no guarentee that competition will lower drug and healthcare prices enough for the millions who need them to have access to them.
The state is a monopoly on violence. Get rid of the main state, and smaller states exist. There are over 90,000 governments in the U.S., assuming you don't count illegitimate monopolies on violence such as gangsters. The state also decides who gets what, when, and how; that is politics. People are not going to give up this violent competition or the corruption that is present in the current system.
I am not even talking to him, I was talking to the person who said something about her religion. I think he understood it, you on the other hand...
What benefits does one get when they are corpulent? That depends on your perspective. While there are many benefits from being physically fit and healthy, there are benefits from being corpulent as well or rather from engaging in activities that lead to such a state. Eating whatever you want, whenever you want, is a benefit. Not having to exercise is a benefit. Some would argue that dying early is a benefit.
Mostly though, they are allowed to utilize food for emotional security. Look at food advertisements and see what kind of motivational appeals they use. Emotion driven eating habits are common, and the food might be making the person feel better about themselves, if only in the short term.
If there really were no benefits, then nobody would be obese, but there are definitely benefits even if some of those benefits had to be created by advertising done by the food industry.
What I have been asking that barely anyone bothered answering is:
why should it be our concern if someone's fat or not?
why should it be our concern if someone's fat or not?
All I know is that when I eat "healthy" even following the food period and nutrition books my monthly visiter stops...last time I checked missing that was a sign of being unhealthy. What I think a lot of people fail to notice is that the media controls what is considered "beautiful" to many and people mistake that for being healthy a lot of the time. I mean imagine how much money would be lost if people stopped buying diet products. If people would just open there history books they could see more of the lies about health like the ones about healthy tanning and whatnot. I eat fruits, I eat vegetables, but I eat whatever I want and that excludes nothing, I exercise and though squishy I know I am healthy. But buy the way http://health.msn.com/health-topics/aging/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100240886
http://digg.com/health/Great_News_Being_Overweight_Might_Increase_Life_Expectancy <-people are really against this study
http://digg.com/health/Great_News_Being_Overweight_Might_Increase_Life_Expectancy <-people are really against this study
Last edited:
you have a point. think of how wonderful this is as a profit machine:
advertise and make available a lot of fatty food for cheap
tell people being overweight is the worst thing in the world (unhealthy, ugly)
get them to pay money for diet products, gyms, surgery and treatments
until they get fat again by eating those ready available products
and have to spend more
what a perfect cicle of money wasting and money making
advertise and make available a lot of fatty food for cheap
tell people being overweight is the worst thing in the world (unhealthy, ugly)
get them to pay money for diet products, gyms, surgery and treatments
until they get fat again by eating those ready available products
and have to spend more
what a perfect cicle of money wasting and money making
Your post made me think of battery pigs. Fattening up the masses and then reaping the profits, I'm not saying it is an engineered scam, it's just that really for a lot of industries you couldn't ask for a better money spinner than fat people hating themselves. Perhaps its like evolution? It gives the appearance of being beautifully orchestrated.
Last edited:
I thought I answered this question. It shouldn't be our concern, but people are extremely judgmental and possessive. Unconditional acceptance is extremely rare, but the desire to be accepted is just about universal. Being obese is a negative social status thanks to the media, so being obese or being friends with obese people or in relationships is taken negatively. For example, how would most people feel if they saw an incredibly obese person dating a thin and "attractive" person? Obviously, they wouldn't accept it as a normal relationship. They'd assume that the partner is rich or the attractive one doesn't have a spine or something because they wouldn't consider such a relationship normal. If you look at couples, more often than not, you'll notice they are about equal in what society considers their attractiveness level, especially in the media. Dating is socially constructed.
And of course, why are they doing this? Because they want the "attractive" person for themselves.
People in general want others to stay in their categories. Interracial dating is looked down upon for the most part. Old people dating young people is largely looked down upon. The same goes for fat people and not fat people. I don't think its right to tell people how to live their lives if they aren't hurting anyone, but while most people would agree with this in theory, their actions indicate that they don't agree with it.
S
Shai Gar
Therefore you're eating, UNHEALTHY.
You can't be eating healthy, if you're eating unhealthy. It doesn't matter what fad diets are running through the media at whatever point in time. Healthy is healthy. See your doctor.
I would go one better: See a really good dietitian/nutritionist. A doctor will often quote the food pyramid, but he might not be able to tell you what you're missing from your diet. We all need the same three building blocks in our diet: Protein, carbohydrates and fats...but we don't all need the same amounts in our diet. And considering that the American food industry usually strips all vitamins and minerals and healthy stuff from our foods (even the so-called "healthy" food), most of us are probably malnourished (seriously!).
Go to someone who can tell you what's best to eat for *you* rather than what's best to eat for other people.