Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Obesity in Ohio

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Obesity in Ohio

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 65 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1082770
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    Lots of people are addicted to cigarettes and I think they are idiots. Not going to be worried about empathizing with their habits.

    As a smoker and not an idiot, I take offense with part one and could care less about part two. I’m pretty sure anyone struggling with obesity feels the same way. Your approval or empathy isn’t just unwelcome, its unnecessary.

    #1082771

    McFly
    Participant

    You seem to have missed part of the point. Obese, as currently defined, does not take into account body type. Which is part of the problem. We do not currently have a good, scientifically backed way to easily define what body type is healthy. The default currently is if you’re bigger than I think you should be, you’re unhealthy. And yes, I do know there are large people who are obviously unhealthy, but 2/3 of the population? Really?<br>

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t care what your body type is – if you’re officially (and clinically) obese, then you’re in seriously bad shape and setting yourself up for real health concerns, above and beyond what the average person would expect. A full third of the American population is clinically obese.

    Another third is overweight, and that’s probably where there’s some room for refining the classification based on “body type.” Regardless of what we call it and when particular labels should be applied, this country obviously has a major problem.

    #1082811

    duncanfj
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>duncanfj wrote:</div>
    You seem to have missed part of the point. Obese, as currently defined, does not take into account body type. Which is part of the problem. We do not currently have a good, scientifically backed way to easily define what body type is healthy. The default currently is if you’re bigger than I think you should be, you’re unhealthy. And yes, I do know there are large people who are obviously unhealthy, but 2/3 of the population? Really?<br>

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t care what your body type is – if you’re officially (and clinically) obese, then you’re in seriously bad shape and setting yourself up for real health concerns, above and beyond what the average person would expect. A full third of the American population is clinically obese.

    Another third is overweight, and that’s probably where there’s some room for refining the classification based on “body type.” Regardless of what we call it and when particular labels should be applied, this country obviously has a major problem.

    But that’s the point. Our definitions of obese and overweight are based on BMI, which has no scientific or medical basis behind its categories. As I said in an earlier post, BMI was developed by insurance companies. We do not currently have a good way to determine the overall health of someone. Body weight might tell you something, but it could just as easily lead you to a false conclusion.

    #1082990

    L.I. to Buckeye
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>McFly wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>duncanfj wrote:</div><br>
    You seem to have missed part of the point. Obese, as currently defined, does not take into account body type. Which is part of the problem. We do not currently have a good, scientifically backed way to easily define what body type is healthy. The default currently is if you’re bigger than I think you should be, you’re unhealthy. And yes, I do know there are large people who are obviously unhealthy, but 2/3 of the population? Really?<br>

    I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t care what your body type is – if you’re officially (and clinically) obese, then you’re in seriously bad shape and setting yourself up for real health concerns, above and beyond what the average person would expect. A full third of the American population is clinically obese.

    Another third is overweight, and that’s probably where there’s some room for refining the classification based on “body type.” Regardless of what we call it and when particular labels should be applied, this country obviously has a major problem.

    But that’s the point. Our definitions of obese and overweight are based on BMI, which has no scientific or medical basis behind its categories. As I said in an earlier post, BMI was developed by insurance companies. We do not currently have a good way to determine the overall health of someone. Body weight might tell you something, but it could just as easily lead you to a false conclusion.

    Totally agree. I know a couple on opposite ends of the spectrum. One is normal weight, one is overweight/obese. The normal weight one has had heart disease and a bout with cancer. The heavy one has had absolutely no health issues. They’re both the same age (70s).

    The difference? Their genes. The normal weight person lost both parents to heart attacks in their 60s. The other person’s immediate relatives lived into their 90s and died of natural causes.

    You can be fat and healthy, and you can be thin and unhealthy. BMI, weight, etc. doesn’t mean anything.

    And, I ask again: who is anyone to judge anyone because of his/her body shape or size? MYOB and worry about yourself. Jeeze!

    #1082996
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    I’m not talking about randomly walking up to fat people on the street and making fun of them. I don’t need to research that being obese is unhealthy. That’s blatantly obvious and the entire reason it’s being measured and studied.

    Two people can eat the same thing and exercise the same and have different outcomes. There are medical conditions that contribute to obesity. None of that explains the obese people who eat 4,000 calories a day of food high in saturated fat, don’t exercise, and then want to blame their obesity on being big-boned or some other bullshit. I have empathy for people with thyroid problems or metabolic disorders. I don’t have empathy for lazy gluttons, and I can have an opinion on them if I want. Lots of people are addicted to cigarettes and I think they are idiots. Not going to be worried about empathizing with their habits. For the record, I don’t say anything to obese people. I don’t stare at them or laugh. My internal monologue isn’t hurting their feelings.

    your internal monologue makes me think you’re a really shitty person. i hope that doesn’t hurt your feelings though, but i don’t care about shitty people and that’s just my internal monologue about you.

    #1082997

    …bitter.

    #1083000

    As I’m following this conversation, is it fair to make this summary from the majority of comments (?):

    1) Obesity is not a problem in the United States, because it doesn’t exist and people can’t help it.

    2) Even if it were a problem, it should not be discussed and still can’t be fixed.

    #1083002
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    As I’m following this conversation, is it fair to make this summary from the majority of comments (?):

    You should never make a summary based upon wildly different/varying opinions.

    #1083003
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    …bitter.

    Shouldn’t you get back to your concern trolling, fake ass.

    #1083007
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    That’s enough with the bickering. Thanks.

    #1083120

    L.I. to Buckeye
    Participant

    As I’m following this conversation, is it fair to make this summary from the majority of comments (?):

    1) Obesity is not a problem in the United States, because it doesn’t exist and people can’t help it.

    2) Even if it were a problem, it should not be discussed and still can’t be fixed.

    No. Here’s where I’m coming from:

    –Fat doesn’t automatically mean unhealthy.
    –Eating disorders are diseases, and people struggle with issues (psychological or physical) that you can’t know or understand.
    –Fat isn’t a moral failing, and those who struggle should be shamed or shunned because of their body shape/size. People are people — fat, thin or or in between.
    –My body shape is no one’s business or concern other than my own. Why do people think otherwise?

    #1083125

    joev
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Miriam Bowers Abbott wrote:</div>
    As I’m following this conversation, is it fair to make this summary from the majority of comments (?):

    1) Obesity is not a problem in the United States, because it doesn’t exist and people can’t help it.

    2) Even if it were a problem, it should not be discussed and still can’t be fixed.

    No. Here’s where I’m coming from:

    –Fat doesn’t automatically mean unhealthy.<br>
    –Eating disorders are diseases, and people struggle with issues (psychological or physical) that you can’t know or understand.<br>
    –Fat isn’t a moral failing, and those who struggle should be shamed or shunned because of their body shape/size. People are people — fat, thin or or in between.<br>
    –My body shape is no one’s business or concern other than my own. Why do people think otherwise?

    I agree with you, except for point #4. Healthcare costs are largely socialized, which I think is a great thing, and that makes it society’s problem when a higher percentage of people are trending toward obesity. In the same way that smoking is a personal action but society can and should get involved in reducing, obesity deserves resources devoted to solutions.

    #1083176

    My favorite ethicist’s argument was for smoking: it shortens lifespan, so we have fewer people to take care of in their 90s. Same deal with obesity, right? It decreases quality and quantity of life -so we end up saving money.

    My gene pool and lifestyle has me living to over 100, but being fairly demented for a decade before my final demise. That’ll be an expensive ten years.

    #1083187
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant
    #1083188
    derm
    derm
    Participant

    Excepting that health costs in the Netherlands, where the second study was done is extraordinarily cheaper than the USA. Even cheaper in the UK where the first study was done. So that is correct in many places. But not in the USA.

    http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/comparison-dutch-vs-us-private-health-care-costs/

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/

    In the above studies if that factor is factored it is amazingly more expensive on our system for obesity and smokers vs healthy folks. That also does not factor in the amount of money that disability due to obesity and smoking related disorders costs the system. Type 2 Diabetes can start at any age and is chronic in terms of daily care and degenerative disorders. It is also a preventable disease that is now rolled into the health care system. Not to say that smokers and obese folks wont die sooner, as they will, but they wont be cheaper.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 65 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE