[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

The fuck? You can't say education plays a minor role and then use alcohol and smoking as an example, because we greatly reduced the use of alcohol and tobacco through education.

[Donna]

People have a right to get as fat as they want.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Sure, and I have a right to tell them that they are extremely unhealthy for doing so. I have a right not to allow their self-destructive views to be normalized. And I have a right to tell them that if they want to lose weight they have to stop blaming genetics, conditions, or metabolism, and start looking instead at physically how many kcals they ingest versus how many they need.

[Donna]

Sure, and I have a right to tell them that they are extremely unhealthy for doing so. I have a right not to allow their self-destructive views to be normalized. And I have a right to tell them that if they want to lose weight they have to stop blaming genetics, conditions, or metabolism, and start looking instead at physically how many kcals they ingest versus how many they need.

Zzzzzz

[Saeko]

So you see child pornography and murder of the same spectrum as fat/overeating?

What sort of spectrum are you referring to?

Not to mention that in child pornography and murder there is a victim. Someone whose RIGHTs and safety you are violating.

And? How does that change the practicality of a prohibition on those things? If prohibition is so ineffective that it makes drug problems, alcoholism, obesity, etc. worse, and if legalizing these things would actually lead to less of them, then why doesn't the same apply to child pornography and murder and rape and all that other stuff everyone wants banned?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Zzzzzz

What I like about you Donald is that you like fat, racist, stupid people; you'll fit in well in American society.

[XogGyux]

What sort of spectrum are you referring to?

Well you put some kind of equivalence between child pornography and eating so you must have some kind of spectrum in your head where both are similar in severity and perversion. The question part was mostly rhetoric.

And? How does that change the practicality of a prohibition on those things? If prohibition is so ineffective that it makes drug problems, alcoholism, obesity, etc. worse, and if legalizing these things would actually lead to less of them, then why doesn't the same apply to child pornography and murder and rape and all that other stuff everyone wants banned?

Again... you seem to confuse harming self with harming others. Let me put it in terms you can understand. If I punch you, that is called assault. However, when a boxer does the same to another boxer in the ring that is an sport (one i don't care for) and it is perfectly legal. Why is this? because in the first instance I (hypothetically) victimized you, violated your rights. In the second instance, both participants agree to participate in an act that might harm them and more importantly they both know it and are OK with it.

Child pornography, murder and rape all harm others while overeating/obesity/etc harms self. Prohibition does not work really, not even for child pornography or murder and that is why we still have perverts that rape children and murder. Let me ask you something. Is the only reason you don't go around killing people and raping kids is because it is prohibited? If it were not prohibited would you like to do those things?

[Saeko]

Well you put some kind of equivalence between child pornography and eating so you must have some kind of spectrum in your head where both are similar in severity and perversion. The question part was mostly rhetoric.

The only relevant equivalence here is that all of the above things are prohibited. If there's some relevant (within the context of whether prohibition works or not) way in which they are not equivalent, then it's on you to show it.

Again... you seem to confuse harming self with harming others. Let me put it in terms you can understand. If I punch you, that is called assault. However, when a boxer does the same to another boxer in the ring that is an sport (one i don't care for) and it is perfectly legal. Why is this? because in the first instance I (hypothetically) victimized you, violated your rights. In the second instance, both participants agree to participate in an act that might harm them and more importantly they both know it and are OK with it.

No I don't confuse anything. I simply disagree that prohibiting self-harm is ineffective at reducing self-harm, just as I would disagree that prohibiting harming others is ineffective at reducing harming others.

Child pornography, murder and rape all harm others while overeating/obesity/etc harms self. Prohibition does not work really, not even for child pornography or murder and that is why we still have perverts that rape children and murder.

This is like saying airplanes can't fly because some of them sometimes crash.

Let me ask you something. Is the only reason you don't go around killing people and raping kids is because it is prohibited? If it were not prohibited would you like to do those things?

There's plenty of things I'd like to do but don't because they are illegal. Murder is one.

[AFAIK]

And? How does that change the practicality of a prohibition on those things? If prohibition is so ineffective that it makes drug problems, alcoholism, obesity, etc. worse, and if legalizing these things would actually lead to less of them, then why doesn't the same apply to child pornography and murder and rape and all that other stuff everyone wants banned?

Victimless crimes go unreported becomes there is no victim to make a report.

[Drlee]

I'm not going to insult people that can't be defended by turning this around and making fun of fat people. All I know is that for a geezer you are acting very immature about this issue.

And as an epidemiologist I am behaving like a scientist.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I forgot the part of science class where they taught us that the opinions of your friends should be used as evidence.

Anyway your post came off as decidedly unscientific, and that you can't address what the CDC says lets me know that you're not being scientific but emotional/wishful thinking.

[Drlee]

I forgot the part of science class where they taught us that the opinions of your friends should be used as evidence.

Do try to keep up. It is just fine to illustrate an emotional point. You remember emotion, don't you?

Anyway your post came off as decidedly unscientific, and that you can't address what the CDC says lets me know that you're not being scientific but emotional/wishful thinking.

I could address it. I do not choose to. They are beside my point. I don't really care about the monetary costs of obesity. I don't care that obese people cost employers $79.00 a year. I don't care what your opinion is of so-called fat acceptance people. (Absurd made-up nonsense.)

If there is going to be something done about obesity the answers are not going to be found solely or even mostly in science. At least not in the near term. The answers will come from the way our society responds to the problem. Fat shaming is counter productive. Want me to post the studies sport? OK. Here is a nifty one. Discriminating against fat people is counterproductive:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/ucl-sd091014.php

You see LV, I was well aware of the physical issues surrounding obesity. It is not Fireman Lee. I am also aware of the economic costs of obesity. But knowledge of those things does nothing about the problem. They are not prescriptive. Your idiotic notion that you are doing obese people a favor by pointing out the obvious is usually counterproductive.

Then you said this nonsense:

If you're overweight, you don't have to wait for a doctor to tell you to lose weight.

Why don't you tell them. How about you make an infomercial telling them HOW to loose weight. Let me get you started....stop eating. Are you aware that perhaps a doctor might tell them how to loose weight safely? Conduct tests to find conditions that contribute to their weight gain? Do they suffer hypothyroidism? Cushing's Disease. Do they have habituation problems? Treatable emotional issues such as depression? Is there a genetic disposition to obesity? Are medicines contributing to the problem? Sleep disturbances? Is you shaming going to lead to unhealthy eating habits? You tell me. How much should a person eat, and what? Yoyo dieting? Are these people you want to "help" physically capable of strenuous exercise? How much and for how long? What should a person with diabetes eat? How should they exercise? What precautions should they take? What are the effects of extreme dieting on women of child bearing years? What is the effect of extreme exercise on women of child bearing years? What tests should be run before a person dramatically alters his/her diet?

You have no fucking clue sport and you would be well advised not to practice medicine without a license.

I know tons of people (pun intended) who have become motivated to lose weight, succeeded for awhile and in the end wound up failing only to gain more weight. Why? I can tell that you don't know.

Why don't you stick to your area(s) of expertise and not fuck around with other people's lives? Maybe that way you will avoid making many even more miserable and avoid killing one.

Just FUCK. What are you people thinking.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I could go point by point and respond to each of your questions, but I don't have to. Losing weight is simple: eat a calorie deficit for an extended period of time; don't try to lose more than two pounds a week; don't do anything more than moderate exercise until you're at a weight where you won't hurt yourself with strenuous exercise. How do you eat a calorie deficit? Keep track of what you eat. What is moderate exercise? Go for a walk. Maybe take your dog along.

Exercise is a red herring when it comes to weight loss. It can help you maintain a healthy weight or improve your physique, but if you're at such a weight where exercise is dangerous then you shouldn't worry about exercise. Of course I have emotion/empathy, but I don't think that your defeatist mixed with accept people as they come attitude has ever helped anybody. You can't set people up for failure by saying that people fail by doing everything right. Honestly, the people that say that they have done everything right have usually done everything except kept track of what they eat.

[Truth To Power]

The fuck? You can't say education plays a minor role and then use alcohol and smoking as an example, because we greatly reduced the use of alcohol and tobacco through education.

And taxation.

People have a right to get as fat as they want.

But they don't have a right to then call an ambulance, or demand medical care, at public expense when their huge, unhealthy bodies inevitably exact the price of gluttony.

[Truth To Power]

I don't really care about the monetary costs of obesity. I don't care that obese people cost employers $79.00 a year. I don't care what your opinion is of so-called fat acceptance people.

Sorry, Doc, but normalization of unhealthy obesity is a thing, and not a good thing.

If there is going to be something done about obesity the answers are not going to be found solely or even mostly in science.

Strange attitude for a soi-disant epidemiologist. Reminds me of a kid I once knew who wanted to be an airline pilot, but when the topic of his own risky behavior came up, his attitude was, "You know, if your number comes up, you're gonna die no matter what you do." A pilot? Really? I think we've just had a pretty clear example of where that attitude gets you.

The answers will come from the way our society responds to the problem.

Which better be based on science.

Fat shaming is counter productive. Want me to post the studies sport? OK. Here is a nifty one. Discriminating against fat people is counterproductive:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/ucl-sd091014.php

This study is based on perceived discrimination, so the relationship may not be with discrimination at all, but with over-sensitivity and perception of discrimination where it may not in fact exist.

You see LV, I was well aware of the physical issues surrounding obesity. It is not Fireman Lee. I am also aware of the economic costs of obesity. But knowledge of those things does nothing about the problem. They are not prescriptive. Your idiotic notion that you are doing obese people a favor by pointing out the obvious is usually counterproductive.

It's counterproductive to condemn a natural reaction when science reveals a counter-intuitive relationship.

Why don't you tell them. How about you make an infomercial telling them HOW to loose weight. Let me get you started....stop eating. Are you aware that perhaps a doctor might tell them how to loose weight safely? Conduct tests to find conditions that contribute to their weight gain? Do they suffer hypothyroidism? Cushing's Disease. Do they have habituation problems? Treatable emotional issues such as depression? Is there a genetic disposition to obesity? Are medicines contributing to the problem? Sleep disturbances? Is you shaming going to lead to unhealthy eating habits? You tell me. How much should a person eat, and what? Yoyo dieting? Are these people you want to "help" physically capable of strenuous exercise? How much and for how long? What should a person with diabetes eat? How should they exercise? What precautions should they take? What are the effects of extreme dieting on women of child bearing years? What is the effect of extreme exercise on women of child bearing years? What tests should be run before a person dramatically alters his/her diet?

You have no fucking clue sport and you would be well advised not to practice medicine without a license.

As would you. Almost all obesity is a simple matter of too many high-glycemic-index calories: i.e., sugar and other simple carbohydrates.

I know tons of people (pun intended) who have become motivated to lose weight, succeeded for awhile and in the end wound up failing only to gain more weight. Why? I can tell that you don't know.

I do: they have an unhealthy psychological relationship with food that prompts them to consume high-glycemic-index foods because like a narcotic, those foods make them feel better. They are addicted to (blood) sugar.

Why don't you stick to your area(s) of expertise and not fuck around with other people's lives? Maybe that way you will avoid making many even more miserable and avoid killing one.

How many will die because fat acceptance made it respectable for them to give up trying to be healthy?

Just FUCK. What are you people thinking.

What are the fat acceptance idiots thinking? IMO it is very significant that something like 75% of self-identifying lesbians are obese. Fat acceptance and obesity are somehow attached to feminism, lesbianism, and unhealthy relationships to gender and sexuality. Anyone can see this with their own eyes. The fat, strident, male-hating lesbian is a cliché for a reason.

[Drlee]

Well no surprise there. You are wrong on just about every point. OF course you can ignore the science and the sociality and call people names if you like. That is just about the kind of boorish behavior I have come to expect from your ilk. I have had enough of the view from the peanut gallery.

I think I had better leave this thread to the ignorant fucks who think it is OK to denigrate people who have done them no harm. Perhaps you want to take a swipe at other minorities while you are at it.

But they don't have a right to then call an ambulance, or demand medical care, at public expense when their huge, unhealthy bodies inevitably exact the price of gluttony.

This is just the kind of remark I would expect from an uneducated shit head intent on ignoring the science. How about some thoughts on global warming and fluoridation? Bigfoot and area 51?


Fucking embarrassing to be an American these days. My fellow Americans seem to be safely tucked up behind every stupid fucker who comes around.

Now sport. Post some more shit. You absolutely must have the last word or you will burst.

[jimjam]

Many, not all, obese people are, essentially, addicted to food. They have my sympathy because they are degrading their health and suffering early deaths no less certainly than a heroin addict. Let's combat the problem the old fashioned way ......... with money. Worthless "foods" such as sugar laden sodas should be heavily taxed ....... food industry be damned.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Sure, but it has nothing to do with the low metabolism vs. high metabolism false dicotomy. Like I said, for weight loss it's important to disregard the notion that you have a naturally low metabolism or other such nonsense because your metabolism is likely fine and you're just eating too much.

It's a good thing then that I have written nothing about "low metabolism". However, since pretty much every mechanism in the human body varies from person to person it is unlikely that our metabolism is an exception, and evidence is accumulating that our microbiota plays a crucial role in how our metabolism works:

The human gut harbors more than 100 trillion microbial cells, which have an essential role in human metabolic regulation via their symbiotic interactions with the host. Altered gut microbial ecosystems have been associated with increased metabolic and immune disorders in animals and humans. Molecular interactions linking the gut microbiota with host energy metabolism, lipid accumulation, and immunity have also been identified. However, the exact mechanisms that link specific variations in the composition of the gut microbiota with the development of obesity and metabolic diseases in humans remain obscure owing to the complex etiology of these pathologies. In this review, we discuss current knowledge about the mechanistic interactions between the gut microbiota, host energy metabolism, and the host immune system in the context of obesity and metabolic disease, with a focus on the importance of the axis that links gut microbes and host metabolic inflammation. Finally, we discuss therapeutic approaches aimed at reshaping the gut microbial ecosystem to regulate obesity and related pathologies, as well as the challenges that remain in this area.

And more specific regarding fat storage:

Regulation of Fat Storage

The presence of gut microbiota has been shown to function as a key environmental factor in the regulation of fat storage. Colonization of adult germ-free (GF) mice with a cecal microbiota harvested from conventionally raised (CONV-R) mice led to a significant increase in body-fat content and relative insulin resistance in the colonized mice, despite reduced food intake.[1] (The increase in fat/weight, even with reduced food intake, hearkens to the microbiota’s ability to increase energy harvest from host diet.) Calorie harvest is increased through both the improved ability of microbiota to digest a larger diversity of dietary polysaccharides and through modulation of host genes that affect energy deposition in adipocytes. This leads directly to an increase in hepatic de novo triglyceride production and stimulation of subsequent incorporation of these new triglycerides into peripheral adipose tissues. These microbiota-stimulated increases in fat storage are coupled with a decrease in fatty acid oxidation to cause an even greater increase in adiposity.

Now, obviously mice are not humans, but in the light of all the other evidence of the last few years this deserves serious consideration, hence why I said in my first post it's worth keeping an eye on this. It would essentially mean that 1 calorie in one person doesn't necessarily equal 1 calorie in another person and therefore a certain caloric deficit that works for you is far less effective or perhaps even doesn't work at all for somebody else. The same reasoning must be applied to types of diets. I have no doubt that both, low carb and low fat diets, work for some people and this will quite likely be down to a combination of genetics, microbiota and environment of the individual. But both can also be useless and may in genetically predisposed people be even detrimental.

People have been dieting for decades and counting calories has been one of the most popular methods. Yes, most people tend to lose at least some weight for some time - how much will depend on the above mentioned factors - but we know that the vast majority bounces back later. In the long run, the most consistent result is actually no weight loss and sometimes even a weight increase. Hence, the real challenge is maintenance, not the initial weight loss. At the same time ever more people in the Western world are overweight or obese despite the fact that, notwithstanding the ridiculous fat acceptance movement, nobody wants to be fat. All the evidence points to there being something wrong that goes beyond willpower and considering our until recently very adversarial relationship with bacteria, perhaps this isn't particularly surprising. Not only our diet and lifestyle have changed dramatically, but also our environment, including widespread and frequent use of broad spectrum antibiotics.

I'm not interested in tolerance or making excuses, but I want to see reason and curiosity win over the prevailing combination of the mind over body myth and blank slate ideology. While the former has some value, the latter needs to be crushed completely.

[jaydedjen110]

Many, not all, obese people are, essentially, addicted to food. They have my sympathy because they are degrading their health and suffering early deaths no less certainly than a heroin addict. Let's combat the problem the old fashioned way ......... with money. Worthless "foods" such as sugar laden sodas should be heavily taxed ....... food industry be damned.

NY tried putting a tax on soda and it didn't work... Taxing food won't do a damn thing.

[XogGyux]

It's a good thing then that I have written nothing about "low metabolism". However, since pretty much every mechanism in the human body varies from person to person it is unlikely that our metabolism is an exception, and evidence is accumulating that our microbiota plays a crucial role in how our metabolism works:


And more specific regarding fat storage:

Now, obviously mice are not humans, but in the light of all the other evidence of the last few years this deserves serious consideration, hence why I said in my first post it's worth keeping an eye on this. It would essentially mean that 1 calorie in one person doesn't necessarily equal 1 calorie in another person and therefore a certain caloric deficit that works for you is far less effective or perhaps even doesn't work at all for somebody else. The same reasoning must be applied to types of diets. I have no doubt that both, low carb and low fat diets, work for some people and this will quite likely be down to a combination of genetics, microbiota and environment of the individual. But both can also be useless and may in genetically predisposed people be even detrimental.

People have been dieting for decades and counting calories has been one of the most popular methods. Yes, most people tend to lose at least some weight for some time - how much will depend on the above mentioned factors - but we know that the vast majority bounces back later. In the long run, the most consistent result is actually no weight loss and sometimes even a weight increase. Hence, the real challenge is maintenance, not the initial weight loss. At the same time ever more people in the Western world are overweight or obese despite the fact that, notwithstanding the ridiculous fat acceptance movement, nobody wants to be fat. All the evidence points to there being something wrong that goes beyond willpower and considering our until recently very adversarial relationship with bacteria, perhaps this isn't particularly surprising. Not only our diet and lifestyle have changed dramatically, but also our environment, including widespread and frequent use of broad spectrum antibiotics.

I'm not interested in tolerance or making excuses, but I want to see reason and curiosity win over the prevailing combination of the mind over body myth and blank slate ideology. While the former has some value, the latter needs to be crushed completely.

I do not want to diminish the importance of research. But don't overcomplicate what it is very clear: It all comes down to a combination of increase of energy rich foods and decrease of exercise. Genetics certainly might play a role, microbiota might play a role, less diseases might play a role. But the big deal is 2 much food 2 little exercise.