User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 260

  1. #31
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Let's say that's true. Tell me then, what is the basis for raising the cost of healthcare solely based on weight? Or more extreme consequences like getting fired in Japan. Those actions don't really fit with the theory that fat, healthy people are genuinely the majority.


    FOXNews.com - Alabama Plans to Tax Fat Employees to Recoup Insurance Costs - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

    Japan's Bulging Waistlines Trigger Flab Tests in Land of Sumo - Bloomberg.com
    Those look more like organisations accepting the exaggerated claims rather than evidence for the claims.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    It's basically a form of malnourishment, I'm assuming it's the high fat/carb content of the food combined with lack of exercise rather than it being based purely on amount.
    Provide evidence showing the kids eat a normal amount of calories a day, but remain obese. I don't buy it, even with lack of exercise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    Those look more like organisations accepting the exaggerated claims rather than evidence for the claims.


    Yeah. Sure. No consult of actual scientists or gathering of empirical evidence.

  3. #33
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Provide evidence showing the kids eat a normal amount of calories a day, but remain obese. I don't buy it, even with lack of exercise.
    I don't need evidence, I'm just making suggestions and exploring ideas. Perhaps they don't eat the same amount, low Gi (generally cheap) food is less filling than high Gi food (generally more expensive). Obesity, weight gain/loss, metabolism it's all very complex, you seem to want to think it's simple, if weight loss was so simple almost nobody would be overweight, very few people would actually choose themselves or their kids to be overweight.





    Yeah. Sure. No consult of actual scientists or gathering of empirical evidence.
    Well did they? You never know, people often get caught up in hysteria (that Japan article sounded like they were being particularly hysterical).
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  4. #34
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post

    Oh and another one, from the same site, different authors: It’s official: you can be fat and fit | spiked
    The German study found that insulin sensitivity was not statistically different in obese individuals compared with normal weight individuals. In effect, the image of hordes of fatties with metabolic problems leading to high levels of heart disease and diabetes is a myth. As the German research team put it, a ‘metabolically benign obesity that is not accompanied by insulin resistance and early atherosclerosis exists in humans’ (3). This is indeed unwelcome news to the obesity crusaders, for it shows just how scientifically unjustified their claims are, how generally untruthful the government’s claims about the dangers of being overweight are, how compromised is their health advice about overweight and obesity, and how unwarranted are the calls for draconian government interventions such as tobacco-like warnings on so-called unhealthy foods. As MaryFran Sowers, one of the co-authors of the US study, told the New York Times: ‘We use “overweight” almost indiscriminately sometimes. But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.’ (4)

    Of course, none of this should come as a surprise since there is considerable evidence that ‘fat-and-fit’ is not an oxymoron. For instance, last December the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study which followed 2,600 American adults aged over 60 for 12 years. Two striking findings emerged from the study. First, as in other studies, the overweight - that is those with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 30 - had slightly lower death rates than those of ‘normal’ weight. Second, levels of fitness, not BMI, was the most reliable predictor of death. Those with the lowest levels of fitness were significantly more likely to die, regardless of body weight.
    So, I hunted down the original German study (read the whole boring mess ) and here is the abstract:
    Stefan et al, ‘Identification and Characterization of Metabolically Benign Obesity in Humans’, Archives of Internal Medicine, 2008;168(15):1609-1616

    Background Obesity represents a risk factor for insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and atherosclerosis. In addition, for any given amount of total body fat, an excess of visceral fat or fat accumulation in the liver and skeletal muscle augments the risk. Conversely, even in obesity, a metabolically benign fat distribution phenotype may exist.

    Methods In 314 subjects, we measured total body, visceral, and subcutaneous fat with magnetic resonance (MR) tomography and fat in the liver and skeletal muscle with proton MR spectroscopy. Insulin sensitivity was estimated from oral glucose tolerance test results. Subjects were divided into 4 groups: normal weight (body mass index [BMI] [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared], <25.0), overweight (BMI, 25.0-29.9), obese–insulin sensitive (IS) (BMI, 30.0 and placement in the upper quartile of insulin sensitivity), and obese–insulin resistant (IR) (BMI, 30.0 and placement in the lower 3 quartiles of insulin sensitivity).

    Results Total body and visceral fat were higher in the overweight and obese groups compared with the normal-weight group (P < .05); however, no differences were observed between the obese groups. In contrast, ectopic fat in skeletal muscle (P < .001) and particularly the liver (4.3% ± 0.6% vs 9.5% ± 0.8%) and the intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery (0.54 ± 0.02 vs 0.59 ± 0.01 mm) were lower and insulin sensitivity was higher (17.4 ± 0.9 vs 7.3 ± 0.3 arbitrary units) in the obese-IS vs the obese-IR group (P < .05). Unexpectedly, the obese-IS group had almost identical insulin sensitivity and the intima-media thickness was not statistically different compared with the normal-weight group (18.2 ± 0.9 AU and 0.51 ± 0.02 mm, respectively).

    Conclusions A metabolically benign obesity that is not accompanied by insulin resistance and early atherosclerosis exists in humans. Furthermore, ectopic fat in the liver may be more important than visceral fat in the determination of such a beneficial phenotype in obesity.


    __________________________________________________ ____________

    This is what happens when media gets hold of a study without sufficient understanding of the underlying scientific background, and thus, incorrect interpretation of what the study is truly showing.

    They are talking about a certain subtype of genetic obesity that may have a differential effect on insulin resistence, what they call "metabolically benign fat distribution phenotype" and if this is present, these individual (ONLY) will:
    "Therefore, in the context that insulin sensitivity largely varies in obesity and strongly predicts impaired glucose tolerance and the metabolic syndrome, it is necessary to characterize individuals for body fat distribution and insulin sensitivity in addition to total adiposity."

    I.e., they are making a case for what type of body fat to look at when we want to characterize the relationship between insulin resistence and obesity.

    Thus statements such as this, in its presentation is misinforming and leads to false conclusions:
    * The German study found that insulin sensitivity was not statistically different in obese individuals compared with normal weight individuals.
    *metabolically benign obesity that is not accompanied by insulin resistance and early atherosclerosis exists in humans (as only 10% of the sample population, and 25% of the obese group, had this phenotype and their sample size was n= 314, and if they broke this into 4 groups, you are loosing a lot more power for sample size to be able to make a conclusive statement regarding statistical signficance anyway)

  5. #35
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    Those look more like organisations accepting the exaggerated claims rather than evidence for the claims.
    And, how does the average joe get the 'evidence' for the claims? What are most of our sources? Is it the studies themselves? Or, a media's spin on the summary of studies?

    Broken telephone for most of the masses when it comes to evidence-based research, as very few of us go directly to the source of the research, just to summaries of the research from 'journalists', news, etc...

  6. #36
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Jokes aside, do you think the 20-40 generation is much better, really? I think kids get more exercise than their parents. It's the diet, mostly, IMO. That's more taught.
    Well I'm working under the assumption that kids 10-20 years ago are on average less obese than kids now. Just thinking back on my childhood... there's less awareness in terms of health problems with fast food. Sure we know intuitively eating a ton of junk food is a bad idea, but the extent of the problem from high fat/salt diet isn't as well known or advertised as it is now. Would parents put MORE kids on fast food diet given that info?

    Looking at income wise, fast food was favored in the past due to low cost and convenience... therefore is a staple for blue collar/lower income families. Is this still the case today? I think there's been changes. People can get healthier foods and those are even offered at fast food restaurants. I cannot see how you can get more kids on the diet. That's why I say it's a exercise thing...

    Regardless of the why, the problem needs to solved. Yet nobody seems to be willing to do anything about it. Is it truly solely in the hands of the "crazy" parents of these obese kids and we're just here to watch the time bomb ticking away?
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    I don't need evidence, I'm just making suggestions and exploring ideas. Perhaps they don't eat the same amount, low Gi (generally cheap) food is less filling than high Gi food (generally more expensive). Obesity, weight gain/loss, metabolism it's all very complex, you seem to want to think it's simple, if weight loss was so simple almost nobody would be overweight, very few people would actually choose themselves or their kids to be overweight.

    Well did they? You never know, people often get caught up in hysteria (that Japan article sounded like they were being particularly hysterical).

    Fat people do choose to be fat. No one puts a gun to their head and tells them to overeat. If they get medically obese from eating a normal amount of calories from low quality food, the answer is obvious. Eat less. Everyone aside from the handicapped can exercise. It can even be done in the home. The majority has no legitimate excuse for being overweight.

    Both situations are based off rise of healthcare costs. Insurance companies have to consult scientists and doctors for actual data.

  8. #38
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Fat people do choose to be fat. No one puts a gun to their head and tells them to overeat. If they get medically obese from eating a normal amount of calories from low quality food, the answer is obvious. Eat less. Everyone aside from the handicapped can exercise. It can even be done in the home. The majority has no legitimate excuse for being overweight.

    Both situations are based off rise of healthcare costs. Insurance companies have to consult scientists to get actual data.
    Actually not quite... The BMI 24+ do choose to be fat... For people who hover between 20-24, some are actually genetically pre-disposed to gain weight. The main issue here isn't so much on "weight" alone as in whether they're getting sufficient exercise and limiting their fat and salt intake (balanced diet).
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Actually not quite... The BMI 24+ do choose to be fat... For people who hover between 20-24, some are actually genetically pre-disposed to gain weight. The main issue here isn't so much on "weight" alone as in whether they're getting sufficient exercise and limiting their fat and salt intake (balanced diet).
    How is that not within control of an individual that's pre-disposed? Very few people are incapable of losing weight. What you're describing above sounds like laziness and not thinking about what goes into a body for optimum health. Same as the obese. Again, a choice.

  10. #40
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Fat people do choose to be fat. No one puts a gun to their head and tells them to overeat. If they get medically obese from eating a normal amount of calories from low quality food, the answer is obvious. Eat less. Everyone aside from the handicapped can exercise. It can even be done in the home. The majority has no legitimate excuse for being overweight.

    Both situations are based off rise of healthcare costs. Insurance companies have to consult scientists and doctors for actual data.
    For a lot of people, losing weight would require;

    -Quitting their office jobs (-$$$)
    -Hiring a personal trainer (-$$$)
    -Maintaining expensive diets (-$$$)
    -Extensive research and testing into what diet is right for their metabolism (-$$$)
    -Overcoming a lifetime of shame and selfhatred (-$$$)

    Where is all this time and money supposed to come from? Some people can get away with the modern western lifestyle without gaining weight, good for them, they probably won the genetic lottery and have a fast metabolism and a wealthy upbringing but presuming it's as easy for everyone is wrong.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

Similar Threads

  1. 13,000-Year-Old Satellite In Polar Orbit
    By Mal12345 in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-10-2013, 10:42 AM
  2. How many 5 year old could you take in a fight?
    By swordpath in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 09:43 AM
  3. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 03:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO