tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post3537353301639190069..comments2023-10-28T04:29:15.608-07:00Comments on suethsayings: the obese only have themselves to blame?Sue Joanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09733810024107526074noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post-6572343247531945232010-10-22T14:52:51.422-07:002010-10-22T14:52:51.422-07:00@Jworix - It isn't all genetics but it's a...@Jworix - It isn't all genetics but it's about 60-80 percent genetics according to dr Rudy Leibel, famed obesity researcher. Did you read the links I provided? I've seen the phenomena in families where both kids eat the same and move the same and yet, one is fat and one is slim. Today on a TV show, was a guy who runs 10 miles several times a week and yet he was not slim. The National Body Challenge had a marathoner - she'd been doing marathons for 10 years yet was about 30 lbs overweight. I saw that series before. The first weigh-in, she actually gained weight (living on the same program which caused large losses in some of the contestants). By the last week, she'd lost only a few lbs. If you had those genetics, you'd have spent a lifetime trying to be slim with no luck. Be happy if in your case you can eat "normally" and be slim - and be empathetic for those not so well blessed.Sue Joanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09733810024107526074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post-49684239899144100572010-10-22T08:50:41.410-07:002010-10-22T08:50:41.410-07:00It's not genetics, people weren't nearly t...It's not genetics, people weren't nearly this heavy 30 years ago. Genes do not and have not changed that rapidly in the course of 30 years, but the spread of McDonald's and other wonderfully unhealthy foods, hormones treatments for cattle and multiple other practices have.<br /><br />Don't blame the genes, since there is nothing but speculation and unproven theories that are rebuked by multiple other sources. <br /><br />Eating the same amount of food does not equate to the same QUALITY of food. Especially if your metabolism is slowed to a crawl from inactivity and attempts at starving yourself to faster results.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10836164318766545176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post-71061927038028639382009-02-28T21:13:00.000-08:002009-02-28T21:13:00.000-08:00I don't mean to quibble here. But discrimination o...I don't mean to quibble here. But discrimination on the health care front for "lifestyle" diseases is considerable. Alcoholics who haven't "recovered" aren't given liver or other transplants.<BR/><BR/>The UK expressly states that because heart bypass surgeries will be less effective for smokers, and liver transplants less effective for drinkers, they will have less of a priority to these treatments. "Lifestyle" in general is taken into account along with other factors in each case, to determine whether treatment should be preconditioned on lifestyle changes or denied entirely. (Yay nationalized health care.)<BR/><BR/>There are differences in each of these cases. There are a limited number of livers. If there really is evidence that someone is continuing to drink and that significantly imperils the success of the transplant, I think I can buy a utilitarian argument that others can "take cutsies." I've heard that as many as 70% of transplant failures are due to non-compliance with physiological and pharmacological regimes post-surgery. If true, that's compelling.<BR/><BR/>Heart bypasses though, seem another matter, since it's just a question of manpower and does not require using a non-renewable resource, which can always be increased. And they should be. Same with similar treatments for fat people. You can't use life-saving/improving treatment as a carrot-stick because someone's life doesn't measure up to your arbitrary standards.<BR/><BR/>But there are instances of medical discrimination even more egregious I think. Those with mental illnesses or who are suicidal are commonly discriminated against for life-saving treatment. These are often more due to genetic and environmental factors beyond someone's control than even body fat percentages. And do I understand the reasoning? Sure. If Mary is suicidal, why should she get a heart, kill herself, and leave Paul to die without one? Do I still think it's completely wrong? Absolutely.<BR/><BR/>I just don't think fat people are the only victims here. And that it's a complicated issue depending on whether the treatment requires access to a limited resource.Meyghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05323427907626103017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post-53815620908561602072009-02-28T14:32:00.000-08:002009-02-28T14:32:00.000-08:00Oh I've locked horns with Platell before; she's co...Oh I've locked horns with Platell before; she's completely ghastly – also a serial dieter going through a thin and superior phase. Typical projected self-loathing with a side order of staggering ignorance.Buttercup Rockshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08929261555166423769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32482128.post-13446555003675675462009-02-28T13:57:00.000-08:002009-02-28T13:57:00.000-08:00I think a very large part of the problem is that p...I think a very large part of the problem is that people who do not have the tendencies to be come fat easily ("norms") believe that "everyone is like them" and that fat people have to be over eating in a big way to become fat.<BR/><BR/>They think that if they were to become that fat they would have to sit and eat and do nothing, and of course it would all be sweets and hamburgers. Their experience is just different than ours.<BR/><BR/>It's the dreaded "If I can do it so can you! Let me show you how!" mind set. And sadly their "big weight loss" is 5 or 10 pounds. To them that is a lot. I could lose 10 pounds from the tops of my arms and it wouldn't even be noticeable.<BR/><BR/>It's very hard to change a "norms" attitudes about fat when they have experienced nothing like we experience everyday.cynthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267385105173711362noreply@blogger.com