3 ms·

Sure, there is sometimes a hormonal component, ask any woman on birth control about that. But mostly it's about overeating garbage food which harms the bodies n

Sure, there is sometimes a hormonal component, ask any woman on birth control about that. But mostly it's about overeating garbage food which harms the bodies natural ability to handle insulin and glucose. Also, dietary guidelines for caloric intake are far too high for a modern sedentary lifestyle. There was actually a study about this recently discussed here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-made-now-calorific-modern-lifestyles/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/26/meals-parents-mad... And yes very rarely there may be some underlying condition. But that is indeed rare. Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago. Even in 1962 (54 years ago) the prevalence of adult obesity was 13% in the US -- and it has increased steadily since -- so it was very far from "practically non-existent" 50, and even moreso 40, years ago; to the extent you might have some legitimate point, ludicrous hyperbole like this tends to obscure it.
KirinDave 10y ago
If there ARE mitigating factors then they need to be examined and understood! I'm not sure why you feel safe assuming that CIN/COUT is always an explanation. It's extremely easy to say, "Oh those people are fat because they're sedentary." Re-examine this though, because it's a variant of a common "you get what you deserve" mindset that plagues health issues for many people contracting conditions that cause society to look down on them. It's also untrue that obesity didn't exist in the 50s, however even if it was less prevalent ... it's simply not true that people were substantially less sedentary in the extremes back then. If anything, employment was MORE demanding of a sedentary lifestyle. It's probably a combination of multiple factors including things like available diet options, a reduction in habits like smoking with proven weight reduction side effects, etc. Is it really unimaginable that a virus makes people on certain diets more prone to obesity, requiring substantially more work to reduce weight? What's more, given that employment is a precursor to survival in our society and it is difficult to obtain and maintain employment while obese, it seems to behoove us to examine every avenue we have to make sure we can resolve those conditions regardless of value judgement about lifestyle. A strictly capitalist analysis of the situation suggests preventative and accessible care will be substantially cheaper and more productive than the "let them die of poverty-related complications in the streets" approach should people fall out of where the system can reach.
- DoodleBuggy 10y ago
  A strictly capitalist solution would be for health care providers to charge significantly higher prices for the same treatment of a fat patient vs normal BMI patient to compensate for the increased health care costs associated with caring for obesity, risks and comorbidities. Currently that is not allowed. Allowing health insurers to adjust rates based on BMI would be a capitalist/market based solution as well. Dietary choices would directly impact a persons health care costs. That is also currently not allowed. If you're concerned about market approaches for some reason, you could go the government sin tax route and tax BMI on a progressive scale, and also tax sugar and carbohydrate products. Dietary choices would directly impact someones costs. Considering junk food is an unhealthy lifestyle choice, that particular idea is not any different from taxing alcohol, smoking or gambling. In the meantime, related health care costs will keep rising.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    > A strictly capitalist solution would be for health care providers to charge significantly higher prices for the same treatment of a fat patient vs normal BMI patient to compensate for the increased health care costs associated with caring for obesity, risks and comorbidities. Currently that is not allowed. Nah, because this is a terrible outcome on a few levels. Let's cut over it: 1. BMI is widely acknowledged as a terrible metric of health best relegated to old high school textbooks about "overall health-wellness". It's basically statistical noise outside extreme outliers on either end of the spectrum. And yet, people here keep offering it because they seem opposed to modern health education. 2. Capitalism is ultimately built on a foundation of a relatively stable workforce. Without a constant infusion of human capital it's profoundly shortsighted and suboptimal to simply let people die in the streets. It takes time to train people, and so it makes sense to maintain their health. 3. The cheapest healthcare by leaps and bounds is preventative. So if we take it as a given that a stable workforce is good for the long term growth of industry then it makes sense for us to act early, prescriptively and preventatively. Of course, I personally find these motivations vile. It is a profoundly silly idea that unguided capitalism should be the gatekeeper of health care. A more mercurial and senseless angel of death you could not dream in your darkest nightmares. But unless we're happy with a society built on building lots of money for a few people in castles surrounded by dead bodies, we probably need to reconsider our stance on health care. And I'm a bit disturbed at the confidence you show in debating this subject given how many misconceptions you seem to have about it.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Keep in mind obesity was practically nonexistent 40 and 50 years ago. Even in 1962 (54 years ago) the prevalence of adult obesity was 13% in the US -- and it has increased steadily since -- so it was very far from "practically non-existent" 50, and even moreso 40, years ago; to the extent you might have some legitimate point, ludicrous hyperbole like this tends to obscure it.

KirinDave 10y ago

If there ARE mitigating factors then they need to be examined and understood! I'm not sure why you feel safe assuming that CIN/COUT is always an explanation. It's extremely easy to say, "Oh those people are fat because they're sedentary." Re-examine this though, because it's a variant of a common "you get what you deserve" mindset that plagues health issues for many people contracting conditions that cause society to look down on them. It's also untrue that obesity didn't exist in the 50s, however even if it was less prevalent ... it's simply not true that people were substantially less sedentary in the extremes back then. If anything, employment was MORE demanding of a sedentary lifestyle. It's probably a combination of multiple factors including things like available diet options, a reduction in habits like smoking with proven weight reduction side effects, etc. Is it really unimaginable that a virus makes people on certain diets more prone to obesity, requiring substantially more work to reduce weight? What's more, given that employment is a precursor to survival in our society and it is difficult to obtain and maintain employment while obese, it seems to behoove us to examine every avenue we have to make sure we can resolve those conditions regardless of value judgement about lifestyle. A strictly capitalist analysis of the situation suggests preventative and accessible care will be substantially cheaper and more productive than the "let them die of poverty-related complications in the streets" approach should people fall out of where the system can reach.

DoodleBuggy 10y ago
A strictly capitalist solution would be for health care providers to charge significantly higher prices for the same treatment of a fat patient vs normal BMI patient to compensate for the increased health care costs associated with caring for obesity, risks and comorbidities. Currently that is not allowed. Allowing health insurers to adjust rates based on BMI would be a capitalist/market based solution as well. Dietary choices would directly impact a persons health care costs. That is also currently not allowed. If you're concerned about market approaches for some reason, you could go the government sin tax route and tax BMI on a progressive scale, and also tax sugar and carbohydrate products. Dietary choices would directly impact someones costs. Considering junk food is an unhealthy lifestyle choice, that particular idea is not any different from taxing alcohol, smoking or gambling. In the meantime, related health care costs will keep rising.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  > A strictly capitalist solution would be for health care providers to charge significantly higher prices for the same treatment of a fat patient vs normal BMI patient to compensate for the increased health care costs associated with caring for obesity, risks and comorbidities. Currently that is not allowed. Nah, because this is a terrible outcome on a few levels. Let's cut over it: 1. BMI is widely acknowledged as a terrible metric of health best relegated to old high school textbooks about "overall health-wellness". It's basically statistical noise outside extreme outliers on either end of the spectrum. And yet, people here keep offering it because they seem opposed to modern health education. 2. Capitalism is ultimately built on a foundation of a relatively stable workforce. Without a constant infusion of human capital it's profoundly shortsighted and suboptimal to simply let people die in the streets. It takes time to train people, and so it makes sense to maintain their health. 3. The cheapest healthcare by leaps and bounds is preventative. So if we take it as a given that a stable workforce is good for the long term growth of industry then it makes sense for us to act early, prescriptively and preventatively. Of course, I personally find these motivations vile. It is a profoundly silly idea that unguided capitalism should be the gatekeeper of health care. A more mercurial and senseless angel of death you could not dream in your darkest nightmares. But unless we're happy with a society built on building lots of money for a few people in castles surrounded by dead bodies, we probably need to reconsider our stance on health care. And I'm a bit disturbed at the confidence you show in debating this subject given how many misconceptions you seem to have about it.