• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Obesity:


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#1 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 03:26 AM


I know none of the following is going to be implement in the near or distant future because obesity is the norm in countries such as the United States and Australia and to implement the suggestions below would take a substantial amounts of work and a complete change in mindset.

Obese people should be admitted to hospital! Obesity is a disease. An illness that needs to be treated. I know that the mobidly obese are often admitted into clinics but what about the Obese. They are still on the road to killing themselves. They are heading down the road to insulin resistance and type II diabetes, which is pretty much a death sentence for most. There are so many other diseases that are caused or result from obesity. The list is huge. here are just a handful; cancer, gout, gall bladder disease, sleep apnea, osteoarthritis and so on.

Why is it that people who are excessively thin get sent to hospital and not people who are excessively fat? How is it that we can openly tell someone they need to eat a little more or that they can do with putting on a few pounds when we generally shy away from do the opposite to obese people and tell them that perhaps they should be eating so much or perhaps that they could/should lose a few pounds. I know that some of you may say that larger/obese people don't necessarily eat more than the average person but that's a rarity. At some stage in an obese persons life there had to be a stage of positive energy balance for them to get that way. What about it being genetic some of you might ask? Well see that's a completely different story. Ok the may be a chance that genetics does play a role but, excluding possible genetic mutations is genes that control hunger and so on, that means that the person who passed on the genes were most likely obese or fat as well. We need to ask ourselves. If the prevelance of obesity is increasing are we breeding an obese population by passing on our genetic inheritance i.e genetic predisposition to be fat? If so then are you or dpo you know someone who may be possible creating such a scenario i.e your obese and will have children

There's no doubt that obesity epidemic is a terrible thing. There are many things that need to change. As individuals we all need to develop a healthy mindset that involves adherence to a well planned out exercise regime throughout life. We also need to be super mindful about what we put into our bodies. This is super important but just one part of the equation. As a community we need to educate people at tell people that it's not healthy to be obese. I don't freakin' care about the obese person you saw on Oprah tell you how they feel healthy in their own body. That's bullshit! You have a BMI over 40 and that's not healthy regardless of how happy you are. You are deluding yourself and putting an excessive strain on our fragile health care system. So, as a community we need to instill a sense of responsibility into people about the downfalls of obesity. Tell an obese person that they shouldn't be eating that large piece of cheesecake just like you would tell the a friend that perhaps they should consider giving up smoking or taking drugs.

Perhaps we need to start coming down on these people so they will hear what we have to say. Get off your lazy arse and loose some for your own good. If not for your own good then do your bit in the community by placing a little less stress on the health care system. What about you kill 2 birds with one stone. Sell your car and buy a push bike. That way you will be exercising more as well as decreasing carbon emission. Hey perhaps that not a reasonble ask for some but you know what I mean.

Anyhow they are just my thoughts.

#2 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:04 AM

I've long been of the belief that I should be able to pick and choose those that are allowed to breed.

And, of course, the majority of obese people use excuses for why they are overweight. It's that type of outlook that got most of them to their current weight. They vastly underestimate the number of Calories they take in and say they don't eat anything. They walk 400m and claim that they exercise. Now, I agree that there are people that are screwed their metabolism so hard that they really can't lose weight even with drastic measures. But, it's almost always their own fault. People with true genetic propensities for obesity are obese early on in life.

There are many areas that can be blamed. Our modern lifestyle, our society's lack of health awareness, the general apathy of the population, etc. It affects all areas of your life. My roommates and I used to be very close before they moved in with me. Since moving to college, both have become obese, and their personalities slowly changed to the point that I don't enjoy spending time with either of them. It's a lot like being around a drug addict and all the highs and lows that come with it.

For the most part, if a man wants to ruin his body, I say that's his own business. But the absence of health has reached to all areas of life at this point, and it affects everyone.

#3 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:50 AM

Indeed it does.

I am pissed/angry at the capable inactive obese population. Your weighing us down (pun intended). Billions of dollars of research money is spent Type II diabetes and resolving obesity related diseases. This money could be spent elsewhere like funding research into extending the healthy lifespan.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 mike250

  • Guest
  • 981 posts
  • 9

Posted 16 November 2007 - 05:14 AM

or curing other diseases/problems for that matter.

#5 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 06:06 AM

It might actually be good though. In searching for a cure for obesity, they might stumble on something that increases lifespan in normal people too...

I agree, there should be restrictions on breeding, but that will never happen. Although, being obese is not really that bad. I would place a breeding restriction on education / lack of intelligence before obesity. For example, who least deserves the right to vote? A retarded person or an obese person?

#6 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 09:03 AM

Just for clarifacation.....after reading my initial post it may sound as though there is a little bit of hate targeted at obese people by me but that's not the case. I do not have any hate for obese people or lazy people in fact if there are any obese reading this and feel somewhat offended then talk to me. I can help you achieve a healthier weight. I am and will continue to take the hard line against obesity. I do this because I think too many people tip toe around the situation in case they offend someone

#7 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 09:11 AM

Just for clarifacation.....after reading my initial post it may sound as though there is a little bit of hate targeted at obese people by me but that's not the case. I do not have any hate for obese people or lazy people in fact if there are any obese reading this and feel somewhat offended then talk to me. I can help you achieve a healthier weight. I am and will continue to take the hard line against obesity. I do this because I think too many people tip toe around the situation in case they offend someone


I agree, but wouldn't it first be best to take a hard line against stupidity or laziness?

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:25 PM.


#8 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:05 PM

It might actually be good though.  In searching for a cure for obesity, they might stumble on something that increases lifespan in normal people too...

I agree, there should be restrictions on breeding, but that will never happen.  Although, being obese is not really that bad.  I would place a breeding restriction on education / lack of intelligence before obesity.  For example, who least deserves the right to vote?  A retarded person or an obese person?




education & intelligence are inherently different, and should not even be mentioned in the same sentence in that context.

all citizens deserve the right to vote
http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution


obesity is due to imo, a complex series of factors including; lack of childhood education about proper nutrition, psychological addiction, lack of healthy stress coping methods & also the inundation in western culture of the idea that food is solely for pleasure or that the pleasure of bad food is worth the detriment to our health. i think we [at imminst] sometimes forget that we are a bit [a lot] above the curve as far as nutrition/health goes, and that most people do not even KNOW there is a connection between health and nutrition. the average person on the street not only lacks even the most basic understanding of proper nutrition, but lacks the drive to change their lifestyle because in reality changing your eating habbits can be a huge stressor for many people.


i think to eliminate obesity society as a whole must come together and do a few things;

1) invest the same time and effort into studying human nutrition and dietetics as we do into other things (space exploration, war, etc)
2) translate the fruit of those studies into early childhood (& above) education
3) regulate the ability of corporations to inundate our food supplies with cheap poison (refined flour, white sugar, trans fat)
4) teach children healthy stress coping methods from an early age

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:27 PM.


#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,042 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:10 PM

I think it would help to label obesity as a disease and encourage people to get 'real' medical help.

However, I am against regulating food corporations. Do-gooders tend to over-do it when you open the door. Sometimes I want to eat ice cream. Sometimes I want to endulge. That is what life is all about, I don't want this taken out of society or strictly regulated (example...needing a licence to consume more than 2,500 calories in a day).

#10 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:15 PM

I think it would help to label obesity as a disease and encourage people to get 'real' medical help.

However, I am against regulating food corporations. Do-gooders tend to over-do it when you open the door. Sometimes I want to eat ice cream. Sometimes I want to endulge. That is what life is all about, I don't want this taken out of society or strictly regulated (example...needing a licence to consume more than 2,500 calories in a day).



i understand its a slippery slope when dealing with this stuff, but there has to be a line drawn with what food corporations are allowed to sell as food..

we dont allow paint companies to put lead in house paint, we dont allow asbestos in housing insulation... because they ultimately poison and injure the people being exposed to them.

why would we allow transfat in our FOOD? transfat is a POISON, not a food. white sugar is a POISON, not a food.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:28 PM.


#11 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,042 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:24 PM

There is a perfect example of the "slippery slope".

White sugar is a treat, not POISON. Sugar cane, sugar beets, and other fruits (from which sugar is refined) have been around longer than humans have been around. Sugar becomes a problem when people eat too much of it. There is little harm in eating some ice cream or a candy bar once in a while.

My wife calls me the 'sugar nazi' because I avoid sweets so much, yet I still enjoy treats once in a while. I don't want to live in a society where all the fun things are gone.

#12 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:31 PM

Yeah, I'm with Mind. This isn't something that should be solved by government intervention with food production.

#13 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2007 - 04:34 PM

There is a perfect example of the "slippery slope".

White sugar is a treat, not POISON. Sugar cane, sugar beets, and other fruits (from which sugar is refined) have been around longer than humans have been around. Sugar becomes a problem when people eat too much of it. There is little harm in eating some ice cream or a candy bar once in a while. My wife calls me the 'sugar nazi' because I avoid sweets so much, yet I still enjoy treats once in a while. I don't want to live in a society where all the fun things are gone.



thats like saying... asbestos only becomes a problem when you inhale too much of it, so we shouldnt regulate it... you just need to be careful not to inhale too much. sugar is not poison, but refined white sugar is quite immunosuppressive... and that counts as a poison in my book. if we outlawed white sugar today, and made whole cane the only form available... candy companies would have whole cane versions of their candy bars out within days. companies use white sugar because it is cheap, and thats it... because it is financially beneficial for a company to use/sell a certain product, does not mean they should be allowed to do so.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:29 PM.


#14 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:09 PM

It's amazing how many of the people that rail against so many government actions and are most distrustful of the government are fundamentally in favor of a police state.

It always amazes me.

#15 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:13 PM

Perhaps we need to start coming down on these people so they will hear what we have to say. Get off your lazy arse and loose some for your own good. If not for your own good then do your bit in the community by placing a little less stress on the health care system. What about you kill 2 birds with one stone. Sell your car and buy a push bike. That way you will be exercising more as well as decreasing carbon emission. Hey perhaps that not a reasonble ask for some but you know what I mean.

People always say that this doesnt work but it has worked in all the cases in which I have applied it. Although, I only apply it when I have earned their respect, and I offer several suggestions to get them started. One thing I tell them is that in some countries an obese person dying of related causes is marked as suicide on the death cert. Also, every time they complain of something that can be alleviated by loosing weight, I point it out (and this happens A LOT).

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:33 PM.


#16 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:15 PM

Forcing people to do stuff against their will is never a good solution, imo.

#17 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:19 PM

It's amazing how many of the people that rail against so many government actions and are most distrustful of the government are fundamentally in favor of a police state.

It always amazes me.

Who is in favor of a police state while being distrustful of government actions/rails against the government? That semi-seems like opposing positions to me, although I guess one could make the argument (as some have) that there are only a few roles that government should fill, and protecting the peace is one of them. (although, I highly doubt the type of person who would make that argument would go so far as to advocate a "police state")

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:34 PM.


#18 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:29 PM

Who is in favor of a police state while being distrustful of government actions/rails against the government? That semi-seems like opposing positions to me, although I guess one could make the argument (as some have) that there are only a few roles that government should fill, and protecting the peace is one of them. (although, I highly doubt the type of person who would make that argument would go so far as to advocate a "police state")

They are 'distrustful of government actions/rails against the government' yet are 'pro' on certain issues that would in time lead to a police state. In other words, they do not see the contradiction.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:35 PM.


#19 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:35 PM

Who is in favor of a police state while being distrustful of government actions/rails against the government? That semi-seems like opposing positions to me, although I guess one could make the argument (as some have) that there are only a few roles that government should fill, and protecting the peace is one of them. (although, I highly doubt the type of person who would make that argument would go so far as to advocate a "police state")

They are 'distrustful of government actions/rails against the government' yet are 'pro' on certain issues that would in time lead to a police state. In other words, they do not see the contradiction.


i think we've left the point of "would in time lead to a police state" when you are only allowed to eat governmentally approved candy.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:37 PM.


#20 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:40 PM

or when you can't smoke inside your own home

http://www.foxnews.c...,300658,00.html

#21 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 November 2007 - 07:57 PM

I can help you achieve a healthier weight.

That is the best criticism one could offer.

I am and will continue to take the hard line against obesity. I do this because I think too many people tip toe around the situation in case they offend someone

They try not to offend but dont realize that they are doing harm to the other person by tip-toeing instead of offering help. This reminds me of the other day when I met a stranger that had very strong ammonia breath. I asked if she had diabetes or kidney problems or problems with her teeth, which she said not that she knows of. I told her what her breath smelled like and told her to see a doctor. One week afterwards she thanked me.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:31 PM.


#22 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:07 PM

WOW. Some really good points for discussion here. Ajnast4r, I totally agree with everything that you said. I think you have a great understanding of the situation because it is indeed a multifactorial situation that involves many stressors such as pyschological, childhood and so on.

I don't think that we need to place severe restrictions on the types of food that are available we just need to educate people about how to make the right choice. Don't just give your friends off the cuff advice because most of the time they will just head on off to the supermarket and fill their trolley with bad choices. If they are serious about changing the way they eat and you are serious about helping then go to the supermarket with them. I used to do this with all my clients. I would first let them go down the aisles and make their usual choices and then we would stop and go through the trolley. I would talk about their choices and then we would go back and put bad choice back on the shelf that it came from. I would then show them a "better" choice for the food item that they just put back and explain why.

Elrond, at first when you mentioned police state I wasn't quite sure where you were coming from but I understand now. Such tight restrictions could indeed result in a police state.

#23 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:26 PM

I'd like to see more companies making health insurance the responsibility of the employee. Being healthy would lead to lower payments. Money is a pretty good motivator.

#24 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:32 PM

This reminds me of the other day when I met a stranger that had very strong ammonia breath. I asked if she had diabetes or kidney problems or problems with her teeth, which she said not that she knows of. I told her what her breath smelled like and told her to see a doctor. One week afterwards she thanked me.


That's an awesome story Chris.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:39 PM.


#25 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:34 PM

Elrond, at first when you mentioned police state I wasn't quite sure where you were coming from but I understand now. Such tight restrictions could indeed result in a police state.


of course.

There is nothing wrong with telling obese people they probably should do something about their obesity, and helping them along the way. I also have no problem educating people about the dangers of too much sugar and type II diabetes (and if you think pure cane sugar somehow doesn't cause type II diabetes you have another thing coming).

What I do have a problem with is the government preventing me from eating angel food cake on my birthday, and not being able to smoke a cigar when my kids are born. Thats way way over the line.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:40 PM.


#26 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 16 November 2007 - 08:39 PM

A few years back I stuck up signs around the university. These signs were stuck on the wall near the lifts. The signs basically said that making the choice to use the stairs over the lift will help you maintain a healthy weight. The signs also gave directions to the closest set of stairs.

I know that most of the people reading the signs were young students but some of these students were overweight/obese. Who knows.....I could have change the way a few people thought about the lift and keeping active.

P.S This is not my idea by the way. I can't quite remember where I got the idea from but I remember thinking that it was a genius idea and hence I decided to do the same.

Perhaps I'll start doing it again. This time at work as well.

#27 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 17 November 2007 - 04:28 AM

What I do have a problem with is the government preventing me from eating angel food cake on my birthday, and not being able to smoke a cigar when my kids are born. Thats way way over the line.

I don't think we're in much danger of that in the US. All I want to see is some truth in labelling. When we finally got labelling of trans fat, boom! All the trans fat disappears, except at your local bakery and restaurants. When Philadelphia tried to clamp down on trans fat in restaurants and bakeries, everyone went ballistic about a "police state" and Nazis and stuff. I don't think you need to outlaw it, but if you tell people it's there, supply and demand will take care of it. I would support listing of calories on restaurant menus for similar reasons.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:41 PM.


#28 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 November 2007 - 08:19 AM

...we just need to educate people about how to make the right choice


That won't work. Does obesity cause laziness and apathy or does laziness and apathy cause obesity? Not every obese person fits that mold however, but have you ever been to an airport in Iowa or Delaware? Go there and you will see my point.

I am pretty conservative, but I actually don't mind the idea of a tax on unhealthy food as long as the tax goes to subsidize healthy foods (and subsidize for everyone). What I have a problem with is how government handles smoking. If cigarettes are bad then ban them. They should not force the cigar companies to spend money on ad campaigns telling people why their product is so horrible. If it causes cancer and kills people, get rid of it. On the other hand, it's not government's role to tell people not to eat windshield wipers.

#29 Live Forever

  • Guest Recorder
  • 7,475 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Atlanta, GA USA

Posted 17 November 2007 - 08:40 AM

If it causes cancer and kills people, get rid of it.

Because prohibition worked so well...

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:42 PM.


#30 Mixter

  • Guest
  • 788 posts
  • 98
  • Location:Europe

Posted 17 November 2007 - 10:23 AM

I understand and second that rant, from an emotional perspective, I would
love to regulate and prohibit the poison e.g., in form of certain refined carbs,
and have a fast solution. Practically, I would not support doing that, for the same
reasons I wouldn't recommend prohibition, and as I feel quite libertarian after all.

There IMO are only two practical directions we can go,

1) intensively work toward radical life span extension. When people recognize just
how much life (possibly unlimited!) they throw away by ruining their health, they
will take this much more serious and stop (along with countless other social, and
psychological changes in response to a SENS-envisioned style War on Aging).
(I really believe that almost everyone in this pre life-extension era, at least, whoever
does not genuinely believe in reincarnation, is deathist today, and may think that
nothing matters a lot if they are gone in a few decades, thus life is a game where they
seek out maximum short term pleasure and fame, including authority and deception
and acting in many other ways that precisely make current 'civilization' so nasty...)

2) try to hasten the psychological changes, and the sanity of 'public opinion' regarding
health and obesity, first. If there is a major support, understanding and interest
there (and not just by government health & diet boards, who do not really care or
are even under lobbyist pressures), then people are forced to realize more, how much
their own life is under their control, resulting in less obese and more healthy people,
this in turn, resulting in more people who are genuinely happy and love their life
instead of hating it, which results in a broader support for the life extension movement,
including mainstream science actually researching rejuvenating and getting it funded.

So, in a sense, it's a chicken and egg issue: should we hasten life extension primarily and get positive feedback with psychology of the masses increasingly shifting from deathist to
life-loving -- or should we go for psychology and public opinion first, with a larger population percentage of people who know they have a chance of avoiding natural
aging, living and acting more sensible, and this getting a War on Aging and related funding started -- or go for both at the same time?

The answer is probably, everyone should do regarding that whatever they can.

But regarding obesity, I agree, every obese person is seriously ill. If I were CEO of any health insurance, I would immediately offer programs, even for any overweight person, BMI > 27 or body fat > 20%, to self admit to hospital or clinical fasting on request, without additional fees if the patient manages to finish the program. There should obviously also be health and nutrition education class in school from the first grade on.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users