NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19112006/356/stomach-stapling-obese-children.html

I would just to know what are your opinions on this.

Surely the parents should be in control of what their children eat and to ensure they get enough excercise too.

Ohh heheh I thought it was some new family game.:rolleyes:

Studies are clear on the subject and surgery is the most, and according to some only, effective remedy for obesity. If it's a good pre-selection of kids who are chosen to undergo this, then I see no reason not to implement it. Sure the surgeries cost money, but not near as much money as treating the illnesses caused by obesity that they are spiralling towards.

Stapling their mouths would be a less invasive procedure

Stapling their mouths would be a less invasive procedure

Not sending them to McDonalds all the time and getting them to run once in a while seems to be good, too.

I do not see a problem.

If it's really, really obese children we're talking about, and not "Hey, he exceeds the standard BMI by half a point, STAPLE HIS ASS!"

So now parents can do what they want and kids can eat what they want because they can get their stomach stapled. What happened to teaching kids and parents to use restraint. Another thing wheres the money coming from?

Surgeries are dangerous! There are a lot of potential complications from stomach stapling. At least when an adult does it, they're (presumably) making an informed choice. I certainly hope parents aren't stampeded into stapling their kids stomachs unless their obesity is literally life-threatening.

So now parents can do what they want and kids can eat what they want because they can get their stomach stapled. What happened to teaching kids and parents to use restraint.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/14/1724

Another thing wheres the money coming from?

Do you know how much diseases of obesity cost society?

Yeah, didn't think so, because if you did you'd see these surgeries are a piss in the pot when compared to how much money they save.

Studies are clear on the subject and surgery is the most, and according to some only, effective remedy for obesity. If it's a good pre-selection of kids who are chosen to undergo this, then I see no reason not to implement it. Sure the surgeries cost money, but not near as much money as treating the illnesses caused by obesity that they are spiralling towards.

I've only got a very basic grasp of the human metabolism, but assuming that the majority of those children are obese because of the poor-quality, high-calory food their parents present them with (among other factors), do you think there might still be long-term issues with malnutrition once they did have the surgery?

Surgeries are dangerous! There are a lot of potential complications from stomach stapling. At least when an adult does it, they're (presumably) making an informed choice. I certainly hope parents aren't stampeded into stapling their kids stomachs unless their obesity is literally life-threatening.


Think of the children wont somebody please think of the children?

Seriously though any surgery is risky and more so any time anasthetic is used to put people under.

Do you know how much diseases of obesity cost society?

Yeah, didn't think so, because if you did you'd see these surgeries are a piss in the pot when compared to how much money they save.

so once the stomach is stapled what do you thinks going to happen? Their going to stay thin ? Because having your stomach staple teaches you to eat responsibly doesn't it!

Parents need to take responsibility on what they feen their children instead of the NHS having to do so.

and next time try to just find an article on obesity instead of trying to question someone and then answer yourself

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7427/1308-d

2billion pounds

or

250,000 stomach stapling operations

On a side note I'm not against the stapling of stomachs when other options have been attempted but stapling children is a no go for me

Studies are clear on the subject and surgery is the most, and according to some only, effective remedy for obesity. If it's a good pre-selection of kids who are chosen to undergo this, then I see no reason not to implement it. Sure the surgeries cost money, but not near as much money as treating the illnesses caused by obesity that they are spiralling towards.

I've seen it work quite effectively on young adults.

There are also variations on the procedure, including loops that can variably constrict the stomach.

I've only got a very basic grasp of the human metabolism, but assuming that the majority of those children are obese because of the poor-quality, high-calory food their parents present them with (among other factors), do you think there might still be long-term issues with malnutrition once they did have the surgery?

This is malnutrition. (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f7/180px-Kwashiorkor_child.jpg) (Well, one kind of it, anyway, called kwashiorkor.)

People in the West basically don't suffer from malnutrition; I know, I know it's all the rage to call the type of eating that is part of the metabolic syndrome "malnutrition," but the fact stands that they don't tend to be lacking in any nutrient. They suffer from over-eating, sedentary lives and the human genome, and no matter how blue people get in the face about "they should eat right, they should exercise" and blah blah blah, studies show that that strategy has a enormous failure rate. Surgery, on the other hand, doesn't.

Now, I'm not saying every fat person should get bariatric surgery, but after having failed the other ways, which most people do, they should seriously consider it. Society also stands to benefit from every case of diabetes, or dyslipidemia, or hypertension or what have you because those diseases cost us astronomical figures.

Stomach stapling is, frankly, a very lousy option from a medical standpoint.

It is drastic invasive surgery, for one, with all the risks and side effects that go along with major surgery.

It permanently disrupts the way in which the body processes food, which can have long-term health impacts that are easily as serious as obesity.

But, perhaps most importantly in this case, it fails to address the underlying cause of the obesity in the first place. When we are talking about children, we are talking about people who (in theory) have most of their lives ahead of them. If they are obese due to poor eating habits and lack of physical activity, then they're going to have a whole lifetime of bad eating and lack of exercise ahead of them.

Stapling their stomachs won't magically give them better habits. If they are eating because of depression or for other psychologically-motivated reasons, stapling their stomach won't stop those problems from recurring.

We don't yet know what will happen when a person has their stomach stapled at 15 and then goes on to live with the same bad habits plaguing most of our society. Where will they be at 25? At 45?

In some very rare cases, stomach stapling is the lesser of the evils. However, in my opinion, it is already being surpassed by far better medical options, and should virtually never be on the table as a means of dealing with childhood obesity.

so once the stomach is stapled what do you thinks going to happen? Their going to stay thin ? Because having your stomach staple teaches you to eat responsibly doesn't it!

Stomach stapling has been proven through many RCTs and very well-constructed meta-analyses to not only reduce weight, but keep that weight off and lower most of the markers of the metabolic syndrome.

Parents need to take responsibility on what they feen their children instead of the NHS having to do so.

Which studies show doesn't work.

and next time try to just find an article on obesity instead of trying to question someone and then answer yourself

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7427/1308-d

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12077863&postcount=9

You mean like the one I posted?

2billion pounds or 250,000 stomach stapling operations

The 250,000 operations would reduce morbidity and mortality, something those 2billion (by the way, if that's the proper British billion it amounts to a lot more than 250,000 operations, but it's unclear if it is) hardly have a dent on. They're spent treating symptoms.

On a side note I'm not against the stapling of stomachs when other options have been attempted but stapling children is a no go for me

Then watch the situation deteriorate as it has in the US where children present with type II diabetes.

Stomach stapling is, frankly, a very lousy option from a medical standpoint.

Nope. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/14/1724) It's actually quite effective - in fact, the most effective anti-obesity measure available - far more effective that diet and exercise and information and pharmaceuticals.

They were talking about this on the radio. Not really paying much attention, but did get that they were only talking about this in very rare cases when all else has failed.
The people recommending it were NICE. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, I think? Not a bunch of nutters or The Irresponsible Parents' Society, anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12077863&postcount=9

You mean like the one I posted?


I'm sorry where does it say the cost of obesity?

Diet and exercise, curiously, are not sufficient to lower weight and keep it down. From that point of view, and having considered why the child is obese, stapling their stomachs can be a good option.

I would still staple the kids themselves, to a tree maybe. But that's just me.

I'm sorry where does it say the cost of obesity?

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/economic_consequences.htm

These are national costs alone - that is, national costs to the government.

According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.

As you may note, Medicare and Medicaid in the US are essentially already on the verge of bankruptcy.

It's pretty clear to me that stomach stapling is cheaper than a lifetime supply of insulin, and paying for the slow decline of a diabetic's health (which is one of the more lingering deaths I've seen - it starts with poor circulation and ingrown toenails, and it gets worse and worse, culminating in a series of amputations and organ failure).

Diet and exercise, curiously, are not sufficient to lower weight and keep it down. From that point of view, and having considered why the child is obese, stapling their stomachs can be a good option.


Not if they're applied half heartedly no, they're not. I think for the stomach staping operations we're talking about stupendouly lazy people though so I doubt they've even tried diet and exercise.

I would still staple the kids themselves, to a tree maybe. But that's just me.

Aha! You could fatten up the kids, ship them off to starving third world countries, and feed them to the malnourished masses there!
We wind up with no obese children, they get a decent meal! A plan with no drawbacks!

Nope. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/14/1724) It's actually quite effective - in fact, the most effective anti-obesity measure available - far more effective that diet and exercise and information and pharmaceuticals.
Yes, stomach stapling is more effective at causing weight loss than many of our other options, though there are newer surgical methods that are just as effective as stomach stapling in that department. You'll note that what I said was that stomach stapling is a lousy option from a medical standpoint, not that stomach stapling fails to produce weight loss.

Starvation also produces weight loss, but it's a lousy option from the standpoint of anybody who is interested in preserving the health of the patient. Same goes for a lot of the weight-loss options. Yes, you'll lose weight...and you'll be chronically malnourished for the rest of your life, you'll wreak havok on your cardiovascular system, you'll have osteoporosis by the age of 35, and you'll gain most of the weight back within about 15 years.

About 30% of those who undergo stomach stapling achieve a normal weight. Something like 80% of patients see weight loss, though a large percentage of patients regain the lost weight in 3 to 5 years. When we're talking about children as patients, 3 to 5 years means that they could have the surgery, lose the weight, and regain it all before they're old enough to buy a beer at the pub.

Furthermore, weight-loss surgery has been repeatedly demonstrated to exascerbate existing nutritional deficits in patients. Obese patients frequently have deficiencies of bodily anti-oxidants, including vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, copper, manganese, molybdenum and others, as well as low blood levels of B-complex vitamins, particularly folate, and low vitamin D. Stomach stapling on its own is known to often cause nutritional deficits, so when you have this kind of procedure performed on people who already have such imbalances then you are setting up a serious recipe for disaster.

It's pretty clear to me that stomach stapling is cheaper than a lifetime supply of insulin, and paying for the slow decline of a diabetic's health (which is one of the more lingering deaths I've seen - it starts with poor circulation and ingrown toenails, and it gets worse and worse, culminating in a series of amputations and organ failure).

The interesting thing about cost-effectiveness analyses on bariatric surgery is that they do not show a significantly better cost-effectiveness apart from in the morbidly obese, but it is the morbidly obese the surgeries are for.

Well, you spend a lot over eating, and then treating yourselves because youre obese. Quite...Ironic, don't you think?.

Things like that make me feel that Chávez is right sometimes.

Well, you spend a lot over eating, and then treating yourselves because youre obese. Quite...Ironic, don't you think?.

Things like that make me feel that Chávez is right sometimes.

Any more ironic than playing football a lot and then getting surgery because you have bad knees?

Yes, stomach stapling is more effective at causing weight loss than many of our other options, though there are newer surgical methods that are just as effective as stomach stapling in that department.

I'm talking about bariatric surgery in total (as did the study); that doesn't just include stapling, but also bypasses and restriction bandings and what have you.

Still, only about 30% of those who undergo stomach stapling achieve a normal weight. Something like 80% of patients see weight loss, though a large percentage of patients regain the lost weight in 3 to 5 years. When we're talking about children as patients, 3 to 5 years means that they could have the surgery, lose the weight, and regain it all before they're old enough to buy a beer at the pub.

A Swedish longterm study (IIRC having gone on for ten years) showed a mean weight reduction in those with bariatric surgery of -16% and in those without surgery +0.5% (or in that ballpark); i.e. no reduction, but instead a gain.

Furthermore, weight-loss surgery has been repeatedly demonstrated to exascerbate existing nutritional deficits in patients. Obese patients frequently have deficiencies of bodily anti-oxidants, including vitamin E, beta-carotene, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, copper, manganese, molybdenum and others, as well as low blood levels of B-complex vitamins, particularly folate, and low vitamin D.

All those easily supplemented and, in fact, are part of post-operative care nowadays.

Stomach stapling on its own is known to often cause nutritional deficits, so when you have this kind of procedure performed on people who already have such imbalances then you are setting up a serious recipe for disaster.

More serious than with the metabolic syndrome? I think not.

Well, you spend a lot over eating, and then treating yourselves because youre obese. Quite...Ironic, don't you think?.
The funny thing is, in the US it's actually cheaper to eat poorly than to eat healthy.

Foods that are very high in fat and calories are frequently cheaper and more easily found than healthy foods. If you're somebody with a limited budget and limited time, it will be easier for you to fill your family's bellies with fatty crap food than to put together a healthy and appetizing meal.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. My point is just that, for many people, they can save money by buying cheap and crappy food that ends up being lousy for their health.

I'm talking about bariatric surgery in total (as did the study); that doesn't just include stapling, but also bypasses and restrictions and what have you.

Ok.


A Swedish longterm study (IIRC having gone on for ten years) showed a mean weight reduction in those with bariatric surgery of -16% and in those without surgery +0.5% (or in that ballpark); i.e. no reduction, but instead a gain.

Ok.


All those easily supplemented and, in fact, are part of post-operative care nowadays.

Actually, it's really not easy to suppliment for a lot of protein deficiencies, and there are long-term problems with using artificial suppliments for different nutrients. There's also the simple fact that people don't keep up with these medications indefinitely; whether or not they SHOULD, the reality is that people simply don't keep up with an expensive, complicated pill regime for years on end. They just don't do it, and it's not realistic to design a medical treatment philosophy with the assumption that they will.


More serious than with the metabolic syndrome? I think not.
What "metabolic syndrome" are you refering to?

Any more ironic than playing football a lot and then getting surgery because you have bad knees?

Yes, taking into account that most people around the world needs treatment for lack of food and not excess of it.

The funny thing is, in the US it's actually cheaper to eat poorly than to eat healthy.

Foods that are very high in fat and calories are frequently cheaper and more easily found than healthy foods. If you're somebody with a limited budget and limited time, it will be easier for you to fill your family's bellies with fatty crap food than to put together a healthy and appetizing meal.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. My point is just that, for many people, they can save money by buying cheap and crappy food that ends up being lousy for their health.

Not cheaper than buying food, cooking and eating at home.

It is not because crappy food is cheaper, it is because it is easier.

Slightly off-topic, but a doco I watched a couple of years back about morbidly obese children featured the mother of a extraordinarily fat kid - so fat he was incapable of leaving the house - in tears. She sobbed that he would sit there and eat an entire big jar of peanut butter in one sitting and would wolf down a variety of fatty foods.
She said she was at her wits end.
My immediate thought was, "If he's so fat he can't leave the house, who's buying him all that crap?"

Yes, taking into account that most people around the world needs treatment for lack of food and not excess of it.

Oh right I see what you're getting at. Although I'm pretty sure there are now more overweight people than starving ones in the world.

I don't think the recommendation was purely for stapling; IIRC what they said on the radio was that putting a band around the stomach to restrict its size (excuse lack of proper terminology, please) was generally a better option.

But stapling is more drastic, so all the news-sites pick up on it :rolleyes:

Oh right I see what you're getting at. Although I'm pretty sure there are now more overweight people than starving ones in the world.

In the world, or in North America?

People like you make others think that all "americans" ignore entirely the rest of the world.

In the world, or in North America?

People like you make others think that all "americans" ignore entirely the rest of the world.

Why would I be talking about america? I'm british and when I said 'the world' i meant 'the world'.

Not cheaper than buying food, cooking and eating at home.

Sure it is. It's far cheaper for me to buy crap food at the market and have a good-tasting (if unhealthy) meal ready in 5 minutes when I get home. Fresh produce, in particular, is expensive as all hell.


It is not because crappy food is cheaper, it is because it is easier.
It's both.

Remember, also, that for a lot of people time = money. A lot of Americans are working long hours, and they count every hour as potential money to support their family. Spending 30 minutes making a healthy meal that their kids will actually eat is sometimes going to be more than they can afford, both in terms of actual money and time.

I'm not defending this, mind you. I think one of the best ways to deal with the obesity problems in kids is to make healthy food options as commonly and easily available as crap food is. Kids can plunk a few quarters into a vending machine and get 500 calories of crap; where are the vending machines that will give them the same value for their money in healthy food options?

Why would I be talking about america? I'm british and when I said 'the world' i meant 'the world'.

Well, then, you know?, you're wrong.

There are more people starving in the world than overweight

Well, then, you know?, you're wrong.

There are more people starving in the world than overweight

O RLY?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4793455.stm

I'm not defending this, mind you. I think one of the best ways to deal with the obesity problems in kids is to make healthy food options as commonly and easily available as crap food is. Kids can plunk a few quarters into a vending machine and get 500 calories of crap; where are the vending machines that will give them the same value for their money in healthy food options?

Speaking as someone who has successfully achieved a normal BMI and weight through the use of bariatric drug treatment, I can tell you that it's not primarily about healthy choices.

It's about total caloric intake - portion size and frequency.

Look at the size of our common plates in the US. The size of drinks. The size of "servings" - not what it says on the nutrition label, but how much McDonalds thinks is a serving.

If you figure that running burns 100 calories per mile, then you would have to run 12 miles to burn off a Quarter Pounder burger.

Even if I exercised all day long, I couldn't burn off what is commonly offered as gross daily intake.

That, and we eat far too much sugar. Sugar provokes an insulin response, which in turn provokes unnecessary hunger. It's a vicious circle.

The reason people are obese is because their hunger is artificially stimulated by massive amounts of sugar (which we aren't designed to handle), and the hunger is satisfied by the huge amounts of food that are available.

You might say, "well, eat healthy food". Rice is healthy. But not in huge amounts. Sumo wrestlers get huge by eating rice - not by eating candy bars.

I've bought smaller diameter plates - and it helps. Buy less food. If I eat out, I eat the appetizer, not the main course (they're almost always enough for two or more).

And stop eating sugar. I've found the bariatric drugs don't work at all if you're still eating sugar.

Sure it is. It's far cheaper for me to buy crap food at the market and have a good-tasting (if unhealthy) meal ready in 5 minutes when I get home. Fresh produce, in particular, is expensive as all hell.

Then your country and mine are entirely different. A McDonald's meal around here is 3-4$ worth, while you can prepare something with 1.5-2$, perhaps even less, at home buying in the market.

Believe me, we hardly can hope to eat "crap fast food" around here. It is too expensive. It is usually reserved for a day when you are in a hurry, or want something "special". As an example, parents only take their kids to a Fast Food place on their birthdays or related celebrations.


It's both.

Remember, also, that for a lot of people time = money. A lot of Americans are working long hours, and they count every hour as potential money to support their family. Spending 30 minutes making a healthy meal that their kids will actually eat is sometimes going to be more than they can afford, both in terms of actual money and time.

I'm not defending this, mind you. I think one of the best ways to deal with the obesity problems in kids is to make healthy food options as commonly and easily available as crap food is. Kids can plunk a few quarters into a vending machine and get 500 calories of crap; where are the vending machines that will give them the same value for their money in healthy food options?

I agree with your point. But then, isn't there something wrong with that system? I mean, you save time to save money and then buy crappy food, just to have to spend a lot of money stapling your stomach few years later?

Speaking as someone who has successfully achieved a normal BMI and weight through the use of bariatric drug treatment, I can tell you that it's not primarily about healthy choices.

It's about total caloric intake - portion size and frequency.

Look at the size of our common plates in the US. The size of drinks. The size of "servings" - not what it says on the nutrition label, but how much McDonalds thinks is a serving.

If you figure that running burns 100 calories per mile, then you would have to run 12 miles to burn off a Quarter Pounder burger.

Even if I exercised all day long, I couldn't burn off what is commonly offered as gross daily intake.

Indeed!

And you get those massive portions for a few bucks. About 5 years ago I did a group project calculating the number of calories you could get off of a fast food value menu, and it was absolutely insane. In some cases, you could get up to 1400 calories PER DOLLAR. For somebody of my size, that means I could get my daily allowance of calories for a buck.


That, and we eat far too much sugar. Sugar provokes an insulin response, which in turn provokes unnecessary hunger. It's a vicious circle.

The reason people are obese is because their hunger is artificially stimulated by massive amounts of sugar (which we aren't designed to handle), and the hunger is satisfied by the huge amounts of food that are available.

You might say, "well, eat healthy food". Rice is healthy. But not in huge amounts. Sumo wrestlers get huge by eating rice - not by eating candy bars.

I've bought smaller diameter plates - and it helps. Buy less food. If I eat out, I eat the appetizer, not the main course (they're almost always enough for two or more).

And stop eating sugar. I've found the bariatric drugs don't work at all if you're still eating sugar.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm talking about. You have to have adjustments in what people are eating if you want to see long-term change. And you have to address why they are eating what they're eating.

Surgery alone isn't going to work if the patient isn't going to maintain LIFESTYLE changes. If they're going to gradually go back to eating the same way they did before, then they're going to end up right back where they started...and with all the health problems that came with their surgery.

It should be a no-brainer, but these days people seem to have trouble with the notion that you can't magically fix years of bad choices with an opperation. Surgery isn't going to be able to compensate for bad habits that persist day in and day out.

O RLY?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4793455.stm

Someone was fooled by a headline?

Did you read the entire text? It starts speaking over "the world" and ends speaking just about a "future change" in China and the problems in the US.

I will have to be forced to call shenanigans upon that study.

Then your country and mine are entirely different. A McDonald's meal around here is 3-4$ worth, while you can prepare something with 1.5-2$, perhaps even less, at home buying in the market.

Believe me, we hardly can hope to eat "crap fast food" around here. It is too expensive. It is usually reserved for a day when you are in a hurry, or want something "special". As an example, parents only take their kids to a Fast Food place on their birthdays or related celebrations.

Hey, that's fantastic for you! Honestly, I wish it wasn't so easy to eat crap food where I live.


I agree with your point. But then, isn't there something wrong with that system? I mean, you save time to save money and then buy crappy food, just to have to spend a lot of money stapling your stomach few years later?
YES! It's totally goofy when you sit down and think about it, but very few people think about it until after the fact.

A few years ago, I realized I was getting fat. I wasn't yet really fat, but I was on my way. In the space of a few years I had put on 30 pounds, none of it muscle, and I hadn't even really noticed.

I decided to try a food diary. All I did was write down what I was eating each day. I didn't try to change my diet at first, I just kept track of what I was putting in my body. And I was amazed.

I hadn't even noticed how my eating habits had slipped. I hadn't realized how much I was snacking, and how crappy the snacks were. I hadn't realized how my portion sizes had gradually increased to match the over-sized portions I was used to receiving at restaurants.

The funny thing was, I'd been coming in under budget on my dining plan for the years when I was gaining the most weight! Getting a cheese burger was cheaper than getting a fresh salad and some fruit. Getting a giant slice of pizza was only a dollar, but a BLT wrap was $3.50.

It is surprisingly easy, and cheap, to get fat in my country.

Then your country and mine are entirely different. A McDonald's meal around here is 3-4$ worth, while you can prepare something with 1.5-2$, perhaps even less, at home buying in the market.

Believe me, we hardly can hope to eat "crap fast food" around here. It is too expensive. It is usually reserved for a day when you are in a hurry, or want something "special". As an example, parents only take their kids to a Fast Food place on their birthdays or related celebrations.



I agree with your point. But then, isn't there something wrong with that system? I mean, you save time to save money and then buy crappy food, just to have to spend a lot of money stapling your stomach few years later?
I can tell you for sure that Bottle is correct. Even barring fast food, processed food is a heck of a lot cheaper here than "whole foods"

My daughters and I have been on a whole foods diet for about 2 years and our grocery bill in the house has jumped up $300 more a month, just because I cut out all the "junk" that passes for "healthy" around here, and not junk food mind you, anything in the store that's not strictly fresh, nothing in a box, in a bag or in a can.........

Someone was fooled by a headline?

Did you read the entire text? It starts speaking over "the world" and ends speaking just about a "future change" in China and the problems in the US.

I will have to be forced to call shenanigans upon that study.

the number of overweight people [has] topped 1bn, compared with 800m undernourished.


Most of the article is about future methods to combat obesity but the bit at the start does say that there are more overweight than starving people. But hey, everyones always free to question the methods.

I can tell you for sure that Bottle is correct. Even barring fast food, processed food is a heck of a lot cheaper here than "whole foods"

My daughters and I have been on a whole foods diet for about 2 years and our grocery bill in the house has jumped up $300 more a month, just because I cut out all the "junk" that passes for "healthy" around here, and not junk food mind you, anything in the store that's not strictly fresh, nothing in a box, in a bag or in a can.........
It's kind of silly when you think about it, but where I live you have to pay MORE if you want LESS crap added to your food.

I can tell you for sure that Bottle is correct. Even barring fast food, processed food is a heck of a lot cheaper here than "whole foods"

My daughters and I have been on a whole foods diet for about 2 years and our grocery bill in the house has jumped up $300 more a month, just because I cut out all the "junk" that passes for "healthy" around here, and not junk food mind you, anything in the store that's not strictly fresh, nothing in a box, in a bag or in a can.........

Yeah shit, who can afford to eat healthy. It also took me years, and I mean years to get over the fact that we now have a special lable for food grown normaly.

'Can I have a pound of spuds please mate, naaaaa not them ones, the organic ones.' Huh wot, ohh these ones 'ere which we grew in the ground all natural like.

heheh Sheesh, ahhhh but as I say such is life.:rolleyes:

It's kind of silly when you think about it, but where I live you have to pay MORE if you want LESS crap added to your food.

we have probably saved that much on insurance premiums and copays alone to tell you the truth, I mean it sucks going to the store sometimes and seeing the "precooked roast with veggies" for $4.99 and then going for the actual roast for $12 and the raw veggies for $9........but we aren't sick all the time anymore, and I am losing weight, and hubby's feeling better with his crohn's and me and the girl's celiac is doing better.........

it's just hard to actually take the time to do good things.

we have probably saved that much on insurance premiums and copays alone to tell you the truth, I mean it sucks going to the store sometimes and seeing the "precooked roast with veggies" for $4.99 and then going for the actual roast for $12 and the raw veggies for $9........but we aren't sick all the time anymore, and I am losing weight, and hubby's feeling better with his crohn's and me and the girl's celiac is doing better.........

it's just hard to actually take the time to do good things.

I've found that I don't get anywhere near the amount of heartburn, acid reflux, and problems with my colon when I eat small meals regularly.

Eat one "regular" size meal and I am living on the toilet.

Your husband might benefit from adapting to small portions.

I can tell you for sure that Bottle is correct. Even barring fast food, processed food is a heck of a lot cheaper here than "whole foods"

My daughters and I have been on a whole foods diet for about 2 years and our grocery bill in the house has jumped up $300 more a month, just because I cut out all the "junk" that passes for "healthy" around here, and not junk food mind you, anything in the store that's not strictly fresh, nothing in a box, in a bag or in a can.........

I never denied it, I guess you both are right, although I have never been in the United States of America. But here, a nice italian restaurant, or native one, charges less for food than a McD, a Subway or a Wendy's, just to write three examples. If you go to a street market and pick your own food there, fresh vegetables, fresh fish and meat, and prepare it at home, you can eat for half the price, or even less. You can find two kilos of fresh fish for like 4 dollars, for example, or a entire fresh chicken for like 2.5-3$.

Here, crap food is a luxury. Of course, we earn less than you people. A lot less...Standard wage is around 250$ a month, and rarely someone earns more than 1,000$ a month. Even I, working as an university graduate with a good job, don't get more than 700$ a month.

I never denied it, I guess you both are right, although I have never been in the United States of America. But here, a nice italian restaurant, or native one, charges less for food than a McD, a Subway or a Wendy's, just to write three examples. If you go to a street market and pick your own food there, fresh vegetables, fresh fish and meat, and prepare it at home, you can eat for half the price, or even less. You can find two kilos of fresh fish for like 4 dollars, for example, or a entire fresh chicken for like 2.5-3$.

Here, crap food is a luxury. Of course, we earn less than you people. A lot less...Standard wage is around 250$ a month, and rarely someone earns more than 1,000$ a month. Even I, working as an university graduate with a good job, don't get more than 700$ a month.

It has nothing to do with the wages here.

The cheapness of prepackaged food has everything to do with the local presence of factories that churn the stuff out. It's more expensive where you are, because your food distribution doesn't center around frozen fish sticks and factory pressed meat patties.

I've found that I don't get anywhere near the amount of heartburn, acid reflux, and problems with my colon when I eat small meals regularly.

Eat one "regular" size meal and I am living on the toilet.

Your husband might benefit from adapting to small portions.

we have portioned everything out already, we realized it one day when drinking soda on the way to church, that the portions we were having were way out of control.

He had a 64 oz soda and I was walking around with a 20 oz coffee......bad bad.

He counted it out and was getting upwards of 1000 calories a day just from soda pop, not to mention the sugar intake, no wonder he was having trouble sleeping and felt run down all the time.

I even now, get sandwich bags and portion out things around here into serving sizes when I can, I mark on the sandwich bag the majors per serving size (calories, fat, sugar, sodium) so that I can look and say "do I want to waste 70 calories on a small bag of chocolate?" and most of the time decide not to.

;)

You might say, "well, eat healthy food". Rice is healthy. But not in huge amounts. Sumo wrestlers get huge by eating rice - not by eating candy bars.
That's not true. Sumo diet is predominantly chanko nabe, an extremely rich protein-heavy stew. It's chicken broth filled with chicken, fried fish balls, tofu, beef and bok choy. Sumo usually eat it with huge amounts of rice and beer.
It's the broth and beer that gets them fat.
The amount of rice you'd need to eat to gain significant weight would be enormous. I seriously doubt one would be able to, myself.

Also, their entire day is dedicated to gaining weight. So they usually exercise on an empty stomach, fill up and then sleep. Doing this helps slow the metabolism and causes weight gain.


Incidently, having met some Ozeki (basically the best Sumo there is) close-up, I can tell you that they're not just lumps of flab and butter. There's a shit load of muscle under that blubber.

That's not true. Sumo diet is predominantly chanko nabe, an extremely rich protein-heavy stew. It's chicken broth filled with chicken, fried fish balls, tofu, beef and bok choy. Sumo usually eat it with huge amounts of rice and beer.
It's the broth and beer that gets them fat.
The amount of rice you'd need to eat to gain significant weight would be enormous. I seriously doubt one would be able to, myself.

Also, their entire day is dedicated to gaining weight. So they usually exercise on an empty stomach, fill up and then sleep. Doing this helps slow the metabolism and causes weight gain.


Incidently, having met some Ozeki (basically the best Sumo there is) close-up, I can tell you that they're not just lumps of flab and butter. There's a shit load of muscle under that blubber.

How do they pull the testicles off of the fish?

Actually, it's really not easy to suppliment for a lot of protein deficiencies, and there are long-term problems with using artificial suppliments for different nutrients. There's also the simple fact that people don't keep up with these medications indefinitely; whether or not they SHOULD, the reality is that people simply don't keep up with an expensive, complicated pill regime for years on end. They just don't do it, and it's not realistic to design a medical treatment philosophy with the assumption that they will.

That's why pre-operative selection is so important, as I mention in my posts. Just like you don't select active alcoholics for a liver transplant, you don't select someone who will not be able to maintain a post-operative regimen for a surgery which requires such.

What "metabolic syndrome" are you refering to?

The metabolic syndrome: abdominal obesity, atherogenic dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance, prothrombotic and proinflammatory state.

How do they pull the testicles off of the fish?
fish balls are an Asian (mostly Japanese/Korean/Chinese) delicacy. They're just mushed up fish rolled into balls and deep fried.
Taste and look like little rubber balls, imo. Fish-flavoured rubber balls that is.
I'm sure you could use them to play squash with.

fish balls are an Asian (mostly Japanese/Korean/Chinese) delicacy. They're just mushed up fish rolled into balls and deep fried.
Taste and look like little rubber balls, imo. Fish-flavoured rubber balls that is.
I'm sure you could use them to play squash with.

Yes, I know, I am trying to be funny

Studies are clear on the subject and surgery is the most, and according to some only, effective remedy for obesity. If it's a good pre-selection of kids who are chosen to undergo this, then I see no reason not to implement it. Sure the surgeries cost money, but not near as much money as treating the illnesses caused by obesity that they are spiralling towards.

But surgery will not solve the bigger issues behind this. People need to become healthier and do more exercise, not just rely on the fact that surgery will solve any problems they have if they can't stop eating. If people become obese they should go on special courses to improve their diet, exercise levels and be helped to cope with any psychological problems such as food addiction. Just offering surgery is not helping people help themselves.

People need to become healthier and do more exercise,

But that doesn't work. It's easy to say it, but the studies consistently show that it has a very low success rate (actually, some studies even show a complete mean failure rate with weight gain instead of weight loss). It's easy to say "people need to" and then ignore that they simply fail.

Yes, I know, I am trying to be funny
I know. I was trying to come across as a nit-picking pedant.
I think I won this round!

Diet and exercise, curiously, are not sufficient to lower weight and keep it down. From that point of view, and having considered why the child is obese, stapling their stomachs can be a good option.

I would still staple the kids themselves, to a tree maybe. But that's just me.

I think what a lot of people are neglecting and forgetting is that some people are just born with a certain body type that they're meant to be. Stomach stapling won't make them thin and athletic if their DNA tells them they're supposed to be rotund. It might make them lose more weight than normal, but they'll still be essentially the same body type, and they won't be any healthier unless they eat healthier and exercise while acknowledging that doing so still won't make them much skinnier.

But that doesn't work. It's easy to say it, but the studies consistently show that it has a very low success rate (actually, some studies even show a complete mean failure rate with weight gain instead of weight loss). It's easy to say "people need to" and then ignore that they simply fail.

Maybe, but I doubt that surgery is exactly the solution for the initial problems that children and adults face before they come to the point that they need surgery. Fitness and exercise are not followed by many people nowdays and people are not buying healthy food. Surgery is not the solution for societies problems, regardless of what a few scientists and psychologists may say about the efficiency of exercise and eating healthily.
Try and find out why people are eating the way they are and try and solve those problems without this constant desire to get a "quick fix" through a risky operation rather than try other routes first.

I know. I was trying to come across as a nit-picking pedant.
I think I won this round!

Here, have some cheeseburgers...

Maybe, but I doubt that surgery is exactly the solution for the initial problems that children and adults face before they come to the point that they need surgery. Fitness and exercise are not followed by many people nowdays and people are not buying healthy food. Surgery is not the solution for societies problems, regardless of what a few scientists and psychologists may say about the efficiency of exercise and eating healthily.
Try and find out why people are eating the way they are and try and solve those problems without this constant desire to get a "quick fix" through a risky operation rather than try other routes first.

which is all fine and great, but while you are searching for a solution and figuring out how to implement it kids are dying.

which is all fine and great, but while you are searching for a solution and figuring out how to implement it kids are dying.The question, though, is whether stomach stapling etc. will actually reduce the number of kids who are dying.

We simply don't know enough just yet. It is entirely possible that kids who go through this kind of medical procedure won't be any better off, or might be worse off, than kids who don't. It might be that kids will benefit more if we focus our energy on other options than surgeries.

which is all fine and great, but while you are searching for a solution and figuring out how to implement it kids are dying.

I never said do not use surgery in the most extreme cases. But the surgery itself is risky and does not always work. Society on a whole has to look at itself and change the way that people are living and are brought up and their perceptions on food and exercise.

The question, though, is whether stomach stapling etc. will actually reduce the number of kids who are dying.

We simply don't know enough just yet. It is entirely possible that kids who go through this kind of medical procedure won't be any better off, or might be worse off, than kids who don't. It might be that kids will benefit more if we focus our energy on other options than surgeries.
I have seen it go both ways, I have seen adults who lost 300 lbs and live normal lives now 8 years later, and I have seen adults lose 175 lbs and then gain it back after 5 years with health problems to boot.

I am not saying "hey let's give all the fat people surgery" but if a kid is going to die without it, I don't think the option should be taken away because "oh, they just need to run around more"

Being a person who has lost 75 lbs in the last year (and counting) it's hard, and it sucks, and I don't think I would go the surgery route, but I hate people telling me what I "should do" when they have never had to deal with something so overwhelming.



I never said do not use surgery in the most extreme cases. But the surgery itself is risky and does not always work. Society on a whole has to look at itself and change the way that people are living and are brought up and their perceptions on food and exercise.
I can agree with that.

I have seen it go both ways, I have seen adults who lost 300 lbs and live normal lives now 8 years later, and I have seen adults lose 175 lbs and then gain it back after 5 years with health problems to boot.

I am not saying "hey let's give all the fat people surgery" but if a kid is going to die without it, I don't think the option should be taken away because "oh, they just need to run around more"

I think we're on the same page here.

The trouble is that things are rarely as cut-and-dried as "this kid need surgery or he will die." Yes, there are cases where a child urgently needs to lose weight and alter their food intake habits, but the question remains: is surgery the best way to achieve this? It may provide a short term solution, but will the long term costs be too great?

In some cases, surgery may simply be the only option for now. I do not deny that at all. However, I think it's a very complex topic that too many people rush to over-simplify. I also think that dealing with the health of children is a different subject, in many ways, from dealing with the health of adults.


Being a person who has lost 75 lbs in the last year (and counting) it's hard, and it sucks, and I don't think I would go the surgery route, but I hate people telling me what I "should do" when they have never had to deal with something so overwhelming.

Agreed, and your point is well taken. If there's one thing I've figured out from dealing with my own health issues, it's that what works miracles for one person may do nothing for another. What solves one person's weight problem may make another person's problem worse. That's why surgery as an option kind of scares me, because people in my country tend to jump on such advances as quick-fix solutions that are assumed to work for everybody.

I think we're on the same page here.

The trouble is that things are rarely as cut-and-dried as "this kid need surgery or he will die." Yes, there are cases where a child urgently needs to lose weight and alter their food intake habits, but the question remains: is surgery the best way to achieve this? It may provide a short term solution, but will the long term costs be too great?

In some cases, surgery may simply be the only option for now. I do not deny that at all. However, I think it's a very complex topic that too many people rush to over-simplify. I also think that dealing with the health of children is a different subject, in many ways, from dealing with the health of adults.


Agreed, and your point is well taken. If there's one thing I've figured out from dealing with my own health issues, it's that what works miracles for one person may do nothing for another. What solves one person's weight problem may make another person's problem worse. That's why surgery as an option kind of scares me, because people in my country tend to jump on such advances as quick-fix solutions that are assumed to work for everybody.

yeah, we are on the same page.

Maybe, but I doubt that surgery is exactly the solution for the initial problems that children and adults face before they come to the point that they need surgery. Fitness and exercise are not followed by many people nowdays and people are not buying healthy food. Surgery is not the solution for societies problems, regardless of what a few scientists and psychologists may say about the efficiency of exercise and eating healthily.
Try and find out why people are eating the way they are and try and solve those problems without this constant desire to get a "quick fix" through a risky operation rather than try other routes first.

Well let's see:

We eat that way because we live in a society that encourages us to. We're constantly busy, and fast-food is quick and easily accessable for not too heavy a price, and most of us think it tastes good. The "quick-fix" is exactly what we need to overcome, because it's that "we need a quick-fix" instinct we seem to have now that causes us to just jump into the nearest Burger King for lunch instead of going into a Safeway and making a salad or getting some soup.

Well let's see:

We eat that way because we live in a society that encourages us to. We're constantly busy, and fast-food is quick and easily accessable for not too heavy a price, and most of us think it tastes good. The "quick-fix" is exactly what we need to overcome, because it's that "we need a quick-fix" instinct we seem to have now that causes us to just jump into the nearest Burger King for lunch instead of going into a Safeway and making a salad or getting some soup.

It is that culture that needs to be changed in order for obeisity to being a big a problem. In many European countries, the people generally are more relaxed and have time to prepare good, healthy food. However, in the U.K. and America, it seems that people just save time by choosing the unhealthy and by not exercising. We have to change this mindset and encourage people to live healthier...something that is by no means an easy task but is something that must be addressed in todays society. Allow people to have the operation in extreme cases but in the long term we must look to solve the cultural and psychological problems that lead to obesity.

You'd think that being so fat that life altering surgery might be neccessary to save your life would be a sufficient motivator to lose some weight. Well I'll never understand some people I suppose.

You'd think that being so fat that life altering surgery might be neccessary to save your life would be a sufficient motivator to lose some weight. Well I'll never understand some people I suppose.

motivation is only half of the problem.

You'd think that being so fat that life altering surgery might be neccessary to save your life would be a sufficient motivator to lose some weight. Well I'll never understand some people I suppose.

Some people do get addictions to food and can't stop eating - psychologists should be used to try and get to the route of the problems.

It is that culture that needs to be changed in order for obeisity to being a big a problem. In many European countries, the people generally are more relaxed and have time to prepare good, healthy food. However, in the U.K. and America, it seems that people just save time by choosing the unhealthy and by not exercising. We have to change this mindset and encourage people to live healthier...something that is by no means an easy task but is something that must be addressed in todays society. Allow people to have the operation in extreme cases but in the long term we must look to solve the cultural and psychological problems that lead to obesity.

Well yeah, but the society is the way it is because it's run by money, and time equals money, therefore we need to do everything quickly and as simply as possible. Unless you change the economy and the way business is done, you can't change America's society.

Some people do get addictions to food and can't stop eating - psychologists should be used to try and get to the route of the problems.

Oh, well yeah there is the addiction thing to take into account. Still I'd have though being that fat would be a good enough motivator to break even that, even if it is physically addictive, kind of like stopping smoking when you have lung cancer.

Some people do get addictions to food and can't stop eating - psychologists should be used to try and get to the route of the problems.

To lose one pound, a person must burn 3,500 calories more than are consumed (500 calories per day over the course of a week). For example, reducing calories by 300 per day and increasing daily activity to burn off an additional 200 calories should result in a weight loss of one pound per week.

now take that information to someone after you have told them they need to lose 150 lbs in say 6 months.

Oh, well yeah there is the addiction thing to take into account. Still I'd have though being that fat would be a good enough motivator to break even that, even if it is physically addictive, kind of like stopping smoking when you have lung cancer.

have you ever been addicted to anything?

Oh, well yeah there is the addiction thing to take into account. Still I'd have though being that fat would be a good enough motivator to break even that, even if it is physically addictive, kind of like stopping smoking when you have lung cancer.

People don't stop smoking when they have lung cancer - why? Because they already fucking have lung cancer, they're probably going to die anyway, what's the point. :p

have you ever been addicted to anything?

No, I'd have thought it would be reasonable based on the fact that many other people have gotten over addiction.

I did lose 4 stones (56 lbs) last year though.

No, I'd have thought it would be reasonable based on the fact that many other people have gotten over addiction.

I did lose 4 stones (56 lbs) last year though.

Well considering the averages, the ratio of people who have gotten over addiction vs those who don't, it doesn't seem very reasonable.

No, I'd have thought it would be reasonable based on the fact that many other people have gotten over addiction.

I did lose 4 stones (56 lbs) last year though.

when I "got over my addiction" it wasn't because I had this rational thought of "oh, wow, this is killing me"

people who have never been addicted to things don't understand the pull it has.

Well yeah, but the society is the way it is because it's run by money, and time equals money, therefore we need to do everything quickly and as simply as possible. Unless you change the economy and the way business is done, you can't change America's society.

I was more referring to the U.K. but America needs to change itself aswell.

People don't stop smoking when they have lung cancer - why? Because they already fucking have lung cancer, they're probably going to die anyway, what's the point. :p

lolz, not all lung cancer is terminal though. And I may be wrong but wouldnt stopping smoking at least prolong your life in that case? Aw, maybe I shouldnt have said anything.

when I "got over my addiction" it wasn't because I had this rational thought of "oh, wow, this is killing me"


Why was it then?

To lose one pound, a person must burn 3,500 calories more than are consumed (500 calories per day over the course of a week). For example, reducing calories by 300 per day and increasing daily activity to burn off an additional 200 calories should result in a weight loss of one pound per week.

now take that information to someone after you have told them they need to lose 150 lbs in say 6 months.

Surgery is necessary in some cases but it should not be as readily used. People should be prevented from reaching a stage where they need surgery in the first place.

Why was it then?

court ordered rehab. (although probably not since the first two rounds in it didn't seem to stick for long either)

in a way I am always going to be dealing with my addiction, it hides under the surface waiting to stomp me into the ground.

Surgery is necessary in some cases but it should not be as readily used. People should be prevented from reaching a stage where they need surgery in the first place.

how do you prevent it?

lolz, not all lung cancer is terminal though. And I may be wrong but wouldnt stopping smoking at least prolong your life in that case? Aw, maybe I shouldnt have said anything.

I bet you $200 the first thing someone thinks when they've been diagnosed with lung cancer is "God damn, now I need a smoke."

court ordered rehab. (although probably not since the first two rounds in it didn't seem to stick for long either)

in a way I am always going to be dealing with my addiction, it hides under the surface waiting to stomp me into the ground.

So....we send them all to fat camp?

how do you prevent it?

I think that schools should promote healthy eating and that children who have a serious problem should be assked (discreetly) to see a psychologist and health expert to see how to solve the problem.

So....we send them all to fat camp?

I guess. :p

I think that schools should promote healthy eating and that children who have a serious problem should be assked (discreetly) to see a psychologist and health expert to see how to solve the problem.

do you know how expensive it would be here for schools to serve "healthy" food?

I think that schools should promote healthy eating and that children who have a serious problem should be assked (discreetly) to see a psychologist and health expert to see how to solve the problem.

And if they don't want to? If they simply enjoy eating and don't care about gaining weight?

Why are they using staples instead of bands?

do you know how expensive it would be here for schools to serve "healthy" food?

Where are you from? If its America than they can afford it. The U.K. can and America is richer than it.

Why are they using staples instead of bands?

Well, while Story of the Year and Panic! At the Disco have scientifically been proven to promote a slight loss in weight, the community felt that just making the stomach smaller with staples would be much more effective.

Where are you from? If its America than they can afford it. The U.K. can and America is richer than it.

Ahahahahahah!

Obviously you've never been to American schools. They don't give the education budget shit.

Where are you from? If its America than they can afford it. The U.K. can and America is richer than it.

we apparently have a "funding crisis" in our schools, they are barely able to teach what needs to be taught without having to worry about replacing the instant flash frozen hamburgers with something healthy to eat.

Ahahahahahah!

Obviously you've never been to American schools. They don't give the education budget shit.

Well maybe they should then.

we apparently have a "funding crisis" in our schools, they are barely able to teach what needs to be taught without having to worry about replacing the instant flash frozen hamburgers with something healthy to eat.

Thats strange......maybe there would not be a funding crisis if the military budget was reduced.

Well maybe they should then.

don't let him tell you that, a lot of money gets dumped into schools it's just misappropriated. The way they are run is the problem, not the amount of money that is spent.

don't let him tell you that, a lot of money gets dumped into schools it's just misappropriated. The way they are run is the problem, not the amount of money that is spent.

Then there is a serious problem in American education that needs to be solved before any obesity crisis can be effectively tackled. I am not American so I do not know the extent and nature of the problems, but from what has been said, the US Governement needs to urgently reform the American education system.

don't let him tell you that, a lot of money gets dumped into schools it's just misappropriated. The way they are run is the problem, not the amount of money that is spent.

It's a little bit of both, actually. The teachers are underpaid, the supplies are undersupplied, there are out-of-date textbooks being used to cut the cost of buying new ones, classes are so crowded they sometimes can't give each person a book of their own, and electives like music and art are being cut all over the place because there's simply not enough funding for them.

It's a little bit of both, actually. The teachers are underpaid, the supplies are undersupplied, there are out-of-date textbooks being used to cut the cost of buying new ones, classes are so crowded they sometimes can't give each person a book of their own, and electives like music and art are being cut all over the place because there's simply not enough funding for them.

that's true here, and while all of this goes on our superintendent makes nearly a half million a year.

Now, I am a capitalist as much as anyone (probably more than most) but she isn't worth that much.......she doesn't do anything, she can't even spell properly.

that's true here, and while all of this goes on our superintendent makes nearly a half million a year.

Now, I am a capitalist as much as anyone (probably more than most) but she isn't worth that much.......she doesn't do anything, she can't even spell properly.

:eek: She can't spell yet she's in charge of the education of children!

that's true here, and while all of this goes on our superintendent makes nearly a half million a year.

Now, I am a capitalist as much as anyone (probably more than most) but she isn't worth that much.......she doesn't do anything, she can't even spell properly.

Shit, my old principal wasn't worth half what she was making, and I don't even know what she was making. I'm sure the SI above her was just as bad.

Also, can't the school's board of education vote to give themselves raises? I'm fairly certain that's been done in my area.

:eek: She can't spell yet she's in charge of the education of children!

yeah, I got a booklet from her a few days back that says that my child should know by the end of this school year "rimes like cat/back"

:rolleyes:

nobody runs against her in elections, she has been superintendent since I was in junior high, getting a raise every year.

yeah, I got a booklet from her a few days back that says that my child should know by the end of this school year "rimes like cat/back"

:rolleyes:

nobody runs against her in elections, she has been superintendent since I was in junior high, getting a raise every year.

You should run. :p

I would like to direct you all to the definitive guide to this problem:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Fat

You should run. :p

that's what I hear from my husband.

however, I would be somewhat of a hypocrite since I still wouldn't put my kids into the schools.

I don't have as much "education" as she either.

yeah, I got a booklet from her a few days back that says that my child should know by the end of this school year "rimes like cat/back"

:rolleyes:

nobody runs against her in elections, she has been superintendent since I was in junior high, getting a raise every year.

:eek: find somebody to run against her, at least whoever takes on the job only has to spell to do better :)

that's what I hear from my husband.

however, I would be somewhat of a hypocrite since I still wouldn't put my kids into the schools.

I don't have as much "education" as she either.

Doesn't matter if she's got more "education" - she's still a dumbass. You can put your kids into the schools once you fix the shit up.

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2732422

Fatties do not deserve my sympathy, or my taxes to fix their self-inflicted condition.

Its not about stomach size.
Its about lifestyle.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19112006/356/stomach-stapling-obese-children.html

I would just to know what are your opinions on this.

Surely the parents should be in control of what their children eat and to ensure they get enough excercise too.

I was under the impression that this is a dangerous procedure even with adults.... 10% fatality

I was under the impression that this is a dangerous procedure even with adults.... 10% fatality

Well it can't be that high or else it wouldn't even be an elective surgery option.

Wouldn't it be more effective to staple their parents reproductive organs?


A stitch in time...

Well it can't be that high or else it wouldn't even be an elective surgery option.

elective-optional, not necessary

the program I saw said it was a dangerous procedure, a last ditch effort to save someone from eating themselves to death, and they did say it was fatal 10% of the time....

elective-optional, not necessary

the program I saw said it was a dangerous procedure, a last ditch effort to save someone from eating themselves to death, and they did say it was fatal 10% of the time....

the rate is 1 in 200........that's 5%

http://www.gastric-bypass-surgery-lawsuits.com/

the rate is 1 in 200........that's 5%

http://www.gastric-bypass-surgery-lawsuits.com/

.5% *nod*

.5% *nod*

oops. haha

*goes back to elementary school*

even .5% is too high to risk a kids life....

even .5% is too high to risk a kids life....

it could be much better than their chances otherwise

http://www.lpch.org/newsEvents/NewsReleases/chelseyLewis.html

even .5% is too high to risk a kids life....

Is it any more dangerous than morbid obesity?

Thats what happens when you hand both health care and food production over to a capatalist first there customers get fat because thay havent got a clue as to how to make food that is actully helpful but thay are damn good at getting there customers addicted to it, then after there fat thay cut them up.

Pure capitalist wont work pure communism wont work the system must be allowed to evolve a pure system of any kind will never work because humans arnt machines we all dont act exactly alike.