NationStates Jolt Archive

I suppose that it's possible to be so morbidly obese that you can't work, but I think these people are disgusting. I know people who outweigh the fattest of these by several tens of pounds who still work demanding - even stressful - full time jobs.

I'm a fatty myself and I never let it stop me from working or playing. There's no excuse for this and, no, I don't think they deserve more - they don't deserve what they're getting. I think the UK should prescribe diets and/or bariatric surgery for all of them. *rants.*

http://www.asylum.com/2009/03/17/can-you-be-too-fat-to-work/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl4|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum.com%2F2009%2F03%2F17%2Fcan-you-be-too-fat-to-work%2F

I love the quote about the money barely putting food on the table.

I find it hard to believe there's nothing else wrong with them.

I love the quote about the money barely putting food on the table.

Oh yeah. Funny stuff.

Hey I am that fat. Guess i will migrate to the UK to take advantage of their disability system.

Let's not jump on the hysteria bandwagon.

From the original source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5004431/Family-who-are-too-fat-to-work-say-22000-worth-of-benefits-is-not-enough.html) cited by the OP link:

Each week, Mr and Mrs Chawner, who have been married for 23 years, receive £177 in income support and incapacity benefit. Mrs Chawner is paid an extra £330-a-month disability allowance for epilepsy and asthma, both a result of being overweight.

Mr Chawner gets £71 a month after developing Type 2 diabetes because of his size. He was on a waiting list for a gastric band last year, but a heart condition made the operation unsuitable. Their daughter Samantha receives £84 in Jobseekers' Allowance each fortnight while Emma, who is training to be a hairdresser, gets £58 every two weeks under a hardship fund for low-income students.


I have no idea how disability benefits work in the UK, but being obese in and of itself is not sufficient to get one disability benefits in the U.S. Obesity is severe enough for disability when it significantly limits an individual's physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities, or in the case of children, when it causes more than a minimal functional limitation. Severity depends on an individualized assessment of an individual's functioning.

Let's not jump on the hysteria bandwagon

killjoy

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/gamblour1/bartragonstick.jpg
I wash myself with a rag on a stick.
:D

This is an insult to those that have real disabilities.

This is an insult to those that have real disabilities.

Like people with epilepsy or asthma or diabetes or heart conditions?

Like people with epilepsy or asthma or diabetes or heart conditions?

Not caused by overeating and underactivity? Sure.

I'm a big girl, and have M. S., does that stop me from working? NO!! It's all up to state of mind. If these people didn't have weight issues it would just be something else. Disability of the spirit, isn't diagnosable yet.

O FFS. There was a deal made back in 97 between anglosphere financiers and the extremist left. Leave me alone, and you'll get to build the shining city on the hill. Anyone who doesn't fit in will be supported by our tax revenues - as long as you don't look to closely.


Was never going to work on a long term basis. So now we have this.

Not caused by overeating and underactivity? Sure.

And you know for a fact that these people are morbidly obese because of overeating and under-activity?

Maybe have them enroll in an exercise and diet program as a requirement to receive their government handout?

And you know for a fact that these people are morbidly obese because of overeating and under-activity?

Genetics can make someone overweight. Actions (or lack thereof) make people obese.

And you know for a fact that these people are morbidly obese because of overeating and under-activity?

People being fat from hypothyroidism is presented in a very small percentage of the fat/obese population.

Each week, Mr and Mrs Chawner, who have been married for 23 years, receive £177 in income support and incapacity benefit. Mrs Chawner is paid an extra £330-a-month disability allowance for epilepsy and asthma, both a result of being overweight.


I'm not saying it's warranted or unwarranted--all I'm going to say is, I wish I got a monthly stipend for my epilepsy and asthma, both of which are a result of fuck-all.

Like people with epilepsy or asthma or diabetes or heart conditions?

While it certainly doesn't invalidate their condition(s), and I do not have the knowledge of their situation or medical expertise to make any declarations about whether the money is warranted or not, I have to say that from a very personal, emotional standpoint, things like this do upset me.

I have epilepsy. I have asthma. I have tachycardia and an arrhythmia. I have been diagnosed with dysthymia and, at times, clinical depression. I have a lot of shit going on, is what I'm saying.

Now, obviously these conditions don't stop me from working, because I work. But all of them DO impact my daily life and work. I take medication to manage the symptoms of most of them--medication I pay for, supplemented by insurance I purchase from my employer, prescribed by doctors I pay to see. I probably spend up to 1/3 of my monthly salary on health care.

I didn't choose any of these conditions--and I'm not saying obese people do, either--and I do the best I can to manage them. It isn't easy. So when I see people who it seems aren't doing all they could to improve their lives getting disability pay, yeah, it pisses me off a little.

Only a matter of time before people in Europe can claim disability on grounds of severe laziness.

Barring things like hypothyroidism (which occurs, as previously mentioned in a tiny minority of people and can be successfully treated) the genetic predisposition to overweight, is just that, a predisposition. With diet and exercise the predisposition can be controlled. As Ryadn pointed out the other conditions, whether related to obesity or not, can be treated and controlled. I have asthma, sleep apnea, high blood pressure and a couple of other conditions as a result, primarily of weight and, secondarily, of age. If I lose the weight, most of them will go away.

The conditions these people have are a direct result of their weight - they lose some weight and the conditions are alleviated if not eliminated. They're being rewarded for maintaining ill-health over which they have control.

Losing weight isn't easy, it's damned hard, but it can be done, so obesity
and the medical conditions resulting therefrom should not be supported by the government (e.g. the taxpayers).

As an obese person who worked all my adult life, took little sick leave and did not use my obesity, my asthma and my other medical conditions as an excuse to leech of the system, I resent these people.

As an obese person who worked all my adult life, took little sick leave and did not use my obesity, my asthma and my other medical conditions as an excuse to leech of the system, I resent these people.

Why though? They don't want to work, and the government doesn't think they should.

What is the problem here? Are you suggesting they should be 'made' to be productive.

Why though? They don't want to work, and the government doesn't think they should.

What is the problem here? Are you suggesting they should be 'made' to be productive.

No, I just think that the government should remove the incentives that they're being given to remain unproductive.

No, I just think that the government should remove the incentives that they're being given to remain unproductive.

If the government removed incentives to be unproductive then we'd be looking at about a 50% u-6 unemployment rate and shanty towns all over the place.

As I have said before on this forum, I don't mind paying taxes in order to keep people off the streets, because I really don't want that.

But I'll be damned if I have to start making judgments between who's the biggest leech.

That said, these types don't bother me b/c they have little scope to cause further misery.

I suppose that it's possible to be so morbidly obese that you can't work, but I think these people are disgusting. I know people who outweigh the fattest of these by several tens of pounds who still work demanding - even stressful - full time jobs.

I'm a fatty myself and I never let it stop me from working or playing. There's no excuse for this and, no, I don't think they deserve more - they don't deserve what they're getting. I think the UK should prescribe diets and/or bariatric surgery for all of them. *rants.*

http://www.asylum.com/2009/03/17/can-you-be-too-fat-to-work/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl4|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum.com%2F2009%2F03%2F17%2Fcan-you-be-too-fat-to-work%2F

If they can still walk to the table, they can still work.

I'm not saying it's warranted or unwarranted--all I'm going to say is, I wish I got a monthly stipend for my epilepsy and asthma, both of which are a result of fuck-all.

Since when is epilepsy caused by being overweight? I thought that was a brain condition, usually hereditary.

I weigh around 250-270 pounds, have autism, sleep apnea, and suffer from exhaustion, depression, and several other problems; and I work. This is just laziness.

I weigh around 250-270 pounds, have autism, sleep apnea, and suffer from exhaustion, depression, and several other problems; and I work. This is just laziness.

I actually weigh more than any of them. I work. Hell I walk the dog every day for a half hour. You have to weigh 600-800lbs before you're seriously inconvenienced. Lazy fuckers.

I actually weigh more than any of them. I work. Hell I walk the dog every day for a half hour. You have to weigh 600-800lbs before you're seriously inconvenienced. Lazy fuckers.

Yeah exactly; this is pathetic.

Yeah exactly; this is pathetic.

Good of them to all wear shirts about two sizes too small for the picture. Just to make them look huge.

Losing weight isn't easy, it's damned hard, but it can be done, so obesity
and the medical conditions resulting therefrom should not be supported by the government (e.g. the taxpayers).


Same for all the smokers out there, sporting enthusiasts who get injured, etc

The conditions these people have are a direct result of their weight - they lose some weight and the conditions are alleviated if not eliminated. They're being rewarded for maintaining ill-health over which they have control.
.

The diabetes won't go away for a start, and

As a UK resident myself I am happy to report our benefits system isn't all that bad but its undoubtedly abused by many. Obviously its possible to be too fat to work so benefits should go to those who are fat because of a genuine health concern many don't though. What is required is more medical scrutiny to ensure nobody cheats the system.

Not caused by overeating and underactivity? Sure.
Right, because exercising is so easy with a heart condition and asthma.

Right, because exercising is so easy with a heart condition and asthma.

Walking?

I love the quote about the money barely putting food on the table.

While this is of course an incredibly stupid way of phrasing it, I think I have to point out the 45 000 US dollars (!!!) per year for 4 people is not exactly a lot of money.
It works out as a little over 31 000 GBP, that's 7750 GBP per person per year.
Average income in the UK is around 24 000 GBP per person.

Just to put things into persepctive a bit here.

Walking?

My father's got asthma (ironically, he got it from over-excercising in his youth), and he isn't allowed to walk for more than 15 minutes at a time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_johnson/article5949800.ece

A little different spin.

While this is of course an incredibly stupid way of phrasing it, I think I have to point out the 45 000 US dollars (!!!) per year for 4 people is not exactly a lot of money.
It works out as a little over 31 000 GBP, that's 7750 GBP per person per year.
Average income in the UK is around 24 000 GBP per person.

Just to put things into persepctive a bit here.

At the moment my family of 4 is living on about the same in the UK. We seem to be getting on just fine so I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them.

Of course we have extra expenses as well, like the £100 a month it costs me to get to and from work.

People being fat from hypothyroidism is presented in a very small percentage of the fat/obese population.

True. However, people's bodies deal with food an excercise in different ways.
There was a documentary on Channel 4 a few weeks back asking why skinny people don't get fat. They did a small experiment with 10 volunteers who each had to eat I think it was something around 6000 or 8000 calories a day, and had to restrict their excercise drastically.
After the 4 weeks, all contestant had gained weight. However, 2 of them had not accumulated any fat at all, merely muscle tissue. 2 of them had simply not been physically able to eat the prescribed amount of calories. And all of them were back on their previous weight 2 weeks after the experiment without any dieting.

There were also tests done with pre-school children. The kids got a nice meal, and were asked if they felt full afterwards. All replied that they were. Then they were asked to draw or paint something, and sweets were placed on the tables. About half of the kids took some sweets, despite the fact that minutes before they had said they were full.
One scientist who had done a number of such experiments pointed out that being full for some people meant that they really couldn't eat more and had no desire to. While for others being full did not mean they couldn't eat more, and might in fact do so if tempted.

They also reported on a facility in New York that helps morbidly obese people lose weight. They would literally starve them for a few weeks, and once a more healthy weight was reached bring their diet back to normal. The patients were closely monitored at all times, and the doctors reported that even after returning the diets to a normal level, all patients' bodies kept displaying signs of starvation. They could not be brought to treat the calorie intake as normal any more.

Obesity is a rather complex issue, and claiming that it's all a simple question of how much you eat and how much you excercise is simply a way for people never having had weight problems to feel all smug about themselves.

At the moment my family of 4 is living on about the same in the UK. We seem to be getting on just fine so I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them.

Of course we have extra expenses as well, like the £100 a month it costs me to get to and from work.

You're 4 adults living on 7750 a year each? Wow.
If I could advise anything, it would be for all of you to find better jobs.

You're 4 adults living on 7750 a year each? Wow.
If I could advise anything, it would be for all of you to find better jobs.

Slightly more, about £33,000 combined. Father is unemployeed and recieves no benefits, mother works part-time due to an illness but still does more than 16 hours a week, I work full time and my brother is 18 but is still doing "A" levels and will be starting uni in September.

Slightly more, about £33,000 combined. Father is unemployeed and recieves no benefits, mother works part-time due to an illness but still does more than 16 hours a week, I work full time and my brother is 18 but is still doing "A" levels and will be starting uni in September.

Why would your father not receive benefits?

Why would your father not receive benefits?

You get 6 months jobseekers allowance and then nothing in our family situation. He was made redundant last year and is struggling to find a job in his area of expertise.

A lot of benefits in the UK are based on your spouse as well as yourself.

Why would your father not receive benefits?

HE's actually disabled, disability never pays benefits to people who need it in any country.

wouldn't it be cheaper just to give the guy surgery to correct being over weight ??

wouldn't it be cheaper just to give the guy surgery to correct being over weight ??

Can't operate due to heart problems. Says so in the article.

he's actually disabled, disability never pays benefits to people who need it in any country.

QFTi

True. However, people's bodies deal with food an excercise in different ways.
There was a documentary on Channel 4 a few weeks back asking why skinny people don't get fat. They did a small experiment with 10 volunteers who each had to eat I think it was something around 6000 or 8000 calories a day, and had to restrict their excercise drastically.
After the 4 weeks, all contestant had gained weight. However, 2 of them had not accumulated any fat at all, merely muscle tissue. 2 of them had simply not been physically able to eat the prescribed amount of calories. And all of them were back on their previous weight 2 weeks after the experiment without any dieting.

There were also tests done with pre-school children. The kids got a nice meal, and were asked if they felt full afterwards. All replied that they were. Then they were asked to draw or paint something, and sweets were placed on the tables. About half of the kids took some sweets, despite the fact that minutes before they had said they were full.
One scientist who had done a number of such experiments pointed out that being full for some people meant that they really couldn't eat more and had no desire to. While for others being full did not mean they couldn't eat more, and might in fact do so if tempted.

They also reported on a facility in New York that helps morbidly obese people lose weight. They would literally starve them for a few weeks, and once a more healthy weight was reached bring their diet back to normal. The patients were closely monitored at all times, and the doctors reported that even after returning the diets to a normal level, all patients' bodies kept displaying signs of starvation. They could not be brought to treat the calorie intake as normal any more.

Obesity is a rather complex issue, and claiming that it's all a simple question of how much you eat and how much you excercise is simply a way for people never having had weight problems to feel all smug about themselves.

Thin people can say thin without extra effort != fat people should not work extra hard to be thin. This is a non-sequitor.

Fatties disgust me. I'd be physically sick on one if I was trapped in an elevator with them.

Fatties disgust me. I'd be physically sick on one if I was trapped in an elevator with them.

Why exactly do they disgust you?

Why exactly do they disgust you?

Their lack of self-discipline, body odour, sweaty backs and the wobble as they walk. It's enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation.

Right, because exercising is so easy with a heart condition and asthma.

Conditions like those certainly make it harder to get exercise and get healthy. But the article's subjects themselves admit that those aren't the only things holding them back.

The family claim to spend £50 a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day. The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men.

"We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner," Mrs Chawner told Closer magazine.

I think most anyone can recognize that those aren't the healthiest choices.

"All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight," she added.

She starts off by saying they can't afford healthy foods, and then in the same breath says they're obese because it's genetic. It doesn't sound like the mom, at least, has given fresh fruit and vegetables much of a chance.

Emma, said: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" she said "We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how."

I would argue that there's always time to exercise; and if the student can't find time, there's no reason the rest of the family shouldn't be able to. The last sentence just grates on my nerves. They admit to eating fatty, unnourishing foods and not exercising, but they're stumped for a way to lose weight?

Thin people can say thin without extra effort != fat people should not work extra hard to be thin. This is a non-sequitor.

Fatties disgust me. I'd be physically sick on one if I was trapped in an elevator with them.

I never claimed that obese people should just accept their fate, please find another strawman to fight.

I simply stated that some people find it much easier to stay thin than others, and to spout such self-righteous nonsense as above only reflects very poorly on yourself.

Their lack of self-discipline, body odour, sweaty backs and the wobble as they walk. It's enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation.

Right... so you never met a thin person with no self-discipline whatsoever (for example smoking, drinking, etc), smelling strongly and sweating?
Funny, cause I most certainly have. :rolleyes:

Their lack of self-discipline, body odour, sweaty backs and the wobble as they walk. It's enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation.

I'm sure being in the elevator with someone with no self control and spewing puke is also a fun time and completely non-disgusting.

I'm sure being in the elevator with someone with no self control and spewing puke is also a fun time and completely non-disgusting.

That's completely different, because he's pretty.

That's completely different, because he's pretty.

How pretty can a constantly puking person possibly be?

How pretty can a constantly puking person possibly be?

The puke smells of flowers and and spring?

The puke smells of flowers and and spring?

And looks like a shining rainbow coming out of his mouth?

Fatties disgust me. I'd be physically sick on one if I was trapped in an elevator with them.

You should get that looked at. Spontaneous vomiting for no reason is a sign of something seriously wrong.

Also, it's disgusting.

Wouldn't this just cause Americans to come and take advantage of our free Liposuction?

You should get that looked at. Spontaneous vomiting for no reason is a sign of something seriously wrong.

Also, it's disgusting.

Of course there's a reason. I elaborated several posts above this.

Of course there's a reason. I elaborated several posts above this.

Sorry, I meant a normal, valid reason.

Someone else's "lack of self-discipline" is NOT enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation in normal, healthy individuals.

Perhaps you could seek psychotherapy, since such symptoms are unlikely to have a purely physiological cause.

Sorry, I meant a normal, valid reason.

Someone else's "lack of self-discipline" is NOT enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation in normal, healthy individuals.

Perhaps you could seek psychotherapy, since such symptoms are unlikely to have a purely physiological cause.

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.

Wouldn't this just cause Americans to come and take advantage of our free Liposuction?

Part of Obama's stimulus package is to fly Americans over to the UK for Lipo.
Something about skinny Americans will work harder and make the economy better.

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.

Oh, you poor dear... life must be constant torture, with so many people insisting on not spending their lives catering to your tastes...

The way I see it, you've got two choices : spend all your life in your own house, without telly, and never answering the door. Or just simply growing up.

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.

You said "lack of self discipline" was also a reason. But since it's a metaphorical regurgitation, I will metaphorically fart and vacate the premises.

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.

Poor posture makes you vomit? Wow. I thought I had a sensitive stomach as a kid.

Poor posture makes you vomit? Wow. I thought I had a sensitive stomach as a kid.

You were a kid? *vomits*

You were a kid? *vomits*

Much better looking now that she isn't.

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.

Gee, seems to me you're contradicting yourself. You clearly stated in another thread ... "Ah, right. I dunno how to help you there, it's the fat that makes things good" :tongue:

How pretty can a constantly puking person possibly be?

Well true his teeth are probably pretty nasty. Acid and all that. Then again maybe he's bulimic.

Gee, seems to me you're contradicting yourself. You clearly stated in another thread ... "Ah, right. I dunno how to help you there, it's the fat that makes things good" :tongue:

If it were legal to eat humans (and they were tasty!) I'd eat fatties first!

If it were legal to eat humans (and they were tasty!) I'd eat fatties first!

Everybody knows fatties taste like cheetos!

If it were legal to eat humans (and they were tasty!) I'd eat fatties first!

If it were legal, I would not kill you. Morals are the only thing keeping society together.

If it were legal, I would not kill you. Morals are the only thing keeping society together.

No, laws keep society together. "Morality" is a convenient fiction to keep people like you appeased. But let's not devolve this into yet another discussion of my amoralist philosophy.

If it were legal to eat humans (and they were tasty!) I'd eat fatties first!

Think of the cholesterol! :eek:

I admit, I would get annoyed knowing my taxation dollars are going to people who, for the most part, could avoid their own situation through better choices. I do get annoyed at the single mothers who have babies specifically for the baby bonus (and I know quite a few of them) and then get subsidised child care for $3 a week while working mums are paying half or more of their paycheck for childcare that they need since they are out contributing to society. I get annoyed at smokers who then line up for treatment when they get cancer, funded out of the public purse, when my mother had to pay privately for a lot of her medications while she was undergoing treatment. I get annoyed at the alcoholics and drug addicts who expect my tax dollars to pay for their treatment. I get angry at the obese people who then want bariatric surgery and free treatment or disability pensions.

But I have no right to deny any of these people their benefits. I would feel much angrier living in a world where people were disadvantaged or left to die because they were less disciplined than I, or because they found a coping mechanism which maybe wasn't the most appropriate option. I have no right to judge these people until I have had the misfortune to be in their situation. And that is the crux of the issue. I am fortunate to be employed, fortunate to be healthy, fortunate to have been raised by a mother and father who educated me about choices and the consequences they may have, fortunate to have been raised to be thoughtful about my choices and where I want to go in life, and fortunate to have been given those opportunities, often at the expense of people in these situations.

I'm fat, but I've officially got hypothyroidism; I take medication -- a free-thyroxine elevator of some kind -- but this has only been recent and so the effects are yet to be seen. However, I don't believe this excuses me; I do claim close to zero in benefits and my parents mostly subsist me despite the fact I'm old enough to lead a life of my own. If the world doesn't go into total shit, I may find a job. Also I've a few other problems; Asperger's, social anxiety, depression, etc.

It's mainly attitudes like the following:

Their lack of self-discipline, body odour, sweaty backs and the wobble as they walk. It's enough to cause spontaneous regurgitation.

...that are the primary dis-incentive to anybody trying to fix their problems. Do you seriously think being metaphorically urging to puke helps validate their change? If anything, I now want to get more fat because of your bigoted opinions. I'd like to see how metaphoric your puking would be then.

I weigh around 250-270 pounds, have autism, sleep apnea, and suffer from exhaustion, depression, and several other problems; and I work. This is just laziness.

I think I can knock off around 60 of those pounds off you in about 4-6 months if you were willing to go along with it. You might go a little bit crazy at the end, but you'll be quite a bit healthier. :p

No, their flabby nature, slouched posture and general odour cause the (metaphorical) regurgitation.
If smelly fat people make you puke, do smelly thin people give you sudden and explosive diarrhea?

Because if you're reacting to the fat and not to the odor, and just trying to make up justifications for being a bigot, then maybe your vomiting is caused by subconscious awareness of your own hypocrisy.

Just a guess.

In my experience -- which has been unfortunate in this regard -- skinny people and fat people stink pretty much the same, when they let themselves stink. They stink like dirty humans. But if they shower, use deodorant, and do their laundry regularly, then they don't stink at all.

I think I can knock off around 60 of those pounds off you in about 4-6 months if you were willing to go along with it. You might go a little bit crazy at the end, but you'll be quite a bit healthier. :p

Thanks but I'm working on it myself, I have a goal of 210 by 2010. Its a nice round figure

If smelly fat people make you puke, do smelly thin people give you sudden and explosive diarrhea?

Because if you're reacting to the fat and not to the odor, and just trying to make up justifications for being a bigot, then maybe your vomiting is caused by subconscious awareness of your own hypocrisy.

Just a guess.

In my experience -- which has been unfortunate in this regard -- skinny people and fat people stink pretty much the same, when they let themselves stink. They stink like dirty humans. But if they shower, use deodorant, and do their laundry regularly, then they don't stink at all.

Well played!

In my experience -- which has been unfortunate in this regard -- skinny people and fat people stink pretty much the same, when they let themselves stink. They stink like dirty humans. But if they shower, use deodorant, and do their laundry regularly, then they don't stink at all.

I smell of dogs, cats, and other people's ciggarettes. I smell it always, it drives me crazy.

I smell of dogs, cats, and other people's ciggarettes. I smell it always, it drives me crazy.

I smell of chicken right now.

So, wait a minute...they're eating over 3,000 calories of unhealthy food per day, "don't have time to exercise" and they have no idea how to lose weight? That is, by a large margin, the biggest pile of complete and utter bullshit I have heard in at least the past month. This is one reason why media reports on science are pretty damn annoying... you get mongoloids like these losers that hear or read a few half-assed reports on genetic markers for various conditions and automatically assume they can write off personal responsibility based on their "genes".

Genetics don't provide an excuse for any kind of behavior. It's that simple.

This is one reason why media reports on science are pretty damn annoying... you get mongoloids like these losers that hear or read a few half-assed reports on genetic markers for various conditions and automatically assume they can write off personal responsibility based on their "genes".

...I thought they were white.

(I've only ever heard the term "mongoloid" in anthropology classes, and that's the only definition dictionary.com brings up...)

Well played!
Well, I try. Bullshit stereotypes like that piss me off. Anyone with any honesty should be able to tell that Getbrett's remark is just not reflecting reality. People don't just stink unless they have certain illnesses, and being fat is not an illness.

I have crossed paths with fat people who smell and with fat people who don't smell. I have also crossed paths with skinny people who stink on high and skinny people who don't. The difference is not their weight but their personal hygiene. Getbrett is just imagining these unpleasant things about fat people in general because he doesn't like them. Interestingly, other kinds of bigots say the exact same things about the people they don't like smelling bad and having poor posture, etc -- people like Italians, Jews, blacks, Koreans, Arabs, etc, etc, etc.

Personally, I don't really care that much for the claimed problems of most overweight people. Yes, there are serious medical conditions that can cause weight gain. There are also normal conditions that can significantly alter a person's weight, sometimes permanently, such as pregnancy. But most people just exercise too little and/or eat too much. But so what? Don't we have the right to live our lives the way we like? If some people are more comfortable with a lifestyle that makes them fatter than me, what business is it of mine?

Here in the US, there is an "epidemic" of obesity. Many Americans' weight is at unhealthy and dysfunctional levels. But I believe this has more to do with a high-stress/sedentary lifestyle than anything else. The way I see my fellow Americans living, I see a lot of severe unhappiness only being aggravated by the judgmentalism of others.

Maybe if we stopped bitching at people so much about how they live, they would be less inclined to see their weight and their appearance as disorders. And maybe then, they could get a handle on how they want to manage their own health.

I smell of dogs, cats, and other people's ciggarettes. I smell it always, it drives me crazy.
As far as I know, nothing but time and many launderings will get rid of the smell of cigarettes, but as for pet odors, try adding baking soda to your laundry and also using it in housecleaning (if you live with the critters). Of course, if a smell bothers one, then once it gets up one's nose, one will keep smelling it, even when it's long gone. There are smells that I can't get out of my nose, too.

As far as I know, nothing but time and many launderings will get rid of the smell of cigarettes, but as for pet odors, try adding baking soda to your laundry and also using it in housecleaning (if you live with the critters). Of course, if a smell bothers one, then once it gets up one's nose, one will keep smelling it, even when it's long gone. There are smells that I can't get out of my nose, too.

My little dogs are highly affectionate animals who cuddle right up to anyone who sits down, and my cat knows how to open the dreir he just LOVES the warm laundry inside. The smell is almost impossible to mitigate.

...I thought they were white.

(I've only ever heard the term "mongoloid" in anthropology classes, and that's the only definition dictionary.com brings up...)

It's also an old term for people with less-than-stellar mental capabilities

It was also used as a term for people with Down's Syndrome, but they sure as hell don't deserve to be insulted, especially since a lot of them actually do try to overcome their real, challenging disabilities whereas these louts are just sapping government money because they're too lazy to do anything about their problems.

So, wait a minute...they're eating over 3,000 calories of unhealthy food per day, "don't have time to exercise" and they have no idea how to lose weight? That is, by a large margin, the biggest pile of complete and utter bullshit I have heard in at least the past month. This is one reason why media reports on science are pretty damn annoying... you get mongoloids like these losers that hear or read a few half-assed reports on genetic markers for various conditions and automatically assume they can write off personal responsibility based on their "genes".

Genetics don't provide an excuse for any kind of behavior. It's that simple.

^^ That.

While I'm highly interested in the facts surrounding weight gain and weight loss, I don't use them as an excuse for my own weight. I got that through eating unhealthy and not excercising, simple as that.
However, losing it again isn't quite that simple. I've been a vegetarian for well over 2 years now, so I can assure you it's not a matter of discipline when it comes to food.
It's very much a question of finding a sustainable healthy lifestyle for oneself, which in all honesty isn't made any easier by being in full employment, and not owning a car, for example.

Reduced calorie intake will NOT shift your weight. It simply won't.
Your body will consume muscle tissue before it ever touches on fat reserves, so starving yourself is the least healthy way of dealing with obesity. Even staying obese is healthier.
Plus, once you stop starving yourself, your body will kick into overdrive and start saving up every bit it can, increasing your weight to even higher levels than before.

I've no idea yet what will work long-term, but I keep trying and will let you know once I find out.

If they can still walk to the table, they can still work.
If they can sit on their fat ass and watch TV, they can do call-centre work.

Since when is epilepsy caused by being overweight? I thought that was a brain condition, usually hereditary.
that was my thought as well.

It's also an old term for people with less-than-stellar mental capabilities

It was also used as a term for people with Down's Syndrome, but they sure as hell don't deserve to be insulted, especially since a lot of them actually do try to overcome their real, challenging disabilities whereas these louts are just sapping government money because they're too lazy to do anything about their problems.

Lol.

It's an incredibly racist term that only came to mean "idiot" because people made an association between the physical appearance of white people with Down's and East Asian people.

Well, I try. Bullshit stereotypes like that piss me off. Anyone with any honesty should be able to tell that Getbrett's remark is just not reflecting reality. People don't just stink unless they have certain illnesses, and being fat is not an illness.

Some people treat it as if it is, though. And being obese can cause all sorts of health problems.

Personally, I don't really care that much for the claimed problems of most overweight people. Yes, there are serious medical conditions that can cause weight gain. There are also normal conditions that can significantly alter a person's weight, sometimes permanently, such as pregnancy. But most people just exercise too little and/or eat too much. But so what? Don't we have the right to live our lives the way we like? If some people are more comfortable with a lifestyle that makes them fatter than me, what business is it of mine?

A person has the right to live his life the way he likes until his life begins affecting others. If someone wants to stay home and live off the government dole out of laziness, that is not his right because it affects the taxpayers. Without more information, I can't say for certain that these people are doing so out of laziness, but that does appear to be the case from what has been given.

Here in the US, there is an "epidemic" of obesity. Many Americans' weight is at unhealthy and dysfunctional levels. But I believe this has more to do with a high-stress/sedentary lifestyle than anything else. The way I see my fellow Americans living, I see a lot of severe unhappiness only being aggravated by the judgmentalism of others.

This is certainly true. Americans in general lead very unhealthy lifestyles - sometimes because they see no other way. I don't eat as well as I should because I simply can't seem to make the time to do it. But I'm also not expecting others to support me or my lifestyle.

Maybe if we stopped bitching at people so much about how they live, they would be less inclined to see their weight and their appearance as disorders. And maybe then, they could get a handle on how they want to manage their own health.

Maybe. But I would say that, if they don't want others to bitch at them about the way they live, they need to at least make an attempt to stop living off of others - not ask others to support them even further.


Reduced calorie intake will NOT shift your weight. It simply won't.

That's not necessarily true. I've lost weight simply through reducing my calorie intake and watching my portions more closely. Admittedly, I didn't lose a huge amount - I think it was about 20 lbs the first time I did it - but I did lose. And that was without exercise.

With exercise, I'm actually losing less in weight, but I am also building muscle, so that's to be expected.

Your body will consume muscle tissue before it ever touches on fat reserves, so starving yourself is the least healthy way of dealing with obesity. Even staying obese is healthier.

Reducing calorie intake and starving oneself are not equivalent. Many people eat far more than they need to maintain weight, often causing them to gain. It isn't starving themselves to cut out those extra calories and possibly even a few more. Obviously, if their bodies are used to 3000 calories a day and they suddenly cut it to 1000, that's going to be unsustainable, but small, incremental changes aren't going to put the body into a starvation reaction.

<snip>
Maybe. But I would say that, if they don't want others to bitch at them about the way they live, they need to at least make an attempt to stop living off of others - not ask others to support them even further.

In general I would agree with you about people not leeching off the system, but part of the point I was trying to make is that it is not just the overweight people who see and treat weight as a disorder or disease, but also society in general and the healthcare/insurance industry. In many ways, there is a strong encouragement to see one's weight as a disability. I was trying to suggest that it would be easier to discourage lazy people from leeching off the system, if the system was less focused on encouraging people to leech off it by applying over-broad definitions of things like "chronic condition," "manageable* condition," etc. (* For "manageable, we may read "billable.")

Yes, weight does contribute to many other health considerations, but the individual variation for how much weight is too much is so great that I think blanket, numbers-based standards only create situations that allow for the apparent abuse the OP article talks about.

Yes, weight does contribute to many other health considerations, but the individual variation for how much weight is too much is so great that I think blanket, numbers-based standards only create situations that allow for the apparent abuse the OP article talks about.

I would definitely agree with you here. They also contribute to body image problems. There should be more of a push in the system to be as healthy as possible and a recognition that such a state will be different for different people. All too often, weight is used as a substitute measurement for health (and looks).

I would definitely agree with you here. They also contribute to body image problems. There should be more of a push in the system to be as healthy as possible and a recognition that such a state will be different for different people. All too often, weight is used as a substitute measurement for health (and looks).
I have two friends who are both significantly "over-weight." One is perfectly healthy and leads a physically active life. The other is clearly unhealthy and suffers several illnesses and injuries that are clearly associated with her weight. The first does not need or use any extraordinary health care support except that she makes regular use of the fitness swimming program provided by her employer (which has a pool). The second is a regular user of the system for her weight and a host of other issues which are quite clearly related to emotional/psychological issues, and which she not only does nothing to try to alleviate, but which, in my opinion, she exploits, maintaining ill health as a part of a "lifestyle."

But what are we to do with such a person? Even though it could be argued that much of her ill health is not only due to her own bad habits, but is deliberately cultivated by her, she is still nonetheless sick. Are we to deny her care because we disapprove of how she got sick?

Lol.

It's an incredibly racist term that only came to mean "idiot" because people made an association between the physical appearance of white people with Down's and East Asian people.

Yeah, although not many people remember that. Truth be told, calling someone a "mongolid bastard" just flows so well that it needs to be used once in a while.

But what are we to do with such a person? Even though it could be argued that much of her ill health is not only due to her own bad habits, but is deliberately cultivated by her, she is still nonetheless sick. Are we to deny her care because we disapprove of how she got sick?

Well, should I have to pay for it? I smoke and drink, so I'm hardly the paragon of health but I never expect anyone else to pay for it. Assumption of the risk means that it's my responsibility and mine alone to pay for my decisions. That being said, it's an unrealistic view given the lack of competition and lack of free choice in healthcare.

The main issue in particular is reducing health care costs; if we cut the cost of healthcare, it would not only resolve a lot of the issues associated with free-riders but would also demolish that pesky cult of Healthy Living that seeks to impose what it deems a "healthy" life on everyone through government coercion. They've created a culture of fear, stress, and vulnerability that makes it all the easier to drive up health care costs and get us hooked on medications we don't need (not to mention making us less healthy in the process).

Nobody has ever explained to me why there is such a higher life expectancy and lower incidence of chronic disease in Europe despite the prevalence of several unhealthy behaviors that supposedly slaughter Americans by the hundreds of thousands.

Nobody has ever explained to me why there is such a higher life expectancy and lower incidence of chronic disease in Europe despite the prevalence of several unhealthy behaviors that supposedly slaughter Americans by the hundreds of thousands.

We're gentically superior.

The Germans tried to point this out in the 30's and the backlash against them was so severe that us Europeans have learned to keep it quiet. That may account foor no one explaining it to you before.

We're gentically superior.

The Germans tried to point this out in the 30's and the backlash against them was so severe that us Europeans have learned to keep it quiet. That may account foor no one explaining it to you before.

I'm just pleased Germany has a relaxed attitude towards smoking thanks to that oppressive BS back in the Nazi era. There is nothing better than a good beer and a smoke after a long day.

But what are we to do with such a person? Even though it could be argued that much of her ill health is not only due to her own bad habits, but is deliberately cultivated by her, she is still nonetheless sick. Are we to deny her care because we disapprove of how she got sick?

This is the crux of the matter. As I said before, I get exceptionally frustrated with people leeching off the system in any way. However, I also remember that I am fortunate enough to have had the parental influence and intelligence or what-have-you to make more positive decisions about my life and health. It is important to me to be slim, and so when I notice that I am putting on weight, I make the necessary adjustments. I'm not particularly healthy, and am extremely fortunate that I am not extremely obese considering my former diet (I'm actually secretly delighted that I live in a town with no take-away now).

How we determine whether someone receives benefits should not be based on our personal distaste for their choices. I have exceptionally little patience or sympathy for the many, many teen mothers and high school dropouts I know who now leech off the public purse. Less now, in this time of financial crisis. But should they be denied benefits simply because they made what I consider poor choices? Or should we perhaps acknowledge that, for the most part, people make choices based on their knowledge, capability and experience, and not judge them for that, but rather assist them in whatever way we can to view the myriad options that they have at their disposal to improve their circumstances, without judgment for their choices?

This is the crux of the matter. As I said before, I get exceptionally frustrated with people leeching off the system in any way. However, I also remember that I am fortunate enough to have had the parental influence and intelligence or what-have-you to make more positive decisions about my life and health. It is important to me to be slim, and so when I notice that I am putting on weight, I make the necessary adjustments. I'm not particularly healthy, and am extremely fortunate that I am not extremely obese considering my former diet (I'm actually secretly delighted that I live in a town with no take-away now).

How we determine whether someone receives benefits should not be based on our personal distaste for their choices. I have exceptionally little patience or sympathy for the many, many teen mothers and high school dropouts I know who now leech off the public purse. Less now, in this time of financial crisis. But should they be denied benefits simply because they made what I consider poor choices? Or should we perhaps acknowledge that, for the most part, people make choices based on their knowledge, capability and experience, and not judge them for that, but rather assist them in whatever way we can to view the myriad options that they have at their disposal to improve their circumstances, without judgment for their choices?

If the assistance were actually helping them break the cycle of bad decisions and lack of knowledge, I wouldn't have nearly the issues with it. This particular assistance seems to be continuing the cycle into the next generation.

If the assistance were actually helping them break the cycle of bad decisions and lack of knowledge, I wouldn't have nearly the issues with it. This particular assistance seems to be continuing the cycle into the next generation.

I would agree very much with that. I was thinking of how assistance would function in a perfect world.

I just think that it's ridiculous to legislate that people be prescribed diets and exercise plans in order to receive benefits. Educating them about how to make better choices and providing positive incentives for those options is certainly an appropriate choice, but forcing people into improving themselves has just a hint too much of the nanny state for me.

I would agree very much with that. I was thinking of how assistance would function in a perfect world.

I just think that it's ridiculous to legislate that people be prescribed diets and exercise plans in order to receive benefits. Educating them about how to make better choices and providing positive incentives for those options is certainly an appropriate choice, but forcing people into improving themselves has just a hint too much of the nanny state for me.

Forcing people who don't live off the state to change their lifestyles would be a nanny state problem.

Placing requirements on receiving aid, on the other hand...

Now, I don't think it would be appropriate to cut off benefits until someone has already improved their situation, but I see no issue with requiring them to be trying to do so.

Forcing people who don't live off the state to change their lifestyles would be a nanny state problem.

Placing requirements on receiving aid, on the other hand...

Now, I don't think it would be appropriate to cut off benefits until someone has already improved their situation, but I see no issue with requiring them to be trying to do so.

I think that there is an appreciable difference between education about better choices and forcing people to make a choice without proper resources to make it permanent. Or disadvantaging other members of a family just because of one member's choices.

I would agree very much with that. I was thinking of how assistance would function in a perfect world.

I just think that it's ridiculous to legislate that people be prescribed diets and exercise plans in order to receive benefits. Educating them about how to make better choices and providing positive incentives for those options is certainly an appropriate choice, but forcing people into improving themselves has just a hint too much of the nanny state for me.

Actually, I do believe that if someone is supporting you, you have an obligation to them. So, yes, if the government (read, taxpayers) is supporting you, you have an obligation to meet whatever criteria the government asks. When your parents supported you, did you do as you please? Of course not. In this instance, the government is standing, imho, in loco parentis, as de facto parents, they have the right to make you do things - like eat properly, get enough exercise, learn right from wrong and so on. Once you are no longer a sucking at the government teat, you may do as you please; if, in the course of doing as you please, you once more find yourself supported by the government, you, once again, find yourself obligated to the government.

Reduced calorie intake will NOT shift your weight. It simply won't.

it and increased calorie use are the only things that can. literally the only thing that matters once you get beyond basic nutritional requirements is energy intake vs energy expended. all weight is is just a mass balance equation.

And you know for a fact that these people are morbidly obese because of overeating and under-activity?

Being fat or obese is, in EVERY case, the individuals' fault. You CAN'T get fat if you take in less calories then you expend. A lot of people can eat whatever they want and not gain weight because their metabolisms are naturally well. And I suppose genetics can make it harder for people to stay fit because they have to watch their calories more and exercise if they want to eat certain foods. It is a health problem that is completely and entirely preventable with eating right and exercise. Of course, it's not so easy when you've already gained the weight so more drastic measures are needed to get it off.

Personally I believe not a single cent should be given to anyone who is obese or have health issues due to obesity. If they do they might as well make laziness a disease and pay me money because I just don't feel like getting up in the morning to work.

Being fat or obese is, in EVERY case, the individuals' fault. You CAN'T get fat if you take in less calories then you expend. A lot of people can eat whatever they want and not gain weight because their metabolisms are naturally well. And I suppose genetics can make it harder for people to stay fit because they have to watch their calories more and exercise if they want to eat certain foods. It is a health problem that is completely and entirely preventable with eating right and exercise. Of course, it's not so easy when you've already gained the weight so more drastic measures are needed to get it off.

Personally I believe not a single cent should be given to anyone who is obese or have health issues due to obesity. If they do they might as well make laziness a disease and pay me money because I just don't feel like getting up in the morning to work.

Sorry, dear, not in every case - in MOST cases it is. There are a very few cases where there are physical causes like hypothyroidism - in these very few cases, quite often, even with treatment, the individual may stop gaining, but may lose very little. These cases are rare, but they do exist and need to be acknowledged.

Oh? Never heard about that, very interesting. Well I guess obviously for those people they are not at fault and should receive some benefits.

Oh? Never heard about that, very interesting. Well I guess obviously for those people they are not at fault and should receive some benefits.

Big of you.

Big of you.

Big of him. Big of him.

Hee. I like puns.

Being fat or obese is, in EVERY case, the individuals' fault. You CAN'T get fat if you take in less calories then you expend.
Wrong.

Seriously. I know you really believe this, because you've probably been told it many many times, but it's simply not true.

As was pointed out above, there's lots of shit YOU DON'T KNOW, so kindly stop adding to the giant clusterfuck on this topic. We've already got plenty of people screaming about the evils of fat when they know fuckall about it. We don't need another.

There's this pervasive belief that thin people are more healthy than fat people. Which, like, isn't true.

People who are "overweight" don't actually die sooner. In fact, in most demographics the individuals who are "overweight" have a risk of death that is either the same as or even LOWER than individuals who are in the "normal weight range."

More importantly, in every demographic, people who are underweight DO have shorter average lifespans than those who are normal weight. So, being a bit too thin actually poses more of a danger than being a bit too fat. But which one do we obsess over?

People are living longer than they ever have in history, yet all we hear about is how horrible it is to see fatties walking around. Never mind that those fatties live longer than their parents and are in better over-all health than any previous generation.

This fat-panic is harmful twice.

First, it misleads people into thinking that you should worry about somebody's health if they're "overweight" but not if they're "normal weight," when the reality is that being thinner doesn't remotely equate to being healthy. Plenty of "normal weight" people don't eat right or exercise, but they don't get heckled because their bodies look okay. People pitch a fit when they see a fat person order a milkshake, but is that milkshake somehow healthier for a "normal weight" person? Does it somehow contain more nutrients and less sugar?

When I was a freshman in college I actually lost the "freshman 15" instead of gaining it, and everyone praised me for eating better or "getting in shape." The reality was that I was clinically depressed and eating less than 1000 calories on some days, almost all of which was junk food. When I got my head straightened out and started eating real food again, I gained some weight...but strangely nobody wanted to know my secret for improving my health. (For context, I'm 5' tall, and my freshman year in college I weighed about 95 pounds. When I gained weight I got back up to a porky 113. People suggested I "go back on my diet.")

Second, it results in people like we've seen on this thread, who view fat as a sign of moral weakness or lack of strength. We get people who actually BELIEVE that old tired bullshit about how if you just consume fewer calories than you burn you are guaranteed to lose weight. We have people who genuinely seem to think that weight loss is a viable solution to the health issues related to nutrition and exercise, despite decades of studies which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that for most fat people the single least healthy thing to do is go on a diet. Not only will the diets not work, but they will cause lasting negative health effects that can cut years off your lifespan. But we have countless people touting this very behavior as the key to health.


What's funny is that I'm guessing people will read all this and come away with the message that "Bottle says being fat is good zomg!!!" Again, not so much. I'm simply pointing out that saying fat = bad is crap, saying thin = healthy is crap, and saying "losing weight is healthy!" is also very often a great big steaming pile of crap.

If you're going to put forth the energy to scream at fatties and rant about the obesity epidemic, then at least put forth enough energy to know what the hell you're talking about.


Here's some sources for this stuff:

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/15/1617

http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

Adams, K., et al., “Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Persons 50 to 71 Years Old.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2006. 355(8): p. 763-8.

There's this pervasive belief that thin people are more healthy than fat people. Which, like, isn't true.

People who are "overweight" don't actually die sooner. In fact, in most demographics the individuals who are "overweight" have a risk of death that is either the same as or even LOWER than individuals who are in the "normal weight range."

More importantly, in every demographic, people who are underweight DO have shorter average lifespans than those who are normal weight. So, being a bit too thin actually poses more of a danger than being a bit too fat. But which one do we obsess over?

People are living longer than they ever have in history, yet all we hear about is how horrible it is to see fatties walking around. Never mind that those fatties live longer than their parents and are in better over-all health than any previous generation.

This fat-panic is harmful twice.

First, it misleads people into thinking that you should worry about somebody's health if they're "overweight" but not if they're "normal weight," when the reality is that being thinner doesn't remotely equate to being healthy. Plenty of "normal weight" people don't eat right or exercise, but they don't get heckled because their bodies look okay. People pitch a fit when they see a fat person order a milkshake, but is that milkshake somehow healthier for a "normal weight" person? Does it somehow contain more nutrients and less sugar?

When I was a freshman in college I actually lost the "freshman 15" instead of gaining it, and everyone praised me for eating better or "getting in shape." The reality was that I was clinically depressed and eating less than 1000 calories on some days, almost all of which was junk food. When I got my head straightened out and started eating real food again, I gained some weight...but strangely nobody wanted to know my secret for improving my health. (For context, I'm 5' tall, and my freshman year in college I weighed about 95 pounds. When I gained weight I got back up to a porky 113. People suggested I "go back on my diet.")

Second, it results in people like we've seen on this thread, who view fat as a sign of moral weakness or lack of strength. We get people who actually BELIEVE that old tired bullshit about how if you just consume fewer calories than you burn you are guaranteed to lose weight. We have people who genuinely seem to think that weight loss is a viable solution to the health issues related to nutrition and exercise, despite decades of studies which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that for most fat people the single least healthy thing to do is go on a diet. Not only will the diets not work, but they will cause lasting negative health effects that can cut years off your lifespan. But we have countless people touting this very behavior as the key to health.


What's funny is that I'm guessing people will read all this and come away with the message that "Bottle says being fat is good zomg!!!" Again, not so much. I'm simply pointing out that saying fat = bad is crap, saying thin = healthy is crap, and saying "losing weight is healthy!" is also very often a great big steaming pile of crap.

If you're going to put forth the energy to scream at fatties and rant about the obesity epidemic, then at least put forth enough energy to know what the hell you're talking about.


Here's some sources for this stuff:

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/15/1617

http://janetto.bol.ucla.edu/index_files/Mannetal2007AP.pdf

Adams, K., et al., “Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Persons 50 to 71 Years Old.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2006. 355(8): p. 763-8.

All the way through you talk about overweight people then complain about people ranting about 'the obesity epidemic', terms which are not interchangable by any means.

Most of your 'facts' about relative mortality rates of different weights etc can be put down to people losing weight when they are ill/generally approaching death and hence skewing the figures.

Your second link says that failed diets are worse than no diets and diets are likely to fail long term. That does not mean successful diets are not helpful, and the main health problem is caused not by losing the weight but putting it back on.

Your first link talks about more metabolically unhealthy people being normal weight. I'm shooting in the dark here but I'd put that down to some people who are normally over-weight trying to be normal weight but not vice versa.

In short, being normal weight is healthier than being fat, and both a healthier than being obese, but maintaining the weight long term and how you go about being normal weight are important factors.

Not only will the diets not work, but they will cause lasting negative health effects that can cut years off your lifespan.

I've been on a diet close on 8 months now, combined with a heavy dose of regular workout as an experiment. I set a fairly strict nutritional intake that pretty much covered all the nutrients (protein, carbs, sugar, etc, etc) for sufficient daily use and have so far dropped nearly 50lbs. Does that mean I'm less healthy now than I was before?

You're making a fundamental error here, Bottle: you're assuming the health benefits of being thin versus being fat is the only issue. It's not. Fat people look disgusting. Surely that's more important? :confused:

You're making a fundamental error here, Bottle: you're assuming the health benefits of being thin versus being fat is the only issue. It's not. Fat people look disgusting. Surely that's more important? :confused:

Well, no.
Skinny people look far more disgusting to me. Surely that's all that counts?

Well, no.
Skinny people look far more disgusting to me. Surely that's all that counts?

You have a very bizarre aesthetic sensibility, then.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/168/15/1617

to me this one looks entirely like it is finding that bmi is a terrible measure rather than finding that being fat is often good for you.

after all, moderately muscular and active people are quite regularly 'overweight' and 'obese'

You're making a fundamental error here, Bottle: you're assuming the health benefits of being thin versus being fat is the only issue. It's not. Fat people look disgusting. Surely that's more important? :confused:

Looking good is more important than being healthy?

No. It is not.

Looking good is more important than being healthy?

No. It is not.

Looking good but being unhealthy is preferable to looking bad and being healthy. Optimally, you'd want to look good and be healthy, and that eliminates fatties entirely.

You have a very bizarre aesthetic sensibility, then.

I would say the same about you, to be honest.

How about this. We remove some of their subsidy then deliver healthy food in its place.

Looking good but being unhealthy is preferable to looking bad and being healthy. Optimally, you'd want to look good and be healthy, and that eliminates fatties entirely.

Only in your broken reality. Looking bad but being healthy is entirely preferable to looking good but being unhealthy for the rest of us.

Only in your broken reality. Looking bad but being healthy is entirely preferable to looking good but being unhealthy for the rest of us.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain your reasoning?

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain your reasoning?

Naturally. I'd rather live longer, even if it means being less attractive, then dying young and hot.

The fact that you pretend not to understand what I'm saying just furthers my belief that you like to troll fat threads.

Only in your broken reality. Looking bad but being healthy is entirely preferable to looking good but being unhealthy for the rest of us.

i don't think that one would hold up very well in surveys...

Naturally. I'd rather live longer, even if it means being less attractive, then dying young and hot.

The fact that you pretend not to understand what I'm saying just furthers my belief that you like to troll fat threads.

No, I am not trolling. I simply do not understand your point of view. To me, being fat (and by extension being gross/"less attractive") is equivilent to being unhealthy.

I'd rather be attractive, thin and unhealthy than fat, ugly and healthy. I'd rather die younger if I was fat and ugly. This is the part I don't understand. Why would you want to extend your life if it's not worth the effort? Existence for the sake of existence is not enough.

EDIT: To clarify, I understand WHAT you're saying, not WHY.

No, I am not trolling. I simply do not understand your point of view. To me, being fat (and by extension being gross/"less attractive") is equivilent to being unhealthy.

Right. Hence the usage of the phrase "broken reality." Your connection between physical appearance and health, where only a circumstantial connection exists at best, displays your disconnect from reality. What's the phrase? Correlation does not equal causation? Just because you are attractive does not mean you are necessarily healthy.

I'd rather be attractive, thin and unhealthy than fat, ugly and healthy. I'd rather die younger if I was fat and ugly. This is the part I don't understand. Why would you want to extend your life if it's not worth the effort? Existence for the sake of existence is not enough.

Because not everyone's existence hinges so dramatically on their physical appearance.

Regardless, I remain unconvinced. To say the things you have said in this thread, you have to either be a troll or completely incapable of engaging in social interaction.

Social interaction within reality is a system of emulation and subtlety, moderated by retaliation and promise of punishment. I am not so limited here, I merely allow the mask to drop.

Social interaction within reality is a system of emulation and subtlety, moderated by retaliation and promise of punishment. I am not so limited here, I merely allow the mask to drop.

Right. An internet troll. You use the anonymity of the internet to shield yourself from the effects your words have on others, and say intentionally provocative things here that you would not ever have the nerve to say to a real life person, all in the hope of causing a reaction.

Right. An internet troll. You use the anonymity of the internet to shield yourself from the effects your words have on others, and say intentionally provocative things here that you would not ever have the nerve to say to a real life person, all in the hope of causing a reaction.

My words are not designed to be intentionally provocative. I really don't care about your, or anyone else's reactions. I find pleasure in being myself, yes, but I don't consider myself a troll as I'm not playing a character here. I play a character in reality.

Your second link says that failed diets are worse than no diets and diets are likely to fail long term. That does not mean successful diets are not helpful, and the main health problem is caused not by losing the weight but putting it back on.

specifically, it talks about 'diets' as in those things you go on for a bit to lose some weight, and then stop following. given that weight is just a function of calories in vs calories out (along with the nutritional basics and normal fluid cycling), nobody on the fucking planet should be surprised that after a diet ends, people will tend to regain the weight they lost.

you want to lower your body mass? eat healthier, exercise more, and keep doing it.

specifically, it talks about 'diets' as in those things you go on for a bit to lose some weight, and then stop following. given that weight is just a function of calories in vs calories out (along with the nutritional basics and normal fluid cycling), nobody on the fucking planet should be surprised that after a diet ends, people will tend to regain the weight they lost.

you want to lower your body mass? eat healthier, exercise more, and keep doing it.

And when that doesn't work?

And when that doesn't work?

then you're probably just gaining muscle mass or bone density or something. unless you've come up with a way to violate the conservation of matter and energy...

edit: or, i suppose, you might just have reached a new equilibrium. in which case, still want to lose body mass? repeat but with fewer calories intake or more calories used.

And when that doesn't work?

Kill someone and steal their thyroid.

Kill someone and steal their thyroid.

Because that's the only health issue ever that might make it difficult to control your weight?

Because that's the only health issue ever that might make it difficult to control your weight?

No, but longer statements lack the funny. Brevity is the soul of wit.

No, but longer statements lack the funny. Brevity is the soul of wit.

tl;dr

You have a very bizarre aesthetic sensibility, then.

You, apparently, are attracted to unhealthy people. Which, from a purely biological standpoint, definitely makes you the bizarre one.

You, apparently, are attracted to unhealthy people. Which, from a purely biological standpoint, definitely makes you the bizarre one.

I am attracted to attractive people. Their health doesn't matter to me (within reason). Fatties are ipso facto unattractive.

I am attracted to attractive people. Their health doesn't matter to me (within reason).

Well, so am I. I like attractive people.
Only for some bizzare reason you seem to think skinny is attractive... very odd.

I am attracted to attractive people. Their health doesn't matter to me (within reason). Fatties are ipso facto unattractive.

Objective standards of beauty do not exist, Bluth Corporation. A does not equal A.

Well, so am I. I like attractive people.
Only for some bizzare reason you seem to think skinny is attractive... very odd.

I'm having to hold myself back from laughing myself stupid at you. Seriously, you like fatties? Holy fatman, batman!

All the way through you talk about overweight people then complain about people ranting about 'the obesity epidemic', terms which are not interchangable by any means.

Try reading the sources, friend. :D



Most of your 'facts' about relative mortality rates of different weights etc can be put down to people losing weight when they are ill/generally approaching death and hence skewing the figures.

Read the sources. (Hint: not so much.)


Your second link says that failed diets are worse than no diets and diets are likely to fail long term. That does not mean successful diets are not helpful, and the main health problem is caused not by losing the weight but putting it back on.

Again, wrong. Weight loss has actually been directly linked to negative health consequences, and dieting is pretty consistently bad for you. Less than 1% of people who diet will actually see health benefits from it. Can you imagine any other situation where we tell somebody an activity is healthy, to the point where they should change their entire lifestyle to accomodate it, when it has only a 1% chance of being helpful, and when it has about a 75% chance of being actively harmful?


Your first link talks about more metabolically unhealthy people being normal weight. I'm shooting in the dark here but I'd put that down to some people who are normally over-weight trying to be normal weight but not vice versa.

In addition to showing that you didn't read the source thoroughly, that's also just plain silly.



In short, being normal weight is healthier than being fat, and both a healthier than being obese, but maintaining the weight long term and how you go about being normal weight are important factors.
You can state that all you want, yet I notice you don't have any sources or anything whatsoever to back up your assertion. I guess I should take your word for it, despite the clinical proof I have that I was profoundly UNHEALTHY when I had a "normal" weight, and that I am now vastly more healthy even though my body weight is supposedly "overweight." (I'm a great big fatty fat fat because I'm about 120 now.)

I know people love to cling to this simplistic view, where being thin = good and being fat = bad, but the reality is that weight is not a good indicator of health. Fat does not inherently make a person less healthy, and losing fat does not inherently improve a person's health.

I'm having to hold myself back from laughing myself stupid at you. Seriously, you like fatties? Holy fatman, batman!

You like skeletons? I'm finding that hard to believe... just think of all the bruises when trying to shag one....

You like skeletons? I'm finding that hard to believe... just think of all the bruises when trying to shag one....

No where have I stated that I'm attracted to underweight people (although my current boyfriend is).

No where have I stated that I'm attracted to underweight people (although my current boyfriend is).

You said you like skinny people... *shudders at the thought of bones and joints being visible)

You said you like skinny people... *shudders at the thought of bones and joints being visible)

Please show where I stated this, because I'm pretty sure I didn't. Even if I did, skinny != underweight. Skinny = normal weight.

Please show where I stated this, because I'm pretty sure I didn't. Even if I did, skinny != underweight. Skinny = normal weight.

Please show me where I said I assume you mean underweight people? I don't.

Please show me where I said I assume you mean underweight people? I don't.

In other words, you prefer fatties over those with non-fatty bodies. This is a disgusting prospect to me. See: spontaneous vomiting, as earlier elaborated within this thread.

Coincidentally, I'm now going to eat some food.

In other words, you prefer fatties over those with non-fatty bodies. This is a disgusting prospect to me. See: spontaneous vomiting, as earlier elaborated within this thread.

Coincidentally, I'm now going to eat some food.

Yes, you stated before that you have a problem there.
What are you doing to tackle that? Consulting? Therapy? Anything we can maybe help you with?

Please show me where I said I assume you mean underweight people? I don't.

presumably where you said
You like skeletons?

people typically distinguish between thin/skinny and 'super-skinny'

Yes, you stated before that you have a problem there.
What are you doing to tackle that? Consulting? Therapy? Anything we can maybe help you with?

I recommend shock exposure therapy.

Naked pictures of myself incoming to Getbrett.

its sick how ppl can claim incapacity benefit for obesity and then spend it in macdonalds. they should be told theyv had enough! like a drunk in a bar would be.

fat ppl ruin it for everyone. i cant get a supersize cos of fat ppl eating it 2 much then complaining.

presumably where you said


people typically distinguish between thin/skinny and 'super-skinny'

I've seen bones and weird angles on people who are generally regarded as "normal".
Not my type, sorry.

I've seen bones and weird angles on people who are generally regarded as "normal".

yeah, and?

Again, wrong. Weight loss has actually been directly linked to negative health consequences, and dieting is pretty consistently bad for you.

By what definition of dieting?

Is "I'm going to eat fewer fried foods and more grilled foods," a diet? What about noting that there is a lack of fruits and veggies in one's diet and deciding to eat more of them, cutting out other foods in the process?

I would say that most weight-loss diets are unhealthy, for a number of reasons. But changing one's diet so that one's nutrient intake is better balanced? I highly doubt it would be a health risk.

I know people love to cling to this simplistic view, where being thin = good and being fat = bad, but the reality is that weight is not a good indicator of health. Fat does not inherently make a person less healthy, and losing fat does not inherently improve a person's health.

Part of the problem is also where we place the line for being fat. Someone who weighs 800 lbs is highly unlikely to be a healthy person. Someone who weighs 220, on the other hand, very well might be - even if measures like BMI declare them to be overweight or even obese.

My biggest problem is that the measures aren't really individualized enough. We're trying to standardize something - to oversimplify something - that is going to be different for every person.

By what definition of dieting?

Is "I'm going to eat fewer fried foods and more grilled foods," a diet? What about noting that there is a lack of fruits and veggies in one's diet and deciding to eat more of them, cutting out other foods in the process?

I would say that most weight-loss diets are unhealthy, for a number of reasons. But changing one's diet so that one's nutrient intake is better balanced? I highly doubt it would be a health risk.

exactly. the study B linked to about diets not working and perhaps being unhealthy was about 'dieting' rather than a lifestyle change to eating habits

My biggest problem is that the measures aren't really individualized enough. We're trying to standardize something - to oversimplify something - that is going to be different for every person.

true, though individualizing them much more gets really expensive and complicated. bmi is utter shite, of course, but if you mix it with a couple other quick and dirty measures (say, the navy formula for body fat and a sense of how winded you get after climbing up a couple flights of stairs) you can get some sense of where you're at.

snip.


If we're going to have this argument you should cite and quote your sources properly, because I did read them and I don't think they say what you say they do, and don't feel like playing detective in long articles trying to work out where you got which bit from.

For example, please tell me you didn't pull People who are "overweight" don't actually die sooner. In fact, in most demographics the individuals who are "overweight" have a risk of death that is either the same as or even LOWER than individuals who are in the "normal weight range."
From the article solely titled "...50-71 year olds"

If you care to read more about the obesity survival paradox then it and accompanying sources are under the wiki article particularly

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T10-4KKFYM4-7&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F01%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=4876&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b272176844c0ef74624088d9ecdcacd5#sec3

(you may not be able to read it since it's restricted access, I'll copy-paste it if you like).

which relates to heart failure In most studies, the negative impact of cachexia, rather than the positive impact of obesity, appeared to be the main reason for the inverse correlation of BMI and HF outcome

Or any of the large number of articles definitively linking obesity with health problems (since you're claiming that that's the same as overweight, which I've no idea where you're pulling that from). With the points made about bmi being a bad way to judge obesity/overweightness others have made.

There's no real use arguing with Bottle, if they're a fatty, they'll do anything to justify it.

There's no real use arguing with Bottle, if they're a fatty, they'll do anything to justify it.

wtf?

There's no real use arguing with Bottle, if they're a fatty, they'll do anything to justify it.

Bottle likes me? :eek:

its sick how ppl can claim incapacity benefit for obesity and then spend it in macdonalds. they should be told theyv had enough! like a drunk in a bar would be.

fat ppl ruin it for everyone. i cant get a supersize cos of fat ppl eating it 2 much then complaining.

Huh?

How do fat people prevent you from getting anything?

Eat all you want of whatever you want, none of us cares.

wtf?

Bottle likes me? :eek:

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Bottle's arguing that fat people are healthier than thin people. This is patently false, a product of selective reading of select publications. What I mean is, fatties too lazy to improve themselves like to generate excuses ("it's genetic/it's a thyroid problem/I'm big boned/it's healthier being fat") - arguing with them makes no difference. They'll do anything to justify their fat to themselves.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Bottle's arguing that fat people are healthier than thin people. This is patently false, a product of selective reading of select publications. What I mean is, fatties too lazy to improve themselves like to generate excuses ("it's genetic/it's a thyroid problem/I'm big boned/it's healthier being fat") - arguing with them makes no difference. They'll do anything to justify their fat to themselves.

B has at least posted some justification for holding her beliefs, and thus we have an empirical dispute. all you've brought to the table is that fat people force you to puke on yourself.

B has at least posted some justification for holding her beliefs, and thus we have an empirical dispute. all you've brought to the table is that fat people force you to puke on yourself.

I'm not really obligated to produce evidence of a personal opinion, am I?

I'm not really obligated to produce evidence of a personal opinion, am I?

No, but you stated a fact - fat people make you throw up on yourself. Lacking evidence for this, we demand video involving you, a fat person, and vomit. There is no cheating with feathers allowed.

I'm not really obligated to produce evidence of a personal opinion, am I?

think of it as the difference between having a discussion and yelling obscenities out the car window

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Bottle's arguing that fat people are healthier than thin people. This is patently false, a product of selective reading of select publications. What I mean is, fatties too lazy to improve themselves like to generate excuses ("it's genetic/it's a thyroid problem/I'm big boned/it's healthier being fat") - arguing with them makes no difference. They'll do anything to justify their fat to themselves.

Actually, I believe Bottle is arguing that people who are overweight are not necessarily less healthy than thin people and that, in fact, being overweight is less of a health problem than being underweight.

Meanwhile, from Bottle's own description of herself, I would hardly call her fat.

Actually, I believe Bottle is arguing that people who are overweight are not necessarily less healthy than thin people and that, in fact, being overweight is less of a health problem than being underweight.

Meanwhile, from Bottle's own description of herself, I would hardly call her fat.

Same thing.

Why would you defend fatties if you're not fat yourself? :confused:

Same thing.

Why would you defend fatties if you're not fat yourself? :confused:

Because, sometimes, we care about people besides ourselves. It's a trait that really should be explored and built up as much as possible.

Not caused by overeating and underactivity? Sure.

Everybody who does not work out should not receive aid then, including those that are seemingly slim and healthy.

Same thing.

No, it isn't.

Why would you defend fatties if you're not fat yourself?

I defend men when people make unfair comments about them, but I don't have a penis. Weird, huh?

Actually, I do believe that if someone is supporting you, you have an obligation to them. So, yes, if the government (read, taxpayers) is supporting you, you have an obligation to meet whatever criteria the government asks. When your parents supported you, did you do as you please? Of course not. In this instance, the government is standing, imho, in loco parentis, as de facto parents, they have the right to make you do things - like eat properly, get enough exercise, learn right from wrong and so on. Once you are no longer a sucking at the government teat, you may do as you please; if, in the course of doing as you please, you once more find yourself supported by the government, you, once again, find yourself obligated to the government.

We tried that in Australia, tying indigenous welfare payments to school attendance and child health checks to try to improve child outcomes in the Northern Territory. It has thus far failed to make any appreciable increase.

You would advocate potentially disadvantaging children by refusing to pay their parents because their parents make bad choices and quote, "suck on the government teat"? The government is not standing "in loco parentis" since a majority of the people on welfare are well above the age of majority. As far as I am concerned, the government has the right to make you show evidence of searching for a job, they have the right to ask single mothers to show evidence of why they should receive subsidised child care 12 hours a day 5 days a week (since the idea of the single mother's pension is that mothers should be able to be stay at home mums if they choose, regardless of circumstance. Why should they get cheap childcare if accessing this option?).

But to force people into exercise and diet classes, may in fact cause more problems than it solves. You don't want to see people too scared or embarrassed to ask for help, or taking unsafe measures in losing weight to avoid the issues inherent in an idea such as this. Educating people about the dangers of their current lifestyle, and giving them the option of changing, with support and a lack of judgment is more likely to produce positive outcomes than punishing them for choices made in ignorance.

However, I admit that I can absolutely understand your viewpoint, since I get exceptionally angry when I hear about my tax dollars going to drug rehabilitation programs. The difference for me is that taking drugs is against the law. Why should we pay to help criminals who have made a fully informed choice to break the law? My point being, I understand your viewpoint through recognition of the dissonance in my own.

Only a matter of time before people in Europe can claim disability on grounds of severe laziness. except... if you have enough energy to make the effort to claim the disability... then you're not lazy. :tongue:

think of it as the difference between having a discussion and yelling obscenities out the car window
"Oh Reginald... I disagree!"

I defend men when people make unfair comments about them, but I don't have a penis. Weird, huh?

and... the reply to this would be... Pics! :D

No, I am not trolling. I simply do not understand your point of view. To me, being fat (and by extension being gross/"less attractive") is equivilent to being unhealthy.

I'd rather be attractive, thin and unhealthy than fat, ugly and healthy. I'd rather die younger if I was fat and ugly. This is the part I don't understand. Why would you want to extend your life if it's not worth the effort? Existence for the sake of existence is not enough.

EDIT: To clarify, I understand WHAT you're saying, not WHY.
If you value your appearance over your health, remind me never to share a meal, beverage, or kitchen or bathroom facilties with you and to disinfect any surface you touch before I touch it. Who knows what germs you are toting around under your pretty facade.

Meanwhile, according to biology, health is the foundation of attractiveness. The color and tone of one's skin, eyes, hair, nails, teeth, the smell of one's skin and breath, the appearance of energy and vitality, all are key to determining whether a person is sexually attractive or not.

If you would go for someone with sallow, waxy, sagging or wrinkling or dried skin, discolored and/or tired eyes, lank, breaking hair, discolored and poorly formed nails, etc, just because they were skinny, then you are the one with a problem -- though it has nothing to do with weight.

My words are not designed to be intentionally provocative. I really don't care about your, or anyone else's reactions. I find pleasure in being myself, yes, but I don't consider myself a troll as I'm not playing a character here. I play a character in reality.
The troll is in the eye of the beholder.

There's no real use arguing with Bottle, if they're a fatty, they'll do anything to justify it.
Troll beheld.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Bottle's arguing that fat people are healthier than thin people. This is patently false,
You're right -- your statement is patently false. Bottle was arguing that blanket assumptions about weight/health are false because of individual variations, and that some overweight people will be as healthy or even healthier than "normal" weight people. Every individual has their own healthy weight, and trying to adhere to some average is not necessarily going to be the most healthy thing a person can do. Weight is not, in and of itself, a measure of health.

a product of selective reading of select publications. What I mean is, fatties too lazy to improve themselves like to generate excuses ("it's genetic/it's a thyroid problem/I'm big boned/it's healthier being fat") - arguing with them makes no difference. They'll do anything to justify their fat to themselves.
A bigoted statement.

Same thing.

Why would you defend fatties if you're not fat yourself? :confused:
An even more clearly bigoted statement. You know, recently, someone asked the exact same question about people arging in favor of gay rights -- "why would you support gays if you aren't one?" Bigot-think.

What's funny is that I'm guessing people will read all this and come away with the message that "Bottle says being fat is good zomg!!!"
Looks like it:

Perhaps I wasn't clear: Bottle's arguing that fat people are healthier than thin people.

My words are not designed to be intentionally provocative. I really don't care about your, or anyone else's reactions. I find pleasure in being myself, yes, but I don't consider myself a troll as I'm not playing a character here. I play a character in reality.

Yes, yes, APD is very cool, bravo. :rolleyes: Now that that hijack is over...

No, but you stated a fact - fat people make you throw up on yourself. Lacking evidence for this, we demand video involving you, a fat person, and vomit. There is no cheating with feathers allowed.

I'm curious in spite of myself...

I'm curious in spite of myself...

About such a video or cheating with feathers?

About such a video or cheating with feathers?

What feathers have to do with throwing up tea in China.

...have I mentioned I've been cooped up in my house sick for several days? *sniffle* Thank god I'm slim! Much more enjoyable than being healthy. *cough hack*

What feathers have to do with throwing up tea in China.

...have I mentioned I've been cooped up in my house sick for several days? *sniffle* Thank god I'm slim! Much more enjoyable than being healthy. *cough hack*

Old Greek trick.

You can lean your head back, tickle the back of your throat with a feather, and you will immediately vomit.

Old Greek trick.

You can lean your head back, tickle the back of your throat with a feather, and you will immediately vomit.

... really? never tried that. usually a couple of forced dry heaves will have me throwing up.

... really? never tried that. usually a couple of forced dry heaves will have me throwing up.

Gotta put the tip just beyond the opening to the throat... it should be almost instantaneous once you hit the right spot.

I'm so glad you found these folks.

They should be put in a zoo and forced to jump and do activities for their food. They would get fit and entertain a paying audience. There. Recession over, tax breaks all round. These fatties will pay for the recession themselves in a zoo with all the admission tickets.

Anywho, a guy has a brilliant article about them on wehaverage.co.uk

Rob

I'm so glad you found these folks.

They should be put in a zoo and forced to jump and do activities for their food. They would get fit and entertain a paying audience. There. Recession over, tax breaks all round. These fatties will pay for the recession themselves in a zoo with all the admission tickets.

Anywho, a guy has a brilliant article about them on wehaverage.co.uk

Rob

Youre either a bad troll or someone under the mistaken impression that theyre funny.

Youre either a bad troll or someone under the mistaken impression that theyre funny.

Perhaps both. *nod*

Skinny = normal weight.

How about we give you a five year trip to this man's (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/flash/somalia.jpg) country, put you on the sort of diet he is on and you can tell us all about how skinny is the normal weight?

Assuming you live long enough, which I doubt.

How about we give you a five year trip to this man's (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/flash/somalia.jpg) country, put you on the sort of diet he is on and you can tell us all about how skinny is the normal weight?

Assuming you live long enough, which I doubt.

That's not skinny, that's chronically malnourished. Skinny = 5'11, male, and between 126 and 140lbs. This equates to a BMI between 17.6 and 19.5.

How about we give you a five year trip to this man's (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/museum/flash/somalia.jpg) country, put you on the sort of diet he is on and you can tell us all about how skinny is the normal weight?

Assuming you live long enough, which I doubt.

It would save the British tax payers money

That's not skinny, that's chronically malnourished. Skinny = 5'11, male, and between 126 and 140lbs. This equates to a BMI between 17.6 and 19.5.

A load of bollocks, that's what you are. You obsess about skinniness being the normal weight and then when presented with the very definition of what you talk about, you balk at it. It's people like you who drive others into turning starving themselves until they're skeletal.

A load of bollocks, that's what you are. You obsess about skinniness being the normal weight and then when presented with the very definition of what you talk about, you balk at it. It's people like you who drive others into turning starving themselves until they're skeletal.

Well, with all the feeding this troll is getting, he wont be skinny much longer:p

A load of bollocks, that's what you are. You obsess about skinniness being the normal weight and then when presented with the very definition of what you talk about, you balk at it. It's people like you who drive others into turning starving themselves until they're skeletal.

You seem to have a highly distorted definition of "skinny" going there. Skinny does not equal unhealthily underweight. In fact, at least where I come from, calling that guy you posted above "skinny" where I came from would be positively insulting. Skinny is not emaciated. Please check your definitions.

You are deliberately distorting my words because you disagree with me. That is not an effective method of combating my prejudice against fat people.

You are deliberately distorting my words because you disagree with me. That is not an effective method of combating my prejudice against fat people.

You admit that you're prejudiced, combined with your earlier admissions of placing aesthetic sense above good health, which results in people emulating the look of the person in that image.

I've already gotten everything I wanted out of you that I set out to get.

You admit that you're prejudiced, combined with your earlier admissions of placing aesthetic sense above good health, which results in people emulating the look of the person in that image.

I've already gotten everything I wanted out of you that I set out to get.

I was, and am, completely open about my prejudice against fat people. I don't know why you consider that particular statement an admission, as I've been admitting it throughout this entire thread. Perhaps a better word would be "bigoted".

Health is important, yes, but if they're a hideous blob, it doesn't matter how healthy they are, they're still hideous.

EDIT: And as I've now been admonished for flaming, I'll depart.

A load of bollocks, that's what you are. You obsess about skinniness being the normal weight and then when presented with the very definition of what you talk about, you balk at it. It's people like you who drive others into turning starving themselves until they're skeletal.

no, you and several others battling our friend here are just using the word 'skinny' wrong

no, you and several others battling our friend here are just using the word 'skinny' wrong

"Skinny" does tend to have a negative connotation that words like "thin" don't have. Not always, of course, but there is that tendency.

"Skinny" does tend to have a negative connotation that words like "thin" don't have. Not always, of course, but there is that tendency.

hmm, not where i'm from. we usually make the distinction between being skinny, which is either something to aim for or at acceptable low end (mainly a gendered divide), and super-skinny/heroin-thin/rail-thin/anorexicish.

of course, some of would like to be heroin-thin as well...

You seem to have a highly distorted definition of "skinny" going there. Skinny does not equal unhealthily underweight. In fact, at least where I come from, calling that guy you posted above "skinny" where I came from would be positively insulting. Skinny is not emaciated. Please check your definitions.

You are deliberately distorting my words because you disagree with me. That is not an effective method of combating my prejudice against fat people.



skinny

• adjective (skinnier, skinniest) 1 (of a person) unattractively thin. 2 (of an article of clothing) tight-fitting.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/skinny?view=uk (http://http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/skinny?view=uk)

You might want to check definitions before shouting about them and make yourself look even sillier than you already do.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/skinny?view=uk (http://http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/skinny?view=uk)

You might want to check definitions before shouting about them and make yourself look even sillier than you already do.

and the full oed also includes 'thin' and 'lean' among the things it means. he isn't making this usage up.

and the full oed also includes 'thin' and 'lean' among the things it means. he isn't making this usage up.

*looks at the page again*

Sorry, I can't seem to see that anywhere.

and the full oed also includes 'thin' and 'lean' among the things it means. he isn't making this usage up.

A skim of definitions on the net does include the term thin, but also includes the condition of 'very' to that thinness. It also allows for scrawny to fit. So you're mistaken here.

"Skinny" has never been a slur where I'm from (U.S. midwest originally). When people wanted to insult me for my looks, they'd call me bony, lanky, or gangly, rather than skinny. I kinda deserved it, though, being about 130 lbs at 6'3 when I was in school. I was disgusting. :p

About the article, is it just that short blurb? There has to be more to the story, no? It does seem like a massive abuse of welfare on the face of it, but I don't know how they do things over there.

*looks at the page again*

Sorry, I can't seem to see that anywhere.

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/6550/oed20bind2.jpg
vs.
http://www.logos.com/images/products/2224.jpg

A skim of definitions on the net does include the term thin, but also includes the condition of 'very' to that thinness. It also allows for scrawny to fit. So you're mistaken here.

eh, if you ask anyone where i'm from, you need to include the 'very' to skinny to make it equal 'very thin'. see pope lando, just above.

i suspect our usage is relatively new, coming about only once thinness itself became a good thing rather than just meaning 'on your way to being emaciated'. but it definitely doesn't have negative connotations to say that some one is skinny around here unless you add them.

eh, if you ask anyone where i'm from, you need to include the 'very' to skinny to make it equal 'very thin'. see pope lando, just above.

i suspect our usage is relatively new, coming about only once thinness itself became a good thing rather than just meaning 'on your way to being emaciated'. but it definitely doesn't have negative connotations to say that some one is skinny around here unless you add them.

I'll give you that word definitions change over time, but then again, so do standards of what constitutes beauty. The Somalian famine victim look used to be idealized up to recently, and despite the realization that it's absolutely daft, some quarters still think it's something to strive for.

I'll give you that word definitions change over time, but then again, so do standards of what constitutes beauty.

isn't that sort of required for what i said to be true?