more debate about women's faces/bodies

Page 8 of 12 [ 185 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2012, 8:59 pm

Marcia wrote:

Shatbat wrote:

Marcia wrote:

They do die earlier. The study was looking at whether obesity and smoking prevention programmes would save health services money in the longer term. They don't because although weight loss and smoking cessation save a lot of money in the short to medium term, during the additional years of life illnesses unrelated to obesity and smoking result in additional healthcare costs.

So should we stop with obesity and smoking prevention programs so that people die earlier and don't strain the healthcare system?

It's not your conclusion, but the study's, but it's a ghastly conclusion indeed.

They were looking at the financial aspects of healthcare, but they acknowledge that that is not the only, and far from being the primary goal of health care systems. In their conclusion they are clearly supportive of measure to improve health, irrespective of long term financial costs.

The point remains though, that if obese people, as a group, lived longer then they would cost more.

no, unhealthy people would cost more. obese is not always equal to unhealthy. i don't mind reminding you of that, as you seem to have some difficulty internalising that fact in spite of the evidence.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2012, 9:01 pm

Shatbat wrote:

Further idea. Bad dietary habits influence health in a negative way. Programs aimed at obesity that taught better habits would also be useful at making people be healthier wouldn't they?

Reminds me of a medical conference where one lecturer said how at one time physician's would give out tension-lowering medicaments, because high-tension was correlated with health risks. It took them a while to realize that high-tension was a symptom of something else, and that these medicaments where doing more harm than good. Programs aimed at being less fat would not be as useful as programs aimed to being more healthy.

no, because if a program encourages self-hate, then people are unlikely to lose weight and keep it off. however, encouraging people to accept themselves as they are, while also encouraging healthy habits, is more likely to have a positive effect.

i think programs should definitely aim to help people to be healthy as possible, but should put aside the silliness about weight (as it is largely aesthetic).

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

24 Jul 2012, 9:01 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

My only point was that I'm not by virtue of being 100 lbs lighter alone automatically "healthier", and even if I was, who says that should be a goal of mine, IE, that in doing so I'm "better", "progressing", or any number of other sizist, fat-shaming implications? I can think of a lot of other things that genuinely-interest me more.

Oh I'd taken that one long ago~ When I talked about being healthy vs being fit I thought I'd made it clear. My point is that even though weight is not an absolute indicator of health, because it isn't, it's still a parameter worth taking into account in general. Specific cases should be handled in an specific way.

And now I'm really late, it's reggaeton time!

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2012, 9:03 pm

Shatbat wrote:

ValentineWiggin wrote:

it really ISN'T useful as a parameter, when simple tests will actually diagnose illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

24 Jul 2012, 9:05 pm

Shatbat wrote:

I perfectly understand the correlation vs causation problem. But many people seem to use that argument to completely write off and ignore the relationship between the two variables.

Who is claiming that NO obese people are such due to poor diet and exercise?
Who is claiming that poor diet and exercise are NOT causes of many diseases?

I haven't said that, nor has Lex.

Shatbat wrote:

A correlation is still insightful, you know?

Only if it's novel- neither of the relationships I just identified are very new discoveries,
scientifically. In fact, they're millenia-old.

The equivocation between them is quite the recent concept,
and not a scientifically-supported concept at all.

_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 24 Jul 2012, 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

24 Jul 2012, 9:05 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

Shatbat wrote:

Further idea. Bad dietary habits influence health in a negative way. Programs aimed at obesity that taught better habits would also be useful at making people be healthier wouldn't they?

I agree. That's why I mentioned programs that taught better habits, and I also assumed that they would work. Programs that teach self-hate would not succeed, and thus wouldn't count. Self-hate is never good anyway.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

24 Jul 2012, 9:06 pm

Shatbat wrote:

Shat - you're getting closer.

Ideally a program you focus on both acceptance and health. It should not be one to the exclusion of the other.

Programs for nutrition and fitness are separate things, but too many times people use them interchangably.

Edit: just saw your above post - you're too fast for me - as usual. :lol:

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Last edited by Kjas on 24 Jul 2012, 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2012, 9:07 pm

Shatbat wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

Shatbat wrote:

Further idea. Bad dietary habits influence health in a negative way. Programs aimed at obesity that taught better habits would also be useful at making people be healthier wouldn't they?

programs that focus on losing weight as a goal are teaching people that their bodies are not acceptable the way they are. such programs have an extremely low success rate, and they often lead to new health problems when the weight is regained. "healthy at any size" programs are well-suited to helping people become healthy while setting aside the damaging fattist judgements.

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2012, 9:08 pm

Kjas wrote:

Shatbat wrote:

Shat - you're getting closer.

Ideally a program you focus on both acceptance and health. It should not be one to the exclusion of the other.

yes, exactly!! !!

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

24 Jul 2012, 9:13 pm

Kjas wrote:

Shatbat wrote:

Shat - you're getting closer.

Ideally a program you focus on both acceptance and health. It should not be one to the exclusion of the other.

Exactly.
If we're going to preach health and be logically-consistent:

Everyone should focus on self-love and healthy habits, IE, POSITIVE motivation.
For those who are overweight/obese, that might mean weight is lost.
If not, who cares- we're focused on health, aren't we?

But on a societal level we're not willing to do this.
We're not willing to indict the industrial food complex, endocrine-disrupting emissions from industry, healthy foods being an economic privilege as opposed to a right, powerful agra/pharma lobbies essentially free-handedly writing public health policy, etc.

No, the fatties are just lazy, worthless, and stupid.

Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,148

24 Jul 2012, 9:14 pm

Obese individuals, as a result of their obesity, are at significantly increased risk of life-threatening illness such as type 2 diabetes. Healthy weight loss, at a rate of around 1lb per week, reduces their risk of illness and premature death.

If the aim is to promote health, then it makes sense to prevent obesity and encourage weight loss.

Policy is made in respect of groups, not individuals, and assessments of risk.

So, even though not every toddler whose parents keep medicines in an unlocked, accessible cupboard will find and swallow those medicines, the risk presented to toddlers by easy access to medicines is recognised as being high and the potential consequences serious, and so parents are strongly encouraged to ensure medicines are kept out of sight and out of reach.

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

24 Jul 2012, 9:21 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:

But on a societal level we're not willing to do this.
We're not willing to indict the industrial food complex, endocrine-disrupting emissions from industry, healthy foods being an economic privilege as opposed to a right, powerful agra/pharma lobbies essentially free-handedly writing public health policy, etc.

No, the fatties are just lazy, worthless, and stupid.

That right there is the driving force - along with economic and social and cultural factors - that are driving these statistics - yet nobody wants to address or even discuss.

Australia is not too far behind America in this regard now. It is also starting to take place in my home country, slowly but surely - in Brazil.

One example of a step: If you took all processed food off the market and really pushed local famrers and local consumers without the middle men (fruit and vege shops instead of supermarket monopolies) - the younger generation would still be learning to cook from scratch and actaully know where their food comes from. But it would never happen because corporations and companies would scream bloody murder about their rights to sell processed crap being taken away - and would lose billions of dollars in the process.

Pharmacuticals and argiculture are essentially in the same position - all 3 essentially feed off each other.

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

24 Jul 2012, 9:24 pm

Whether or not food legislation takes place or not, it is still your responsibility to eat a healthy diet. Why? Because you're gonna be paying the consequences and the food companies won't.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

24 Jul 2012, 9:24 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

Applause!

We know which type of motivation consistently drives people on a psychological level and sustains them long-term,

and that's working TOWARD something:
I want to live to see my grandson graduate.
I want to have more energy.
I want don't want to have to take a pill every day.

not AWAY from it:
I'm ugly.
The way I look is shameful.
I don't want to be the fattest woman at the reunion.

IE, positive motivators vs. negative ones
Notice what each focuses on.

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

24 Jul 2012, 9:29 pm

1000Knives wrote:

Whether or not food legislation takes place or not, it is still your responsibility to eat a healthy diet. Why? Because you're gonna be paying the consequences and the food companies won't.

I take that responsiblity - I eat extremely cleanly. But I have educated myself extensively on nutrition - something that doesn't happen for most people here.

But growing up back home - farmers markets and the local fruit and vege shop was the normal places we shopped - that was all there was.

When I moved here - I had to shop at supermarkets - and everything in all the middle rows are full of processed crap - I avoid those areas and shop around the edge of the store.

The difference and impact is big. Especially when they make it cheaper to buy processed crap than to buy fresh food.
Many students from my home country move here and after 2 years here they are often 10 kgs (for the girls) or 15 kgs (for the guys) heavier, it would probably be more if it were not that we come from an active culture. Although they eat their traditional food in the beginning, they are forced to buy what is cheap as it is all they can afford, in many cases that ends up being processed stuff.
(note - the cost of living in Australia is extremely high - especially when it comes to food - so this trend is obvious here)

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,791
Location: Where two great rivers meet

25 Jul 2012, 2:58 am

This reminds me of the old "Obese nutritionists" thread. There was one who called herself "the fat nutritionist", who was overweight by BMI standards, but healthy, and taught people to be that way. I agreed

So, making programs that focus on eating healthy instead of focusing on weight would be the ideal way to go. I believe we can all agree to that. Such programs would probably make many people weigh less too, as that's still a correlated variable.

_________________
To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day. - Winston Churchill

Page 8 of 12 [ 185 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next

Jump to:

more debate about women's faces/bodies Post Reply New Topic

more debate about women's faces/bodies