Board index › Coping in life › Health, Fitness, and Sports

more debate about women's faces/bodies

Page 7 of 12 [ 185 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:24 pm

ValentineWiggin wrote:
I was guilty for a while of referring to such people as anorexic, I'm absolutely-ashamed to say, until I educated myself more on size acceptance and realized how hurtful size-based stereotypes are, for everyone. We've got to start public dialogues about the numbers that actually paint a picture of someone's health, as opposed to obsessing about how thin or fat people are. I had legitimate (and unrelated) medical conditions written off by doctors as being supposed mere symptoms of my obesity, on one occasion nearly costing me my life. It's absurd.


I had doctors pass off my illness (much like you - it would have killed me if it got much worse) and simply tell me that I had an eating disorder and that the "illness" was merely symptomatic of an eating disorder. About 6 of them did that

Sadly - it took me doing my own research to figure out what I had (which took months and months) and then I had to see someone who specialized in the field to diagnose me. He is the only one to this day that I actually trust.

This isn't just a prevelant social view - but a medical view as well - and that thought to me is simply scary.


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


Last edited by Kjas on 24 Jul 2012, 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:29 pm

Wow wow WOW

You know how can that study be interpreted? If obese or smoking people have a greater annual strain on the healthcare system, but a lesser cost over their lifetimes, the conclusion is that they die earlier. Dead people don't need healthcare. And it ties in with what the study said of increased life expectancy.

Studies can be interpreted many ways. I remember one saying that smokers had less risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, but upon a closer look it meant that smokers usually died before reaching an age where Alzheimer's disease would be a risk.


_________________
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

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:29 pm

what is the point in talking about Forbes referring to them as lardbuckets? seems like you are reusing your red herring.

you can see the studies that demonstrate that approximately 40% of obese people are perfectly healthy, and... many become UNhealthy from losing weight (in a supposedly healthy manner), and... the placement of body fat is a relatively reliable indicator of health risks, but obesity itself is not. i am not going to repost all of that.

the study linked above makes an assumption that certain diseases are associated with each and every obese person, but does not actually calculate how many of the obese people would suffer from those problems. they took correlated information and called it a cause. silly them!

i am surprised to see you quoting from the study, because in the other thread you tried to debunk the conclusions.


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


Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:35 pm

Before going further, what is our definition of obesity?

For some, it's being above a certain BMI, 30 maybe? In that case, some professional weighlifters would be obese by that standard, even though they carried around muscle weight.

I define obesity as having a body fat level, that may vary from person to person, so high that it interferes with day to day activities, and starts depositing on arteries and straining the knees and stuff. Using my concept, obesity would be unhealthy for me by definition. And whenever I use the word "obese", I shall be using that definition.


_________________
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


Last edited by Shatbat on 24 Jul 2012, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:36 pm

Shatbat wrote:
Wow wow WOW

You know how can that study be interpreted? If obese or smoking people have a greater annual strain on the healthcare system, but a lesser cost over their lifetimes, the conclusion is that they die earlier. Dead people don't need healthcare. And it ties in with what the study said of increased life expectancy.

Studies can be interpreted many ways. I remember one saying that smokers had less risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, but upon a closer look it meant that smokers usually died before reaching an age where Alzheimer's disease would be a risk.


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.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:36 pm

Marcia wrote:

"Since the mid 1970s, the proportion of people who are obese (people who have an unhealthy amount of body fat) has increased sharply in many countries. ... Compared to people with a healthy weight (a BMI between 18.5 and 25), overweight and obese individuals have an increased risk of developing many diseases, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, and tend to die younger."

"increased risk"
"tend to"
So...correlational.
Marcia wrote:

"(t)he researchers ... used a computer model to calculate yearly and lifetime medical costs associated with obesity in The Netherlands. ... (They) used their model to estimate the number of surviving individuals and the occurrence of various diseases for three hypothetical groups of men and women, examining data from the age of 20 until the time when the model predicted that everyone had died. The “obese” group consisted of never-smoking people with a BMI of more than 30; the “healthy-living” group consisted of never-smoking people with a healthy weight; the “smoking” group consisted of lifetime smokers with a healthy weight. Data from the Netherlands on the costs of illness were fed into the model to calculate the yearly and lifetime health-care costs of all three groups. The model predicted that until the age of 56, yearly health costs were highest for obese people and lowest for healthy-living people. At older ages, the highest yearly costs were incurred by the smoking group. However, because of differences in life expectancy (life expectancy at age 20 was 5 years less for the obese group, and 8 years less for the smoking group, compared to the healthy-living group), total lifetime health spending was greatest for the healthy-living people, lowest for the smokers, and intermediate for the obese people."

So a portion of the "obese" group ate crap and didn't exercise, thus giving rise to dietary-related diseases and affecting the group average aversely.
What does that say about obesity itself?
Not a damned thing.
Correlational.
Marcia wrote:
"(T)hese findings suggest that although effective obesity prevention reduces the costs of obesity-related diseases, this reduction is offset by the increased costs of diseases unrelated to obesity that occur during the extra years of life gained by slimming down."

Uh....


Marcia wrote:
"The obese cohort has the highest health-care costs for diabetes and musculoskeletal diseases compared to the other cohorts."

Right, because those are related to diet and exercise, as is obesity.
Correlational.
Marcia wrote:
"At all ages, smokers and obese people incur more costs than do healthy-living persons. Until age 56, average annual health-care costs are highest for an obese person."

So...correlational. A portion of the obese people are such due to unhealthy choices, but not all are. Go on...
Marcia wrote:
"Obesity increases the risk of diseases such as diabetes and coronary heart disease, thereby increasing health-care utilization but decreasing life expectancy. Successful prevention of obesity, in turn, increases life expectancy."

"increases the risk of"
Correlational, again.


Marcia wrote:
Obesity rates have risen sharply in my country over the past couple of decades and continue to rise. What is most shocking is that Type 2 Diabetes is now being increasingly diagnosed in children, as a result of their obesity.

Say that again???
A height-weight ratio causes diabetes?
Funny, I thought Type 2 diabetes was caused by insulin resistance due to excessive intake of glucose. 8O


Marcia wrote:
From the World Health Organisation's website - "Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health."

In scientific terminology, this means there IS A RELATIONSHIP between two variables.
It does not say it is CAUSATIVE.
Marcia wrote:
When someone is so overweight that they have difficulty walking, and have to adopt an abnormal gait to get one foot in front of the other,

What percentage is this, again?
Marcia wrote:
when they are out of breath going up stairs or climbing a hill, when they struggle to lean down to put their socks on, that is unhealthy.

Yeah, it's also FITNESS-related, and not SIZE-related.


_________________
"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, 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:36 pm

Marcia wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
Wow wow WOW

You know how can that study be interpreted? If obese or smoking people have a greater annual strain on the healthcare system, but a lesser cost over their lifetimes, the conclusion is that they die earlier. Dead people don't need healthcare. And it ties in with what the study said of increased life expectancy.

Studies can be interpreted many ways. I remember one saying that smokers had less risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, but upon a closer look it meant that smokers usually died before reaching an age where Alzheimer's disease would be a risk.


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.

ao every single obese person dies younger, regardless of their health status? that's news.


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


Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:40 pm

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.


_________________
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


Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:42 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
what is the point in talking about Forbes referring to them as lardbuckets? seems like you are reusing your red herring.

you can see the studies that demonstrate that approximately 40% of obese people are perfectly healthy, and... many become UNhealthy from losing weight (in a supposedly healthy manner), and... the placement of body fat is a relatively reliable indicator of health risks, but obesity itself is not. i am not going to repost all of that.

the study linked above makes an assumption that certain diseases are associated with each and every obese person, but does not actually calculate how many of the obese people would suffer from those problems. they took correlated information and called it a cause. silly them!

i am surprised to see you quoting from the study, because in the other thread you tried to debunk the conclusions.


I found it odd that you used an article which contained such offensive language about people in support of your argument - which at that time was that obesity alone does not cost money. I commented on that before, but you didn't respond until now. I'll not mention it again.

The study looks at obese people, smokers and people of a healthy weight as groups, not individuals.

You can deny it as much as you want, and I am quite sure that you're not going to change your mind, despite all the evidence that obesity carries increased risk of many life-threatening illnesses and premature death, but I do find it difficult not to react to such blinkered intransigence.



Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:45 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
So every single obese person dies younger, regardless of their health status? that's news.


Well, I'm basing my conclusions oj the study. If it is wrong, then my conclusions would be wrong too. But my logic should still be sound, at least.

And now my mind is racing! I've got a though: if there is a correlation between high body-fat percentage, isn't that worth a look? Because I understand that you two, hiperlexian and ValentineWiggin, do have a high body fat percentage, but don't think of yourselves as unhealthy. But if most fat people have unhealthy habits, wouldn't you two be the exception rather than the rule?


_________________
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


Marcia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:45 pm

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.



Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:47 pm

Correlation is not causation.

I see this mistake made with many studys.

Correlation could mean any of the following:

1) X causes Y
2) Y causes X
3) Z is causing both X *and* Y and that is why the correlation is present

Too many forget that X could be something you would not normally think of as a causation - or it could be variety of factors one has not previously considered.


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


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:48 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Marcia wrote:
Shatbat wrote:
Wow wow WOW

You know how can that study be interpreted? If obese or smoking people have a greater annual strain on the healthcare system, but a lesser cost over their lifetimes, the conclusion is that they die earlier. Dead people don't need healthcare. And it ties in with what the study said of increased life expectancy.

Studies can be interpreted many ways. I remember one saying that smokers had less risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, but upon a closer look it meant that smokers usually died before reaching an age where Alzheimer's disease would be a risk.


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.

ao every single obese person dies younger, regardless of their health status? that's news.


You don't even have to make an appeal to a SMALL exception existing for a given relationship-
if by a single statistically-significant percentile point
obesity and dietary-related illnesses were shown to co-occur
more often than either in isolation
(which of course they will, because the former CAN BE caused by lifestyle, the latter is by DEFINITION)
then there can be said to exist a relationship.

The problem,
as you can see,
is that correlation vs. causation is very difficult for some people to understand.


_________________
"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."


Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:51 pm

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. A correlation is still insightful, you know?

And now this is the moment where I have to step back and ask, what are we debating on, exactly?


_________________
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


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:53 pm

Shatbat wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
So every single obese person dies younger, regardless of their health status? that's news.


Well, I'm basing my conclusions oj the study. If it is wrong, then my conclusions would be wrong too. But my logic should still be sound, at least.

And now my mind is racing! I've got a though: if there is a correlation between high body-fat percentage, isn't that worth a look? Because I understand that you two, hiperlexian and ValentineWiggin, do have a high body fat percentage, but don't think of yourselves as unhealthy. But if most fat people have unhealthy habits, wouldn't you two be the exception rather than the rule?


I'm not sure what my body fat percentage is-
from what I've read, there's a much closer relationship statistically between that and
development of dietary-related diseases,
as opposed to disease
and weight classes as prescribed by the BMI
(which, btw, have been continually-revised downward over the years so more and more people are classified by definition as obese and overweight).

My only point was that I'm not by virtue of being 100 lbs lighter alone "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.


_________________
"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, 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shatbat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

24 Jul 2012, 8:58 pm

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.


_________________
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