Lets talk about: Obesity Acceptance

[2012 Wont Happen]

I'm not sure about anyone else, but to me obesity means something close to 'so overweight that the person has serious difficulty functioning'.

I don't think having difficulty functioning can be any source of pride.

BMI alone considered I was obese a while back, and while I was ugly as hell I was fully functional, at least in a day to day sense. What you're describing is, perhaps cruelly, known to science as "morbid obesity". Never was at that mark.

OT:

Obesity isn't healthy, and there should be a stigma against it (unless your BMI is useless due to large amount of muscle mass, which was certainly not my problem). While scientifically it is best described as a disease, statistics show that just telling an obese person that obesity is a disease and not something they are doing wrong, they will be less likely to lose weight.

On the other hand, stigma can go from being against obesity to being against obese people real quick, and that I don't support. I've lost a lot of weight, so I'm healthier in that way, and I think it's good to encourage people to be healthy. At the same time though, I still smoke a pack a day and I have no intent to quit. Why did I drop weight and not quit smoking? Where I live there is little to no social stigma regarding smoking, whereas there is a lot of stigma surrounding obesity, but not really any dislike directed at obese people. I had incentive to change and did not have a hostile environment, and I think that's a combination a lot of people need to change themselves.

To put what I'm getting at more simply, societal norm should encourage healthy behavior and promote a sense of the ability for self-improvent while not reminiscing adults who do unhealthy things because they personally view the benefit as greater than the detriment. It's a balancing act for sure, but ultimately neither no stigma nor intense stigma seems like it would be useful.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I honestly despise the fat acceptance movement in most things. It pushes forward falsehoods and tries to base it on the misinterpretation of health studies that don't even support what they're saying. They want to be seen as 'perfect the way they are' because they do not have the will to help themselves get healthier. In their minds doctors are all fatphobic when they tell people to lose weight, and being obese is their healthy body type. I hate it so much.

I can agree that we shouldn't make fun of people for being fat, but we should encourage them to lose weight. I used to push 200 pounds(90kg) in high school and I was only 5'8"(1.75m). I lost nearly fifty pounds by(shocker here) diet and exercise. I'm not just thin, I'm pretty damn fit as well. Thats why these people piss me off. Its almost always not because they can't, its because they are not willing to work for it and they want an excuse.

 

[lord.jeff]

The OP seems to mostly be a straw man it's not obesity acceptance it's body acceptance, it's meant to get people away from the idea that you need to look like a super model, I've never seen anyone in the acceptance movement say it's okay to be 300 lbs. plus.

 

[TravelerSF]

Yes... and no.

As someone who played sports rather actively in the past, while at the same time still being technically overweight with superskinny friends who did no exercise whatsoever, I agree that a person's weight is not a good sole indication of their lifestyle choices. Determining what's going on inside a person's body in terms of health is something that requires true medical examination, not just quick glances at their size.

More simply though, the question one could ask themselves is "am I eating healthily and getting regular exercise?" If the answer is "yes", you're probably living a-ok. If it's "no"... You might want to re-evaluate some things.

 

[Pieturli]

The OP seems to mostly be a straw man it's not obesity acceptance it's body acceptance, it's meant to get people away from the idea that you need to look like a super model, I've never seen anyone in the acceptance movement say it's okay to be 300 lbs. plus.

I have. It doesn't take a lot of googling to see people claiming that it is a natural thing for them to be 5'7 and 300 pounds. I am aware of the movement to stop fat shaming, and I support it. It's the bullshit "Healthy at any weight" crowd that gets up my nose.

 

[Lupine]

Sure I'll accept a 'fat movement,' but only if they pay for their own medical bills.

I don't care if some people want to delude themselves that having the bodyweight comparable to cattle is healthy, however when their self-delusion negativly affects society (in this case diverting hospital funds into supersize wards etc) then they can get stuffed.

Let me be that guy...the fat people that you're asking to pay their medical bills...those people are going to have much shorter life spans generally speaking and thus are going to require much less medical care as a result.

So instead of asking that fat people pay their medical bills, how about you ask the health nut that baring all accidental death or genetic predisposition is going to be riding the medical bill wagon for decades to come pay theirs. As for plus-sized wards, I can think of one and it seems more like a medical cash grab than anything to alleviate problems that medical professionals have been going through on a regular basis.

Aparentllly the cost for a leg amputation jn order to treat type 2 diabetes (which obesity markedly increases the chance of someone developing it, along with genetic pre-dispositions) is $38000USD in america. Heart disease treatment and kidney failure would be worse resourse wise.

Even if they do die young, they'll still be costing society keeping them alive before they succumb. A healthy person while staying around for much longer would also be productive for an extended period as well, resulting in a net gain instead of a loss. And as for plus-size wards, I doubt the collapsed hospital dolly was just for show.

So from the point of retirement at let us just say 60 since that is the way things seem to be going these days, up until 80-90 whatever the average stretch of life with medical science as it is today is going to be productive? The obese person likewise is going to also have a job, they are also going to contribute to society, and by the time they are no longer capable of doing so, more than likely they are going to on their way out. That's not to say that all people are the same or that their isn't a fair bit of generalizing going on for both of us, but come on. Also I'm not saying that someone that isn't obese is somehow instantly going to reach such ages as I mentioned before, but for argument's sake lets say they do.

Know what is going to be more expensive than leg amputation? Or keeping people alive short term before they shuffle off the mortal coil? Housing a deranged senior citizen in a facility set to deal with both their day to day needs, their derangement, and on top of that all the medical issues that just tend to pop up wack-a-mole style in the elderly as a general rule. Oh and of course let's not forget the care they will need to keep them alive short term before they shuffle off the mortal coil. Now or later, the costs are going to be relatively the same for people lingering at the edge of life, so again I'm going to ask whom exactly is going to need more care before the big curtain?

As for the broken dolly, let me point out that hospitals aren't magical fairy lands of resources so most people aren't going to manage them like they are. Most facilities would rectify that with a squad of male nurses carrying the patient to their room and then buying a new dolly. Plus-sized wards don't sound too cost effective and let me assure you that your local hospital is all about cost effectiveness.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

SNIP

I figured someone would bring up the "fat people don't live as long and thus cost taxpayers the same as non-fat people", but this idea has already been disproven.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2008-06-09-obese-medical-costs_N.htm

And while it is true that the obese do work and are 'contributing", everyone pays a price for their weight there as well. A study conducted found that obese workers were twice as likely to file disability claims as non-obese workers, and missed an astounding 12 times as many work days as non-obese workers. That's lost productivity and huge amounts of money spent by the company.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412250

 

[NCR Ranger]

Coming from a guy who is a bit overweight and needs to drop about 20 pounds or so, I agree completely. Having a certain amount of fat is fine, but when you have to much, it's a health risk, plain and simple.

 

[Lupine]

SNIP

I figured someone would bring up the "fat people don't live as long and thus cost taxpayers the same as non-fat people", but this idea has already been disproven.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2008-06-09-obese-medical-costs_N.htm

And while it is true that the obese do work and are 'contributing", everyone pays a price for their weight there as well. A study conducted found that obese workers were twice as likely to file disability claims as non-obese workers, and missed an astounding 12 times as many work days as non-obese workers. That's lost productivity and huge amounts of money spent by the company.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=412250

I must be missing something, because that first article doesn't disprove anything. If anything it talks about medical costs mounting from the obese and yet they don't even take the time to explain if these cost come purely from conditions caused by obesity or if it is more of a catch all in the vein of "You have lung cancer, but also happen to be overweight."

More than that, the article says that it takes shortened life spans into the equation but then when it takes a talking point from this economist or that's book, the examples given are examples that obviously don't take shorten lifespan into consideration seeing as they actually say at one point that most of the diseases associated with obesity occurs when people are old and on medicare. If you're taking shortened lifespans into account, how then is that your argument?

Now I agree that people taking more days off from work would equal less money for their employers and themselves (which obviously means less spending in the economy) and there I think they have a point with the idea of people chronically falling ill costing companies money, but far too much of that ends up becoming theoretical as they drum out possible health complications that come from being overweight as if the low end of those are stopping people from going to work more often than not. Heart Disease. Yes. Lower quality of life...no... Type 2 Diabetes. Yes. Heavy breathing...no.

And again, nowhere does that article prove that the immediate expenditures caused by the obese somehow dwarf the overtime expenditures of the non-obese with their longer lifespans. It does say a bit about companies losing money (be it man hours or worker efficiency or what have you, but at the same time those same companies are paying taxes and those taxes are going to fund programs like medicare. If those same people aren't immediate expenditures they are still going to be expenditures at some point.

 

[Majinash]

More than that, the article says that it takes shortened life spans into the equation but then when it takes a talking point from this economist or that's book, the examples given are examples that obviously don't take shorten lifespan into consideration seeing as they actually say at one point that most of the diseases associated with obesity occurs when people are old and on medicare. If you're taking shortened lifespans into account, how then is that your argument?

Just because people live shorter lives (on average) when obese doesn't mean they don't make it to retirement. Thin people quite often make it well into their 90s. This means that if you are expected to live 15 years less if you are obese, it wouldn't be suprising for you to get past 80.

You can't assume obese people all die at 40 and thus never get old. You havn't found some glaring problem with the article.

 

[Lupine]

More than that, the article says that it takes shortened life spans into the equation but then when it takes a talking point from this economist or that's book, the examples given are examples that obviously don't take shorten lifespan into consideration seeing as they actually say at one point that most of the diseases associated with obesity occurs when people are old and on medicare. If you're taking shortened lifespans into account, how then is that your argument?

Just because people live shorter lives (on average) when obese doesn't mean they don't make it to retirement. Thin people quite often make it well into their 90s. This means that if you are expected to live 15 years less if you are obese, it wouldn't be suprising for you to get past 80.

You can't assume obese people all die at 40 and thus never get old. You havn't found some glaring problem with the article.

This is true, but likewise you can't assume the opposite to be true either. There are plenty of people dying of heart disease in America and I can bet you that most of them aren't geriatrics. My point wasn't that no one ever makes it to retirement but rather that if you are taking shorter lifespans as a whole into the equation your first argument shouldn't be about the people that have gotten to retirement age. Especially seeing as men as a point of fact tend to be more high risk for heart disease around age 45.

I didn't say it was some glaring problem, but rather that it is questionable when talking about shortened life span factored into the results but literally there was no mention of anything supporting that fact other than that the article said so.

 

[Majinash]

My point wasn't that no one ever makes it to retirement but rather that if you are taking shorter lifespans as a whole into the equation your first argument shouldn't be about the people that have gotten to retirement age.

Then I think your point is flawed. In America tons of people make it well past retirement age. Even if your lose 10-15 years of your life because you are obese, you could very well expect 10-20 years of medical care after you retire.

You can't discredit the article because it "feels odd" to talk about shortened life spans and post-retirement medical bills on the same issue. The article might have other problems, but that simply isn't one of them.

 

[Lupine]

My point wasn't that no one ever makes it to retirement but rather that if you are taking shorter lifespans as a whole into the equation your first argument shouldn't be about the people that have gotten to retirement age.

Then I think your point is flawed. In America tons of people make it well past retirement age. Even if your lose 10-15 years of your life because you are obese, you could very well expect 10-20 years of medical care after you retire.

You can't discredit the article because it "feels odd" to talk about shortened life spans and post-retirement medical bills on the same issue. The article might have other problems, but that simply isn't one of them.

I didn't say it felt odd so I don't know what you're quoting there. I said that it was questionable because it doesn't go any farther than "I said so" when saying that it factors in the shortened life span of the obese into it's calculations while at the same time pointing out post retirement and even early death as financial sinks shortly there after with no mention of obesity's effect on the life span in regards to over all lifetime costs or quantifying the factors looked at when coming up with its total for medical costs. It's basically, take our word for it.

As for people making it past retirement age, of course. But again there are more than enough people also not making it past retirement age as well and my point isn't that no one is but rather that there wasn't a whole lot in the article one way or another to say what was and what wasn't factored into its results,not to mention how.

 

[Lupine]

Double post, please delete.

 

[cypher-raige]

Thin people are more attractive

Because society has decided that fat people are unattractive. There is a problem there.

No. I just don't find fat people attractive.
It's human instinct to want to reproduce with healthy people.
The problem with "society" dictating everything is you treat people like complete morons.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

My point wasn't that no one ever makes it to retirement but rather that if you are taking shorter lifespans as a whole into the equation your first argument shouldn't be about the people that have gotten to retirement age.

Then I think your point is flawed. In America tons of people make it well past retirement age. Even if your lose 10-15 years of your life because you are obese, you could very well expect 10-20 years of medical care after you retire.

You can't discredit the article because it "feels odd" to talk about shortened life spans and post-retirement medical bills on the same issue. The article might have other problems, but that simply isn't one of them.

I didn't say it felt odd so I don't know what you're quoting there. I said that it was questionable because it doesn't go any farther than "I said so" when saying that it factors in the shortened life span of the obese into it's calculations while at the same time pointing out post retirement and even early death as financial sinks shortly there after with no mention of obesity's effect on the life span in regards to over all lifetime costs or quantifying the factors looked at when coming up with its total for medical costs. It's basically, take our word for it.

As for people making it past retirement age, of course. But again there are more than enough people also not making it past retirement age as well and my point isn't that no one is but rather that there wasn't a whole lot in the article one way or another to say what was and what wasn't factored into its results,not to mention how.

I find it odd that you're saying the article is saying "just take our word for it", and your counterpoint seems to be "just take my word for it".

Anyway, more research proving my point, with references:
http://www.livingfithealthyandhappy.com/2012/06/obese-people-have-shorter-lives-and-spend-more-on-medical-bills-study.html

It's also worth noting that if we must defend someone's lifestyle choice with "don't worry, they'll die faster anyway so it won't cost as much!" it's not exactly something we should be happy about or strive for.

 

[Smolderin]

With the exception of those who have legitimate medical reasons to be "obese"...I find being fat (not chubby, I mean FAT) wholly disgusting, and honestly have no clue why anyone would choose to continue being that way besides obvious mental blocks that they must get past. I don't think anyone should accept being fat (that statement alone might cause some anger)because it is largely unhealthy for the person, and irritatingly inconvenient for other people (e.g Elevators). I have nothing against fat people, but to be quite honest, my opinion is immediately lowered of you if we are say meet for the first time. I am not one of those judge a book by their cover folks but the physical appearance of a person tells much about how they live.

I don't know...maybe I am just being overly judgmental, but when most of the fat people you meet who happen to be my age are loud, obnoxious, dirty, and entitled....well, you are already passing my trifecta of least favorite traits in people. I am sure their are great fat people out there in which we can have nice, long, intelligent conversations...But I have yet to meet any.