Incorruptible
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2012
- 10,086
- 58
- 86
LOL!She's so fat she sat on an iPhone and turned it into an iPad.
She's so fat she sued xbox 360 for guessing her weight.
She's so fat she went to KFC to get a bucket of chicken they asked her what size and she said the one on the roof.
She's so fat she left the house in high heels and when she came back she had on flip flops.
Link? I don't see anything in the original article about metabolic condition.
That said we are put into a setting where food is easy to obtain and we don't do physical labor. That is correct but you generalize too much. Do you realize that if you put many who are as morbidly obese on a managed diet of severe caloric restriction under laboratory conditions they will not lose or even gain weight consuming hundreds, not thousands, of calories?
Remember HR, she embraces her size . . .
If you had her condition you would look a whole lot like her. The analogy with diabetes fails because the underlying conditions are completely different.
That said we are put into a setting where food is easy to obtain and we don't do physical labor. That is correct but you generalize too much. Do you realize that if you put many who are as morbidly obese on a managed diet of severe caloric restriction under laboratory conditions they will not lose or even gain weight consuming hundreds, not thousands, of calories?
As far as "why we didn't see more" is because people with this condition died. Like diabetes it isn't the disease but all the problems the disease (and people need to start looking at this from this perspective, not a failing of moral character). Falls, infection, pneumonia, flu, any of a number of things killed many, but obesity makes you likely to die in more primitive conditions, but it did exist. The fat lady is proof. She was just "lucky"to live and find employment in being mocked by those who felt it was her fault, much like we see now.
The original article is about her weight and she gets disability. She isn't looking for medical justification and in any case what I've said is accurate about obesity.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/slow-metabolism/expert-answers/FAQ-20058480Is it possible to be overweight because of a slow metabolism?
Probably not. There is such a thing as a slow metabolism. But slow metabolism is rare, and it's usually not what's behind being overweight or obese — that's usually a matter of diet and exercise.
...
If you're concerned about slow metabolism and your weight, talk to your doctor about healthy changes you can make. And if you still think you have slow metabolism, your doctor can check your metabolism or check for rare conditions that can cause problems with metabolism, such as hypothyroidism and Cushing's syndrome
The original article is about her weight and she gets disability. She isn't looking for medical justification and in any case what I've said is accurate about obesity.
For 448 pound 33 year old woman (assume height as 5'5) gives a BMR of 2738.
You appear to be claiming there is an epidemic of people whose BMR is only 1/3, or less, of what it should be? Why does this claim seem like BS?
Does their mass warp the laws of physics?
Are you going to blame the change in average life span for our obesity epidemic? Sorry, that doesn't fly. Compare children of today (who are the morbidly obese of tomorrow) to the children of 50 years ago. Kids are fatasses today, we didn't have a bunch of fat kids dying in the streets 50 years ago.
Nope and I didn't. Obesity is complex and depends on a great many factors. I also didn't say that kids are on average fatter than during those times because of metabolic changes. I was addressing extremes which is what this woman exibits and why rates were lower in past times. Until recent you wouldn't even have known about something like this because you couldn't have known. The internet creates a bias in perceptions because you have greater access to whatever people think is "newsworthy" including this woman.
The question I asked was not about her justification, but whether or not you had verifiable proof that she has a genetic condition.
She is quoted with saying she has a problem with portion control. That suggests she has a choice.She may not have much of a choice. But maybe she's as you and others belive, just some lazy fat ******.
She is quoted with saying she has a problem with portion control. That suggests she has a choice.
It's interesting how powerful (or, if you prefer, weak) the mind can be when it comes to compulsive behaviors. The body really doesn't want to be morbidly obese, and it takes a shit-ton of calories to maintain a body like that. If she started eating a normal, 2,000-calorie diet she would start shedding weight right away. I used to work with a woman who was about 475 pounds, and she ate Reese's cups compulsively all day - she put them away like Tic Tacs. I would conservatively guess that she ate 3,000 calories a day just in that one empty-calorie snacking behavior. This is not meant to make fun of these people - I, like most people, eat more crap than I should - but I do find it interesting when people develop habitual behaviors that are so harmful.
She is quoted with saying she has a problem with portion control. That suggests she has a choice.
Well one more word. If you were constantly hungry, that nothing ever satisfied you and your body tended to retain what it ate you'd look exactly like her. You'd never be able to deal with it because your brain would be flooded with input which you wouldn't be able to resist. Maybe you could get help and keep it under some control. A bypass perhaps. But probably you'd be screwed and certainly without outside help. But again prejudice based on willful ignorance never goes away. There must always be a my lover or ******.
I'm not sure how this differs from my post, which you completely discounted.
It's interesting how powerful (or, if you prefer, weak) the mind can be
Yes it is interesting. It's also interesting that the quote you decided to choose states there's much of a choice. You also cite something completely untrue with "the body doesn't want to be obese." Hell, there's enough ignorance right there to justify my choosing you. But, hey you know that blacks aren't educated and it's because we all know that they are shiftless and lazy. That's the equivalent. Your kind of ignorance is exactly the kind that tags people as being shiftless and lazy and weak willed, and creates discrimination and hostility against people that have no more real control over their situation than those who are black. It's not willful ignorance. It's not the harm done. None of that counts. You don't want blacks to suffer those injustices. Wrongdoing isn't wrong unless it's for more fashionable groups. Well I suppose there's the "thin man's burden" option for you.I do find it interesting when people develop habitual behaviors that are so harmful.
Base-jumping is a one time thing that goes bad.
Obesity is the result of making the same choice over and over. And is easily correctable if you stop making that decision.
I'll be sucked back in.
Differs from your post?
Yes it is interesting. It's also interesting that the quote you decided to choose states there's much of a choice. You also cite something completely untrue with "the body doesn't want to be obese." Hell, there's enough ignorance right there to justify my choosing you. But, hey you know that blacks aren't educated and it's because we all know that they are shiftless and lazy. That's the equivalent. Your kind of ignorance is exactly the kind that tags people as being shiftless and lazy and weak willed, and creates discrimination and hostility against people that have no more real control over their situation than those who are black. It's not willful ignorance. It's not the harm done. None of that counts. You don't want blacks to suffer those injustices. Wrongdoing isn't wrong unless it's for more fashionable groups. Well I suppose there's the "thin man's burden" option for you.
This is true, of me as well as her.It's interesting how powerful (or, if you prefer, weak) the mind can be when it comes to compulsive behaviors. The body really doesn't want to be morbidly obese, and it takes a shit-ton of calories to maintain a body like that. If she started eating a normal, 2,000-calorie diet she would start shedding weight right away. I used to work with a woman who was about 475 pounds, and she ate Reese's cups compulsively all day - she put them away like Tic Tacs. I would conservatively guess that she ate 3,000 calories a day just in that one empty-calorie snacking behavior. This is not meant to make fun of these people - I, like most people, eat more crap than I should - but I do find it interesting when people develop habitual behaviors that are so harmful.
I AM constantly hungry. Always. I just ate a 10" Big River Grill pizza and I'm wanting (though not buying) a candy bar. My mouth is watering from thinking about it. That (and a far too sedentary lifestyle) is why I am ~40 pounds overweight. But nobody guaranteed me a certain caloric intake (or eternal gustatorial satisfaction) without side effects. I used to eat two Wendy's triples for lunch and maintained 125 lbs; now I cannot eat one double without gaining weight. Part of that may be the thyroid cancer or it may all be age, but either way my metabolism is what it is. I am not entitled to eat whatever I want and have others pay the consequences.Well one more word. If you were constantly hungry, that nothing ever satisfied you and your body tended to retain what it ate you'd look exactly like her. You'd never be able to deal with it because your brain would be flooded with input which you wouldn't be able to resist. Maybe you could get help and keep it under some control. A bypass perhaps. But probably you'd be screwed and certainly without outside help. But again prejudice based on willful ignorance never goes away. There must always be a my lover or ******.
Wrong, apparently.I am not entitled to eat whatever I want and have others pay the consequences.
Not so fast. Who says base jumping is a one time thing? If you continually lead a lifestyle that has a high probability to cause you to become disabled, and you are well aware of the risks yet you continue to do it anyways, then how is it different?
Again, I am not really trying to defend her, but if your standard is that she is not eligible for disability because she made the same bad choice over and over and was easily correctable, well you could apply that to a ton of things people do and get disabled doing. Do you hold them to that same standard?
