Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness.

[brikis98]

There's nothing wrong with any of that, in moderation. Tailgating once or twice a month or going out for ice cream are all perfectly ok. As long as you don't do it every day. I don't follow my diet to a T, I cheat and I treat myself on occasion. but it's just that a treat and not routine which is where it becomes an issue.

You sort of missed the point. You said that you never felt the pressure of the socio-economic forces in what you eat. I gave you a bunch of examples where you unquestionably have. There are countless more that we don't even think about. The point is that there are a huge number of outside forces that strongly influence what you eat. If you can keep the crap food in moderation, then sure, it won't be a problem. But you said yourself that you used to be fat, so obviously you weren't able to. And if you look at the stats, you are in the majority: 2/3 of the country is overweight and 1/3 obese.

They need to get their priorities straight, it's that simple. I work full time, go to school full time have 2 kids half the time. play football and go to the gym 2 days a week each. And I still have time to cook most of my meals, If I miss a meal it's because I don't have food in the house not that I don't have time to cook it. This rarely happens. And people don't need a big home cooked meal, they just need to watch what they're eating. And it's not that hard for the single mom to buy healthy food and take some time to teach the kids to prepare simple meals. Again, this is no excuse in my mind.

50 years ago, watching your diet didn't have to be a priority. Nowadays, it has to be, but many people haven't adapted to that. I'm happy that you've got it figured out now, but if you used to be fat, it shouldn't be surprising to you that others haven't.

It may be slightly cheaper but that doesn't mean you have to buy the cheapest thing in the store, if people wouldn't buy as much there would be less of it. I would much rather pay an extra 50 a week to eat better foods and be healthier and I think anyone that can afford it should do the same. If you can't afford it, then buy the cheaper food and don't buy enough to eat 7000 calories a day.

It's not slightly cheaper, it is orders of magnitude cheaper. If you read about what 200 calories of different types of foods cost you'll see that healthy, low calorie foods cost more on average. A lot more. Sugar, pasta, donuts, candy, potato chips and soda all clock in at under $0.50. Broccoli, carrots, grapes, peppers, and sliced turkey all come in at well over $1.50. "Based on a standard 2000-calorie diet, the researchers found a diet consisting primarily of calorie-dense foods costs $3.52 a day, but a diet consisting primarily of low-calorie food costs $36.32 a day". That is 3 to 12 times as much. To the MANY poor families in this country, that's a big deal, so it isn't too surprising that the lower classes tend to have much bigger problems with obesity. Of course, there are many other factors involved as well, such as education and culture, but the economics are pretty simple: unhealthy, crap food tends to cost MUCH less (and typically also takes less effort to prepare).

I know there are may sides to this argument and I may not be hitting all of them but in general society needs to change its outlook on health and stop accepting and coming up with excuses for people being over weight. It's not acceptable.

They aren't excuses. They are powerful influences that play a primary role in why the rate of obesity suddenly started to skyrocket in the 80's. And if we want to find a solution to the obesity epidemic, we cannot ignore them and just chalk it all up to laziness and weak wills.

 

[Jeff7181]

My two cents...

Calling obesity a disease is ridiculous. Obesity may be the symptom of some diseases, but being fat is no more a disease than bleeding out your ass. Maybe you have colon cancer, maybe you have hemorrhoids or maybe you have diverticulitis... but you do not have "bleeding ass disease."

To the person/people that don't believe there was a radical shift in the mentality of society (especially American society) in the 70's and 80's... wake up. That was a time when there were huge things going on in the food industry. Heavily processed foods and meals became common. Loaded with salt, loaded with sugar, loaded with all kinds of chemicals to preserve the food and enhance flavor, loaded with chemicals that prevent your brain from being told you're full.

To those who are screaming about personal responsibility... keep screaming, maybe eventually you'll get through to people and things will change.

I really have no sympathy for people who are overweight. There's no excuse for most people. None. Three things will go a LONG way for a large percentage of people out there: Stop eating heavily processed food, be conscious of how much you're eating and get off your ass once in a while.

 

[brikis98]

Calling obesity a disease is ridiculous. Obesity may be the symptom of some diseases, but being fat is no more a disease than bleeding out your ass. Maybe you have colon cancer, maybe you have hemorrhoids or maybe you have diverticulitis... but you do not have "bleeding ass disease."

Do you believe alcoholism or drug addiction is a disease?

To the person/people that don't believe there was a radical shift in the mentality of society (especially American society) in the 70's and 80's... wake up. That was a time when there were huge things going on in the food industry. Heavily processed foods and meals became common. Loaded with salt, loaded with sugar, loaded with all kinds of chemicals to preserve the food and enhance flavor, loaded with chemicals that prevent your brain from being told you're full.

You just completely contradicted yourself. The food industry suddenly dumping enormous quantities of processed crap into the food supply is in no way a change in the "mentality of society".

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I love how really fat people had to decide that obesity is a disease because the fact that they are stuffing their fucking faces full of ice cream and crisco has nothing to do with it.

Just like alcoholism is a disease...

Alcoholism isn't a disease either. If alcohol didn't exist people wouldn't drink it. Alcoholics just wrack'a'disprin like the fatties do.

People need to take some responsibility for their addictions and do something about them. Calling it a disease and saying you're powerless is bullshit.

 

[Kipper]

My two cents...

Calling obesity a disease is ridiculous. Obesity may be the symptom of some diseases, but being fat is no more a disease than bleeding out your ass. Maybe you have colon cancer, maybe you have hemorrhoids or maybe you have diverticulitis... but you do not have "bleeding ass disease."

Rectal bleeding is a symptom of a particular disease (as you suggested diverticulitis, colon cancer, etc.). Obesity is not a symptom. It is a definable pathologic state which disrupts normal functioning (ergo, a disease) and is even directly implicated in disease pathophysiology. There aren't many disease states that obesity is a symptom of, unless you are talking about conditions like Prader-Willi syndrome. Even then, obesity isn't treated as a symptom - it becomes a second condition in parallel.

It may be a matter of semantics, but labeling obesity a disease has certain advantages: it brings public attention to the condition, underscores its significance, and allows healthcare professionals to be reimbursed for treating it.

 

[Kipper]

Alcoholism isn't a disease either. If alcohol didn't exist people wouldn't drink it. Alcoholics just wrack'a'disprin like the fatties do.

People need to take some responsibility for their addictions and do something about them. Calling it a disease and saying you're powerless is bullshit.

A disease is, by definition, a condition that prevents normal function. Cancer is a condition that impairs normal functioning. Therefore, it is a disease.

A disease is, by definition, a condition that prevents normal function. Alcoholism is a condition which impairs normal functioning (both biological, physical and social). Therefore, it is a disease.

I don't see how the two are that different. Both are clear deviations from how normal human beings function. It seems that for you, how you acquire the condition is probably important in classifying a disease. But does that really change the current state of affairs? To be sure, it can help us to find the best way to treat, but how you get the condition doesn't change the condition in any material way.

 

[brikis98]

Alcoholism isn't a disease either.

I see. Have you ever actually known an alcoholic?

If alcohol didn't exist people wouldn't drink it.

Brilliant.

People need to take some responsibility for their addictions and do something about them. Calling it a disease and saying you're powerless is bullshit.

Actually, calling it a disease is precisely what lets you look for solutions and take action to do something about it. Saying obesity is purely a failure of will power is a great way to insult someone, but doesn't solve any problems.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

This is a silly argument to be having. Obesity has been proven to be multifaceted. Everything everybody states is true to some degree. To sum it up, here are things that either directly or indirectly lead to obesity:

Inactivity
Caloric Excess
Socioeconomic Status
Hypothalamic Function
Hormone Response and Receptor Ability
Disease
Accessory Genetics
Stress
Micro (and possibly macro) Nutrient Intake
Many, many more

You can all debate until your fingers drop off, crusty and bloodied from typing so vigorously. The fact is that not even top researchers in the world can explain exactly why obesity is rising and why it's around in the first place. Accept the fact that you can do things to fight being fat. In itself, being fat is not dangerous. If an individual participates in regular aerobic and weightlifting activities and has proper cholesterol and glucose levels, then he or she is at no higher risk (or very insignificantly increased risk). It's been shown repeatedly in longitudinal studies that fat people who exercise are just as healthy as skinny people who exercise.

So shut the hell up and keep working your bodies, whether you're 100lbs or 280lbs.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I see. Have you ever actually known an alcoholic?


Brilliant.


Actually, calling it a disease is precisely what lets you look for solutions and take action to do something about it. Saying obesity is purely a failure of will power is a great way to insult someone, but doesn't solve any problems.

I was an alcoholic. I just quit drinking because I was fucking my life up too much. An addiction is not a disease. Calling it a disease is a feel good back slapping way of taking the blame away from where it solely lies. I used to drink over 20 beers a day for about 5 years. I would wake up in my truck in the ditch. I would lose my keys or my wallet constantly because I was always blacked out and doing stupid shit. I was late to work every day, and when I showed up I was worthless too. Going to bed at 3:00a.m. and getting up at 6:00a.m. still drunk 7 days a week is hard work. Then I found some balls and instead of getting plastered all the time I stopped.

Alcoholism is not a disease it is an addiction. Addictions are cured by having some willpower and stopping the excessive behavior. The same thing applies to over eating

 

[kalrith]

I was an alcoholic. I just quit drinking because I was fucking my life up too much. An addiction is not a disease. Calling it a disease is a feel good back slapping way of taking the blame away from where it solely lies.

Alcoholism is not a disease it is an addiction. Addictions are cured by having some willpower and stopping the excessive behavior. The same thing applies to over eating

That's how I see it. I've never thought that calling obesity a disease does anything positive like raising awareness for the problem. I've seen it as blame-shifting from the individual.

We can do all the education, changing of food labels, etc. that we want, but if people think that them having obesity is no different than their neighbor having cancer, then they're going to feel like it's not their fault and they can't do anything to fix it.

But, I agree with SC. There are a lot of contributors and even the experts don't know the root of the obesity problems and how to fix them. While this was a nice discussion, I think the main thing to take away from it is that it's completely within each member's power to not be overweight. We just have to make the right choices and exercise some willpower.

I'll take it a step further and say to anyone who has kids that it's mostly within your power to determine whether your kid will be overweight or not, and it's really important to start teaching them the important of diet and exercise at a VERY early age.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Alcoholism isn't a disease either. If alcohol didn't exist people wouldn't drink it. Alcoholics just wrack'a'disprin like the fatties do.

People need to take some responsibility for their addictions and do something about them. Calling it a disease and saying you're powerless is bullshit.

You understand there is research demonstrating that an alcoholic's mind functions different than that of a normal person. Or are you just and ignorant twat who thinks their opinion is valid without any real knowledge of the subject at hand.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/06/ff_alcoholics_anonymous/

"But mind-altering substances slowly rob the cortex of so-called synaptic plasticity, which makes it harder for neurons to communicate with one another. When this happens, alcoholics become less likely to stop drinking, since their prefrontal cortex cannot effectively warn of the dangers of bad habits."

 

[surfsatwerk]

I was an alcoholic. I just quit drinking because I was fucking my life up too much. An addiction is not a disease. Calling it a disease is a feel good back slapping way of taking the blame away from where it solely lies. I used to drink over 20 beers a day for about 5 years. I would wake up in my truck in the ditch. I would lose my keys or my wallet constantly because I was always blacked out and doing stupid shit. I was late to work every day, and when I showed up I was worthless too. Going to bed at 3:00a.m. and getting up at 6:00a.m. still drunk 7 days a week is hard work. Then I found some balls and instead of getting plastered all the time I stopped.

Alcoholism is not a disease it is an addiction. Addictions are cured by having some willpower and stopping the excessive behavior. The same thing applies to over eating

You were never an alcoholic, you just drank a lot. There is a big difference.

 

[kalrith]

You were never an alcoholic, you just drank a lot. There is a big difference.

Please explain the difference. I thought that if someone drank 20 beers a day and it severely impacted their life that they were an alcoholic. Are you saying that he wasn't an alcoholic because he was able to quit?

If so, then an obese person who starts eating right and exercising and goes down to a healthy weight must not suffer from obesity disease.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Please explain the difference. I thought that if someone drank 20 beers a day and it severely impacted their life that they were an alcoholic. Are you saying that he wasn't an alcoholic because he was able to quit?

If so, then an obese person who starts eating right and exercising and goes down to a healthy weight must not suffer from obesity disease.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism

"Determining the exact quantity of alcohol that a person drinks is of much less importance than determining how his or her drinking affects relationships, jobs, educational goals, and family life. In fact, because the metabolism (how the body breaks down and processes) of alcohol is so individual, the quantity of alcohol consumed is not part of the criteria list for diagnosing either alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.One simple tool for beginning the diagnosis of alcoholism is called the CAGE questionnaire. It consists of four questions, with the first letters of each key word spelling out the word CAGE:

• Have you ever tried to Cut down on your drinking?
• Have you ever been Annoyed by anyone's comments about your drinking?
• Have you ever felt Guilty about your drinking?
• Do you ever need an Eye-opener (a morning drink of alcohol) to start the day)?"

The guy said he got tired of the effects of his drinking and quit. Alcoholics try to quit and can't despite the fact they recognize its effects on their lives.

There are many different groups that have a definition of Alcoholism but the one thing they always have in common is an inability to quit drinking despite a strong desire to stop drinking and an awareness that alcohol is destroying their lives.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism

"Determining the exact quantity of alcohol that a person drinks is of much less importance than determining how his or her drinking affects relationships, jobs, educational goals, and family life. In fact, because the metabolism (how the body breaks down and processes) of alcohol is so individual, the quantity of alcohol consumed is not part of the criteria list for diagnosing either alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.One simple tool for beginning the diagnosis of alcoholism is called the CAGE questionnaire. It consists of four questions, with the first letters of each key word spelling out the word CAGE:

• Have you ever tried to Cut down on your drinking?
• Have you ever been Annoyed by anyone's comments about your drinking?
• Have you ever felt Guilty about your drinking?
• Do you ever need an Eye-opener (a morning drink of alcohol) to start the day)?"

The guy said he got tired of the effects of his drinking and quit. Alcoholics try to quit and can't despite the fact they recognize its effects on their lives.

There are many different groups that have a definition of Alcoholism but the one thing they always have in common is an inability to quit drinking despite a strong desire to stop drinking and an awareness that alcohol is destroying their lives.

I agree entirely with this post. VulgarDisplay wasn't an alcoholic if it was easy for him to stop. Alcoholism IS a disease and, if you ever studied any psychology, you'd notice that they have anatomical changes because of it. Dopamine is a helluva compound and will make people do ANYTHING for it. Even mice, pretty simple creatures, will pull a lever until they die from starvation if it can continually hit the pleasure center.

Everyone in this thread is generalizing based on their experience. "I used to be fat and then I started exercising and now I'm not fat." That's great. It doesn't work like that for everybody. Perhaps you were fat due to profound laziness, but maybe for others laziness is less of a factor. "I used to drink a lot and I just stopped. I was an alcoholic." No. No you weren't. Alcoholism modifies the brain's anatomy (larger ventricles most noticeably). If you stop easily, you aren't an alcoholic. Quitting is very, very different, especially for people with a genetic predisposition. Essentially, I'm just saying that you cannot generalize about the public based purely on your experiences. If everybody did that, anecdotal evidence would be king and nothing would actually be proven. Go read some books. Go read some research. Relate it to your experience, but don't go running around thinking what you went through is exactly what everybody else experiences.

 

[kalrith]

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholismThere are many different groups that have a definition of Alcoholism but the one thing they always have in common is an inability to quit drinking despite a strong desire to stop drinking and an awareness that alcohol is destroying their lives.

My coworker has that with smoking. She has all sorts of health problems with smoking, knows it's going to kill her, tries to quit 2-3 times per year (for the past 5 years), and always fails. I guess she has nicotinism disease.

Or maybe she just has an addiction that she hasn't been able to kick to the curb. No, that can't be it.

 

[Deeko]

Your belief that all decisions are made in a vacuum is patently absurd. So is your implied belief that advertising doesn't matter. I am merely pointing out that social influences such as advertising and media misinformation greatly influence consumer choices (obviously), suggesting that people may not be making their choices with full understanding of what the consequences are. You or I may be able to look at a cereal shelf and distinguish the better options, but assuming that everybody is equipped to do so is a grave error at best. This also assumes that: such healthful options are readily accessible, which they may not be (but that is a different discussion entirely). It assumes implicitly that individuals can afford those choices, the capability to access healthcare services, that they are educated enough to make the correct choices, and that the etiology of the poor decision making is not secondary to any prevailing stressor. For example, I regularly work in a population of mostly men with multiple medical comorbidities, not to mention problems with housing, money, and possibly mental illness/substance abuse. Their health tends not to be a priority. Your position would be that their problems are their own fault entirely and nobody else's, correct?

The belief that individuals are solely responsible for their own fate is consistent with prevailing American belief in the "American Dream," so your viewpoint is understandable. But where it fails is in its attempt to overly simplify what is in fact a far, far, more complex problem than many of us realize. Your position also forces you to take the stance that two-thirds of the American public has somehow decided to become irresponsible about their health in the last thirty years, which is a bit of a difficult position to take.

And your "blame the individual" position does nothing but worsen the problem, not make it better. You see it as a personal problem, I see it as a social problem. One way of thinking contributes nothing to solving the problem, the other at least offers suggestions. The choice isn't hard to make here.

Again, like I said, if you think the afflicted individuals will feel more apt to change by telling them they can fix it, rather than its their fault, that's fine. Its just a semantic difference.

Also, I never said advertising doesn't work. I said the onus is still on the individual to make the decision. I also said that regardless of your stance on why people choose a particular food item to buy, it is absolutely the individual's choice to eat the quantities they do. You can eat McDonald's 5x a week and not get fat if all you get is a double cheeseburger and move on with your day.

Another part may involve stricter food labeling and advertising laws. If you are going to call it "bread", it should primarily be made of flour, salt, water & yeast. Otherwise, it should be called "bread substitute".

They used to have this, but the food industry kicked and screamed and bit until it was overturned.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

My coworker has that with smoking. She has all sorts of health problems with smoking, knows it's going to kill her, tries to quit 2-3 times per year (for the past 5 years), and always fails. I guess she has nicotinism disease.

Or maybe she just has an addiction that she hasn't been able to kick to the curb. No, that can't be it.

Addiction is disease. I don't understand how you could think addiction and disease are exclusive. Go read an abnormal psychology book on addiction. If you consider depression a disease then you should accept that drug addiction is a disease as well, although initiated by an individual's lifestyle at first. They both induce biochemical changes in the brain. These are physical changes that cause pathology. Sounds like a disease to me.

 

[kalrith]

Addiction is disease. I don't understand how you could think addiction and disease are exclusive. Go read an abnormal psychology book on addiction. If you consider depression a disease then you should accept that drug addiction is a disease as well, although initiated by an individual's lifestyle at first. They both induce biochemical changes in the brain. These are physical changes that cause pathology. Sounds like a disease to me.

So, going back to the difference between someone who suffers from alcoholism and someone who drinks 20 beers per day, I guess it's safe to assume that someone's weight doesn't mean that they suffer from obesity disease.

Where do we draw the line with that thinking? Others in this thread have basically said that the 1/3 of Americans who are obese should be labeled as having obesity disease, while many of them could be like VulgarDisplay and just decide to count calories and exercise and lose the weight, which from what's been stated means they don't suffer from a disease at all. If they suffered from a disease, then they wouldn't be able to lose the weight even if they desperately wanted to and knew it would be the death of them.

Once again, I think that labeling everyone who's obese as having a disease just takes the onus off of them rather than helping them to fix their problem. Is there any way to tell whether someone's fat because they like food and couch-warming or because they have "obesity disease"?

 

[Kipper]

That's how I see it. I've never thought that calling obesity a disease does anything positive like raising awareness for the problem. I've seen it as blame-shifting from the individual.

We can do all the education, changing of food labels, etc. that we want, but if people think that them having obesity is no different than their neighbor having cancer, then they're going to feel like it's not their fault and they can't do` anything to fix it.

But, I agree with SC. There are a lot of contributors and even the experts don't know the root of the obesity problems and how to fix them. While this was a nice discussion, I think the main thing to take away from it is that it's completely within each member's power to not be overweight. We just have to make the right choices and exercise some willpower.

I'll take it a step further and say to anyone who has kids that it's mostly within your power to determine whether your kid will be overweight or not, and it's really important to start teaching them the important of diet and exercise at a VERY early age.

So you're somehow going to take the stance that people with cancer don't do anything to try and solve the problem? Because that is what is implied by your statement - that conditions that aren't "anybody's fault" lead to complacency. What your approach fails to recognize is that complacency can arise out of a negative cycle which starts with cultural messages that place the blame squarely on the individual's shoulders and then passes the buck to the individual to clean up the mess. Multiple attempts at losing weight fail, and each successive attempt reinforces this message of cultural blame. Individuals lose their self-efficacy (that is, their belief that they can make a difference) and become poorly motivated.

There is also a failure to recognize the litany of biochemical and hormonal changes that take place once people start adding weight - interactions which we have only begun to tease out. Basically this means that the body defends its fat - and with three billion years of evolution behind it, it is certainly adept at doing so. You argue it's merely an issue of willpower, but have you ever tried to change a behavior radically? Even small changes can be notoriously difficult to make. And that's changing a SINGLE behavior. Treating a weight problem requires a huge shift in thinking - it's a bit more than simply "willpower." It also requires you to overcome your physiology to some extent, and in a contest of biology vs. willpower, the smart money is on biology.

Add to that a physical/social/gastronomic environment which is "obesogenic," and we have, in fact, set people up to fail. It's effectively like trying to get an alcoholic to quit drinking, while setting him up in a liquor store. Environment matters. A LOT. For example, the contestants on the "Biggest Loser" lose a ton of weight when in a particular environment. But once back at home, away from that environment, it is too easy to fall back into old habits - so the weight comes back. Unless, that is, you want to argue that there is some sort of massive ground shift in individual psychology once people leave the show.

The "complete individual responsibility" argument only applies when the environment is set up for people to succeed. Clearly, the status quo is that it is not.

 

[Kipper]

So, going back to the difference between someone who suffers from alcoholism and someone who drinks 20 beers per day, I guess it's safe to assume that someone's weight doesn't mean that they suffer from obesity disease.

Where do we draw the line with that thinking? Others in this thread have basically said that the 1/3 of Americans who are obese should be labeled as having obesity disease, while many of them could be like VulgarDisplay and just decide to count calories and exercise and lose the weight, which from what's been stated means they don't suffer from a disease at all. If they suffered from a disease, then they wouldn't be able to lose the weight even if they desperately wanted to and knew it would be the death of them.

Once again, I think that labeling everyone who's obese as having a disease just takes the onus off of them rather than helping them to fix their problem. Is there any way to tell whether someone's fat because they like food and couch-warming or because they have "obesity disease"?

If your BMI is >30 for adults, or 120% of the 95% percentile for children or a BMI of 35+, you are obese. That is the diagnostic criteria. Nothing more, nothing less. It isn't as simple a diagnosis as alcohol dependency disorder (alcoholism) because there are additional criteria measured, such as alcohol use and its effect on function, etc. A person who cannot sleep without a drink a night might fall into that diagnostic criteria, although I am hardly qualified to make that assessment. With obesity, your ability to lose the weight is a non-issue when it comes to diagnosis - it is the numbers that drive the diagnosis, just like a ton of other disease states. Fasting sugars drive the diagnosis for diabetes. Blood pressure readings drive the diagnosis for hypertension. Cholesterol levels drive the diagnosis for elevated cholesterol and use of drugs.

Whether or not someone is motivated enough to lose the weight is a different story entirely. Some are more motivated than others, but placing the blame squarely on their shoulders when there are clearly mitigating circumstances is the wrong cultural message to send. Blaming people is not a particularly effective strategy to motivate them to action, and is a glib conclusion to draw when there are CLEARLY environmental variables at work (some apparent, some less so) that impair a person's ability to maintain their weight.

It's true, nobody can lose the weight for these people except them. But that doesn't mean you have to blame them for everything. It prevents an appropriate dialogue from taking place and radical reform of the food system (which is an obesity-fostering environment). Meanwhile, the obese become diabetic, diabetics develop kidney disease, and kids keep on getting fatter. All because it's easier to ignore environment, social factors, and use the fat person as a scapegoat.

 

[kalrith]

You were never an alcoholic, you just drank a lot. There is a big difference.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/alcoholism

The guy said he got tired of the effects of his drinking and quit. Alcoholics try to quit and can't despite the fact they recognize its effects on their lives.

There are many different groups that have a definition of Alcoholism but the one thing they always have in common is an inability to quit drinking despite a strong desire to stop drinking and an awareness that alcohol is destroying their lives.

I agree entirely with this post. VulgarDisplay wasn't an alcoholic if it was easy for him to stop.

Kipper, what I was trying to argue is the idea that everyone who's obese suffers from a disease. As previously stated, VulgarDisplay didn't suffer from alcoholism just because he drank 20 beers per day. Whereas someone else who drinks 20 beers (or much less) per day can suffer from alcoholism. The evidence that he wasn't suffering from alcoholism was that he just up and decided to quit one day.

Let's apply that to obesity. You have Jim Bob who lives a sedentary lifestyle and eats 6,000 calories per day. He's obese according to his BMI. He knows he needs to change and has tried several fad diets, exercising, etc. but none of it has put him into a healthy weight category. He must be suffering from obesity disease.

Then, you have Joe Schmoe who lives a sedentary lifestyle and eats 7,000 calories per day. He's morbidly obese according to his BMI. One day he decides he's had enough and starts to exercise for 2 hours per week and eat 3,000 calories. He drops down to a healthy weight. Obviously since he can up and decide to quit, he doesn't suffer from obesity disease.

That's what I'm arguing. You can look at Jim Bob and Joe Schmoe, and they are both obese; however, if you can't tell whether someone's an alcoholic by how many drinks they have, then I think that you can't tell if someone suffers from obesity disease by how fat they are.

But, how do we distinguish between that, and is it important that we do? I'm asking this honestly in an attempt to try to learn more about this. If we can't make a blanket statement that everyone who drinks 20 beers or more per day is an alcoholic, then I don't think we can make a blanket statement that everyone who's obese according to BMI suffers from a disease.

As SC already said, someone can be overweight and exercise and not have the severe health problems of someone who's overweight and sedentary. However, we could look at both of those individuals and say, "You must be suffering from obesity disease. The only way to solve this is to send you off to fat camp for the summer. Oh, you can't afford fat camp? I guess there's no hope for you, because you can't fight this disease without proper treatment ".

The problem I see with this is that it (a) labels those who are healthy but overweight as having a problem, (b) tells those without a disease that they can't fight their obesity without proper treatment, and (c) places the emphasis on the government or medical professionals to solve the problem, thus removing the hard-work component from those who truly are suffering from the disease.

I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, but that's how I see this. I don't know the right way to treat this, but I do know that even if it is a disease, it's still going to take a lot of hard work for people to change from being obese to healthy and fit, and I just feel like labeling it as a disease places the work component on somebody else rather than on themselves.

And it's not like alcohol or smoking in that they can just avoid the catalysts to their addictions (not that it's that simple, just saying that they absolutely can't avoid food). Unless someone puts a padlock on the fridge and regulates what goes in and out, it's going to take probably a lot more hard work and willpower than fighting other diseases, which are largely treated by doctor's rather than by constant 24/7 effort from the patients. Unless we can label it as a disease and show people that it takes both treatments and a helluva lot of hard work, then I think the disease label is counterproductive.

I totally realize that it does nothing to point the finger at the obese and say, "It's all your fault, fatty! Put down the donut, get off your ass, and do something about it!" But I think it also does nothing to say, "You're obese because you have a disease. It's not your fault. It's not any different than having cancer." The last statement might work if there's some sort of education and motivation for doing a whole lot of hard work on their own, but simply labeling as a disease and marketing it as such has the potential for making people even less motivated to do anything about it. "Hey, Fred. I just saw on TV that I'm obese because I have a disease. Isn't that great!? All this time I was blaming myself for eating bon-bons and watching 15 hours of TV per day, and I now I know that it's the fault of a disease and not the fault of my own. I can finally rest easy tonight...with my CPAP machine, of course."

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

And regardless of your cute little tirade about the poor, defenseless American being "blitzkrieged" (ha, who is making the horrible analogy now, what a pathetic invocation of Godwin's law) - the consumer DOES 100% control how much they eat, regardless of your stance on how we choose what to buy.

Just wanted to highlight this strange comment. "Blitzkrieg" in no way invokes Godwin's law. It's a common word that is perfectly appropriate to describe a potent, widespread, ongoing media campaign.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Very good post, Kalrith. I agree that there is a valid distinction between the people with a condition that prevents them from losing weight and those who simply choose not to, even if they are both called "obese." Not only that, but there is a whole spectrum of people in between in terms of ability, motivation, and history.

I think it's pretty sad to see so many reductionist arguments that either cast fat people as victims or lazy, unmotivated pigs.

 

[kalrith]

I think it's pretty sad to see so many reductionist arguments that either cast fat people as victims or lazy, unmotivated pigs.

Obviously they can only be one or the other . This thread is just trying to come to the scientific conclusion of which it is. I vote for pigs, because I like bacon. It doesn't get more scientific than that!