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

[shiranai]

As pointed out above, sexual attraction is about as hardwired in us as anything, but "I was genetically predisposed to do it" isn't (yet) a credible excuse for affairs or harassment. Unless we lessen responsibility for any behavior that involves lack of discipline in general, I don't understand why overeating deserves special consideration. Maybe celibate monks are a myth.

Regarding the CBC news article, doesn't the reported result conflict with the "(calories in) - (calories out)" idea of weight management? "Inactivity does not lead to fatness" suggests that my activity levels shouldn't affect how much I can eat before I start gaining weight. In other words, if I can eat four thousand calories per day without weight gain while adhering to a daily exercise regimen, I should be able to eat the same four thousand calories per day while completely sedentary without experiencing weight gain. That doesn't match my experience.

 

[Jeff7181]

You're wrong. Both SC and Kipper explained why earlier in this thread...

There was once a time when the most respected men of science around the world thought the world was flat, too. Just because an "expert" says it, doesn't make it true no matter how much proof they seem to have at the time. Why wouldn't a "healthcare professional" diagnose you with a disease they can treat? I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for this... but couldn't one call that job security? How's it any different from an IT professional that implements a system that requires constant maintenance? What benefit would it be to implement a system that requires no maintenance and lasts for 20 years?

At various points in my life I've struggled with what one might call addictions and I was told by "experts" that I had a disease and even that I needed to be medicated. There is nobody and nothing in this entire world that would ever convince me that addiction is a disease even after all the physical and mental pain I went through. I can't in good faith claim that my actions were the result of a disease and I'm proud to say I no longer struggle with chemical dependency.

 

[brikis98]

There was once a time when the most respected men of science around the world thought the world was flat, too. Just because an "expert" says it, doesn't make it true no matter how much proof they seem to have at the time. Why wouldn't a "healthcare professional" diagnose you with a disease they can treat? I'm sure I'll catch a lot of flack for this... but couldn't one call that job security? How's it any different from an IT professional that implements a system that requires constant maintenance? What benefit would it be to implement a system that requires no maintenance and lasts for 20 years?

At various points in my life I've struggled with what one might call addictions and I was told by "experts" that I had a disease and even that I needed to be medicated. There is nobody and nothing in this entire world that would ever convince me that addiction is a disease even after all the physical and mental pain I went through. I can't in good faith claim that my actions were the result of a disease and I'm proud to say I no longer struggle with chemical dependency.

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the words "theory" or "disease".

 

[VulgarDisplay]

A lot of people on this forum seem to have some very bizarre misconceptions around the term "disease". It seems that you guys believe that something is a disease only if:

1. You can only get it involuntarily through external forces, especially as the result of genetics (such as cancer) or some sort of virus/bacteria (such as the flu).
2. You can't do anything about it once you have it. Being diagnosed with a disease automatically means it's not your fault and you are totally helpless.

Both of these are utterly false and absurd. In regards to point #1, MANY diseases have a strong behavioral component. I doubt anyone would dispute that cancer, atherosclerosis and the flu are diseases, and yet the risk for each of them is heavily influenced by behavior: smoking increases your cancer risk, eating a crappy diet clogs your arteries, and not eating fruits & veggies and not sleeping enough can suppress your immune system, so you get the flu. Of course, there are genetic components involved too - some people are naturally more susceptible to cancer or atherosclerosis - but the same is true of obesity. And no, I don't just mean the small percentage of the population that has serious metabolic disorders, but the very significant part of the population that simply gains fat easier, has worse appetite regulation, and so on. As referenced in the articles I linked to in my previous reply, numerous studies have shown that addictions stem from equal parts genetics and behavior, so in terms of how you get them, they are no different than any other disease.

So what about point #2, what you do once diagnosed with a disease? I suppose some people might throw up their arms and give up, but the reaction to most diseases is to, you know, do something about it. If you have cancer you might get chemo, if you have atherosclerosis you start eating better and exercising and so on. Being diagnosed with obesity is no different: you start eating better and exercising.

So, in your infinite wisdom, exactly what allows you to classify cancer, atherosclerosis and the flu as diseases but not obesity?

Simply because you don't get cancer from stuffing your face full of ho ho's and twinkies. Although it wouldn't surprise me if twinkies gave you cancer. They have like an infinite shelf life.

 

[brikis98]

Simply because you don't get cancer from stuffing your face full of ho ho's and twinkies. Although it wouldn't surprise me if twinkies gave you cancer. They have like an infinite shelf life.

Except that a number of foods DO increase your risk of cancer, so by stuffing your face with them, you just got a disease. Stuffing your lungs with cigarettes, overexposing your skin to the sun, and numerous other behaviors can also give you cancer. So is cancer no longer a disease then?

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Walking outside your front door every day inscreases your risks of being hit by a car. Is being hit by a car a disease? We can argue our opinions over the issue till every poster in the health and fitness forum has raw fingertips, but it won't change the way people think. Opinions are like asshole's everyone has one, and they all stink.

 

[Jeff7181]

I don't think you quite understand the meaning of the words "theory" or "disease".

You can try to make your point by insulting me all you want. You'll never convince me that addiction is a disease. I've been there, recently. Calling one's own addiction a disease is a cop out... it's an excuse to continue destructive behavior under the guise that you can't help it any more than you can help developing MS. If I had it my way, any medical professional that called addiction a disease would have their license to practice medicine revoked.

 

[Pantlegz]

Except that a number of foods DO increase your risk of cancer, so by stuffing your face with them, you just got a disease. Stuffing your lungs with cigarettes, overexposing your skin to the sun, and numerous other behaviors can also give you cancer. So is cancer no longer a disease then?

The main difference I see between cancer and being obese is that at any point you can chose to not be obese. With cancer it has nothing to do with what you decide to do yourself. If you have lung cancer you can't decide to stop smoking and have it go away, with obesity a majority of the time it's that simple don't eat and you wont be fat.

 

[brikis98]

You can try to make your point by insulting me all you want. You'll never convince me that addiction is a disease.

Ah, right, the "I'm right you're wrong, I can't hear you, blah blah blah" argument.

Calling one's own addiction a disease is a cop out... it's an excuse to continue destructive behavior under the guise that you can't help it any more than you can help developing MS.

For the 100th time, just because you call it a "disease" does not mean you can't do anything about it! It's not a cop out and not an excuse to continue doing what you are doing. It's a way to identify the condition and figure out a way to treat it. Cancer and atherosclerosis are diseases, and if you know you have them, you DO something about it (chemo, diet, exercise, etc). Why do you think labeling obesity as a disease would be any different?

 

[brikis98]

With cancer it has nothing to do with what you decide to do yourself. If you have lung cancer you can't decide to stop smoking and have it go away, with obesity a majority of the time it's that simple don't eat and you wont be fat.

How a disease is treated has nothing to do with whether or not it's a disease. Some can't be cured with behavioral or dietary changes - such as cancer - but others can: for example, eating less junk food can help atherosclerosis, drinking less (or no) alcohol helps all sorts of liver diseases, eating less candy can help gum disease, eating more iron can help anemia, getting more vitamin C can cure scurvy, eating less salt may help hypertension and so on. Some diseases have no known treatments at all. Likewise, how you get the disease has no bearing on whether its a disease or not: some diseases are the result of behavior, others the result of genetics, others are due to external factors (bacteria, virus, etc) and still others a combination of numerous factors.

Moreover, "don't eat and you won't be fat" is anything but simple, in the same way that getting alcohols to stop drinking or drug addicts from getting high is anything but simple. While some people can lose weight easily, many cannot. As I've said many times in this thread, there are numerous social, economic, psychological and physiological reasons that losing weight can incredibly difficult for MANY people. If it wasn't, 2/3 of the country wouldn't be overweight.

 

[Kipper]

Walking outside your front door every day inscreases your risks of being hit by a car. Is being hit by a car a disease? We can argue our opinions over the issue till every poster in the health and fitness forum has raw fingertips, but it won't change the way people think. Opinions are like asshole's everyone has one, and they all stink.

Um...ok.

If you're trying to take the stance that being hit by a car could be considered a medical condition, you've got a hell of a fight ahead of you, because being hit by a car is not a physiological condition. It can cause certain conditions, but it is not a condition itself, given that cars have very little to do with human physiology. That much should be obvious. You clearly have a poor understanding of what constitutes "disease."

 

[Kipper]

The main difference I see between cancer and being obese is that at any point you can chose to not be obese. With cancer it has nothing to do with what you decide to do yourself. If you have lung cancer you can't decide to stop smoking and have it go away, with obesity a majority of the time it's that simple don't eat and you wont be fat.

This "difference" you perceive is in fact not a difference. A disease is not a light switch. It can't be turned on or off at will. You cannot simply decide to not be obese (as if anybody would CHOOSE to be obese) - this isn't like deciding to be Democrat or Repulblican. By definition, if diagnosed, while your weight remains within a certain range with no major change in body composition, you are obese. When someone falls below the weight criteria that define obesity, or their body composition radically changes, they are no longer obese, just like when malignant cells have been killed, excised, etc. cancer is in remission and the person is (technically) cancer-free.

Both conditions follow the same path of diagnosis-> intervention-> evaluation-> rediagnosis/reassessment (if necessary). The only difference between the two is the treatment. The gripe thus far has been how people acquire each condition, a condition which seems to me to be completely absurd and arbitrary.

 

[shiranai]

The disagreement I'm seeing comes from initial viewpoint: some of you are looking at this from the standpoint of "whose fault is this?", versus others who see it as "what *is* it, and how do we fix it?" Those of you who think that injecting "disease" into the discussion automatically absolves the afflicted of any personal responsibility will naturally find the idea of labeling addiction a disease to be unacceptable. However, the medical definition isn't concerned with fault; doctors merely identify and treat conditions, and their definition of "disease" reflects this mindset.

It also appears that some people are conflating the cause of the disease (overeating, ostensibly) with the disease itself (obesity). Cigarette addiction is not lung cancer.

Several people have raised the point that nobody wants to be overweight. I don't see how that fact is at all relevant. There are any number of behaviors with foreseeable, undesirable outcomes (e.g., procrastination, extramarital affairs, etc.) that people regularly choose to engage in anyway. Yet, when it involves something other than addiction, it's generally called lack of discipline or self-control, rather than disease. I'm not aware of any non-arbitrary bright-line rule to determine when lack of discipline turns into a disease.

 

[kalrith]

No, you were trying to disprove something that you assumed and we didn't say. I think that before you (or anybody else) tries to argue a point, you need to be a bit more educated on the subject matter. Just like I don't go into the Programming or Highly Technical forums and post about how Java or the iPhone sucks in a thread discussion, I assume others should do the same here. If I do go to another forum at AT, I'm open to learning new things and listening to opinions. You should be the same. I'm not being an elitist. People just need to have some semblance of understanding other than pure opinion before they try to comment on health issues.

I guess I'll have to go off to med school before I'm allowed to have a discussion in Health & Fitness just like everyone posting on P&N has a degree in political science. And I know you compared H&F to Programming and Highly Technical, but many of the discussions in H&F (such as this one) should be able to be participated in by those who neither have a degree nor work in the field.

If there were no H&F, then this would've been posted in OT. I'm pretty sure you can't say the same thing about what's posted in the Programming forum. That's because this is a social forum, not a technical forum. Your requirement of people needing "to have some semblance of understanding," before posting is anti-social, and IMO has no place in this forum. I wasn't trolling; I was trying to have a discussion based on what I know. According to you, what I know is not sufficient for me to be posting here, but I'm pretty sure it's not up to you to decide who is and isn't allowed to post in H&F.

And, as already mentioned, Kipper did say that, and that's what I was basing my post on. He didn't point out that they dismiss the BMI numbers for athletes until after my post. He said, "If your BMI is >30 for adults...you are obese." That statement led me to believe that Jay Cutler would be considered obese, and it was only after I made my post that Kipper said, Oh yeah, disregard my previous statement if it's in regards to an athlete. My post was based on information from two "professionals" in the field. I'm sorry that one of those professionals meant something different than he posted, but hopefully posting in H&F doesn't also require mind-reading.

Basically, if I want to be derided, talked down to, and chewed out for my posts by someone who thinks they know all the answers to the world, then I'll post in P&N. I shouldn't experience the same things in H&F.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I guess I'll have to go off to med school before I'm allowed to have a discussion in Health & Fitness just like everyone posting on P&N has a degree in political science. And I know you compared H&F to Programming and Highly Technical, but many of the discussions in H&F (such as this one) should be able to be participated in by those who neither have a degree nor work in the field.

If there were no H&F, then this would've been posted in OT. I'm pretty sure you can't say the same thing about what's posted in the Programming forum. That's because this is a social forum, not a technical forum. Your requirement of people needing "to have some semblance of understanding," before posting is anti-social, and IMO has no place in this forum. I wasn't trolling; I was trying to have a discussion based on what I know. According to you, what I know is not sufficient for me to be posting here, but I'm pretty sure it's not up to you to decide who is and isn't allowed to post in H&F.

And, as already mentioned, Kipper did say that, and that's what I was basing my post on. He didn't point out that they dismiss the BMI numbers for athletes until after my post. He said, "If your BMI is >30 for adults...you are obese." That statement led me to believe that Jay Cutler would be considered obese, and it was only after I made my post that Kipper said, Oh yeah, disregard my previous statement if it's in regards to an athlete. My post was based on information from two "professionals" in the field. I'm sorry that one of those professionals meant something different than he posted, but hopefully posting in H&F doesn't also require mind-reading.

Basically, if I want to be derided, talked down to, and chewed out for my posts by someone who thinks they know all the answers to the world, then I'll post in P&N. I shouldn't experience the same things in H&F.

You should post in P&N if you approach a subject without facts and just pure opinion. You had a very strongly opinionated stance, based on very little science. If you posted your mild opinion and asked a lot of question, then that's alright. But you didn't. You were condescending obesity and putting it down as something other than a disease. To me, it was harsh in itself essentially saying that "fatties are fat because they suck terribly at life." I was pointing out that they are not necessarily fat based only on their decisions. Ask questions, be curious, have a stance - that's great. Don't come out with fiery zeal on a subject that you don't know the facts on. You definitely don't have to know much about a subject to post on it. However, you SHOULD know enough to get by if you're going to make extreme statements and fight for a certain side.

 

[skace]

How's it any different from an IT professional that implements a system that requires constant maintenance? What benefit would it be to implement a system that requires no maintenance and lasts for 20 years?

As an IT Professional, if I had a system that required no maintenance, I'd be implementing it everywhere with a massive price premium and I'd retire on the earnings. What you are asking for is incredibly naive, just like the rest of your post.

 

[kalrith]

You should post in P&N if you approach a subject without facts and just pure opinion. You had a very strongly opinionated stance, based on very little science. If you posted your mild opinion and asked a lot of question, then that's alright. But you didn't.

Oh really? So, people shouldn't be allowed to post in H&F if it's only based on opinion? I must've missed that in the H&F rules.

I did have a very strongly opinionated stance, but I used a lot of words like I think, and set up my stance as my opinion. Also, I did ask a lot of questions, and even said I was trying to figure this out:

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.

I'm sure many of you will disagree with me, but that's how I see this.

I guess what I don't understand is your above paragraph compared to the quotes below:

To me, it sounds like obesity is only a disease if it disrupts normal functioning. What about the really large athlete such as the world's strongest man or a large football player? Since "NUMBERS drive the diagnosis of obesity," these examples would be said to have the disease of obesity even though for them it wouldn't "disrupt normal functioning."

So, this even holds true even for bodybuilders with extremely low BF%:

<Jay Cutler pic>

Jay Cutler is 5'9" and 254 lbs. for competition, which gives him a 37.5 BMI - well over the 30 required for obesity. I just want to make sure that you and Kipper are saying that the above picture is of someone suffering from obesity disease. If so, then I just don't get it.

The above quotes show my reasoning through this thread. I asked questions. I tried to gather information from those with experience in the field. I tried to formulate opinions based on that and tried to test my ideas with those who have experience in the field.

My last statement sums it up. I was trying to understand how someone can be labeled as obese strictly from the numbers, and how numbers automatically meant they were diseased when the same wasn't true for other diseases such as alcoholism.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Kalrith, do you think you're actually contributing at this point? This seems to have devolved into whining about SC being informed and correct.

I don't get why people have such a problem labeling obesity as a disease. As others have tried to stress, calling it a disease doesn't mitigate responsibility, which seems to be the real issue. The general populace seems to have a real problem with fat people and assigning blame, and it's more than a little sad.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Oh really? So, people shouldn't be allowed to post in H&F if it's only based on opinion? I must've missed that in the H&F rules, which were obviously written by you since you're the H&F moderator (Oh wait...you aren't? You certainly act like you think you are).

I did have a very strongly opinionated stance, but I used a lot of words like I think, and set up my stance as my opinion. Also, I did ask a lot of questions, and even said I was trying to figure this out:







The above quotes show my reasoning through this thread. I asked questions. I tried to gather information from those with experience in the field. I tried to formulate opinions based on that and tried to test my ideas with those who have experience in the field.

My last statement sums it up. I was trying to understand how someone can be labeled as obese strictly from the numbers, and how numbers automatically meant they were diseased when the same wasn't true for other diseases such as alcoholism.

Unfortunately none of that was good enough for you since I'm obviously too uneducated to post anywhere except P&N. As already mentioned thankfully it's not you who decides who posts in H&F; otherwise I'm sure it would just be a Rippetoe-SS lovefest with all deviants banned from the forums, especially if they posted anything based on opinion, which should absolutely not be allowed in any H&F thread.

I didn't catch your "I'm actually trying to learn about this" comment. The "I think's" and "then I just don't get it" came off as cynical to me, which you're now telling me weren't. This is why internet discussions can get so off base sometimes because text can be miscommunicated. I assumed sarcasm when you were being genuine - I apologize for that. I would be happy to answer any and all questions you have regarding obesity. I thought you were blindly spitting out opinion as fact, which was my fault. I understand that obesity has a big stigma to it due to its increased incidence and I'd like to share the knowledge I know to decrease this. Again, I'm sorry that I misread the spirit with which you were posting.

 

[kalrith]

Thanks, SC. I hate it when internet discussions come across completely differently than intended. I would like to learn more about this, because I've often been guilty of thinking along the lines of "Fatties just need to put down the donut and start exercising."

I've tried to change that thinking recently and not be judgmental of overweight people. I've never had much of a problem with my weight, so often in the past I would just look down on those that did and saw it as their fault. With the ever-increasing teenage obesity rates and having a son of my own, I'm more interested in actually finding out what's behind the increasing obesity rates and what can be done to stall or decrease those rates, especially the child/teen rates.

Unfortunately, I think this thread just confused me even more than before. I had never heard of obesity being called a disease before, so that kind of threw me off, and for whatever reason came across as a cop-out to me.

Then with all the talk of obesity diagnosis being driven by BMI numbers, we got to a point of contention with me which is that the BMI chart labels a lot of fit athletes as overweight or obese. I got off on that tangent more than I should have, and I can see why my examples could be inferred as cynical, but I can 100&#37; honestly say that they were not intended that way.

I'll read through some more of the links posted in this thread, and then come back with some better-stated questions for you.

And to everyone else, I'm sorry if it seemed like I derailed this thread. I was looking for answers, got miscontrued as whining/trolling/etc., and felt the need to stick up for myself.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

BMI is just a quick measurement; it's widely used because it's quick. If you have a BMI of 37 and you don't lift weights for 8 hours a day you're probably a tub of lard; if you do focus on building muscle mass there's other measurements they can use to check if you're within a healthy weight.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

BMI is just a quick measurement; it's widely used because it's quick. If you have a BMI of 37 and you don't lift weights for 8 hours a day you're probably a tub of lard; if you do focus on building muscle mass there's other measurements they can use to check if you're within a healthy weight.

Yes, this is perhaps the point I should've made early on in the thread. BMI has it's problems. It doesn't apply to those who have high LBMs. However, it's a great general tool and since you only need height and weight to calculate it, it's the most inexpensive anthropometric tool around. Most of the population that has a BMI>30 does not have that because they lift a ton of weights. For me, I weigh between 150-153lbs right now. That puts me at a BMI around 23.6. I am currently around 10% body fat and have a 30in waist. For me, BMI would be a perfectly good measure of obesity, even though I am extremely active and do lift weights quite a bit. To put this into perspective, I would have to weigh 195lbs at 5'7.5" to be considered obese. Either I would be swole as hell or very, very fat. See how this can make for a good, general, cheap diagnostic?