Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, October 17, 2009
Health The Weight Obsession
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:04 AM
"Since you are so interested in the health of fat people," writes King, "don't miss this story..."
Here's the headline: "Be Overweight And Live Longer, German Study Suggests." And that's where King stopped reading. The studies authors write that "contrary to what was previously assumed" being overweight is not increasing the death rate in Germany. But if you keep reading...
The Süddeutsche Zeitung published an advance notice of the report, which shows that overweight does not increase death rates, although obesity does increase them by 20%. As people grow older, obesity makes less and less difference. For coronary heart disease, overweight increases risk by about 20% and obesity increases it by about 50%. On the other hand, a larger BMI is associated with a lower risk of bone and hip fracture. In relation to cancer, the overall death rate among extremely obese men (BMI above 40) is no higher than among those of normal weight. Men who are overweight even have a 7% lower death rate. No significant association was found in women.According to the authors' analysis, overall mortality is unchanged by overweight, but increased by 20% by obesity, while extreme obesity raises it by up to 200%.
I didn't find this stuff in the fine print; the above quote begins at the third paragraph of the abstract. So, yes, maybe mortality is "unchanged by overweight," but the study found that obesity is clearly a health risk: mortality is increased by 20% for the obese, 200% for the extremely obese. So don't read that headline and decide that weight is a non-issue where health is concerned.
And speaking of assumptions: I'm not really all that interested in the health of fat people. I actually believe, as I wrote in "Savage Love" this week, that "our bodies are our own, FAT; they're ours to use, abuse, and, since we're all going to die one day, they're ours to use up." I don't have a problem with people who are overweight, or even obese, and think sane people have a right to take calculated health risks in pursuit of pleasure. If food makes you happy and you're happy with your size, knock yourself out. You don't have to justify your size or your pleasures to me or anyone else. What I do have a problem with is being told that the sky is green and the grass is blue, e.g.. with being told that there's no relationship between diet, exercise, lifestyle, and weight, and that only a bigot would to suggest that there is.
Getting back to the study: that headline seems incredibly misleading. The study found, again, that "being overweight is not increasing the overall death rate," and that, "overall mortality is unchanged by overweight." It did not find, according to the abstract, that being overweight is good for you or leads to a longer life. But it did find that obesity is a health risk—not that I give a shit. It's your body, use it up. And even if being overweight isn't a health risk—per this study—being overweight points to potential health problems down the road. All obese people were overweight people at one time—you can't get to obese without passing through overweight—so being overweight is a step toward the potential negative health consequences that come with obesity.
Not that I give a shit.
4
Hey!
If people want to ButtFuck and make their Asses leak and get AIDS why should anyone else care?
It's not like their FAT or anything....
If people want to ButtFuck and make their Asses leak and get AIDS why should anyone else care?
It's not like their FAT or anything....
5
Isn't it a strange
and totally unexplainable
(but so so very unfair)
coincidence that
Homosexual Men
account for 59%
of all new AIDS cases?
and totally unexplainable
(but so so very unfair)
coincidence that
Homosexual Men
account for 59%
of all new AIDS cases?
6
you obviously have learned a lot from people who spend their time online justifying their hate of homosexuals without ever outright saying it.
9
That is a misleading headline...and I agree with Dan that people are free to use and abuse themselves however they want. Fat people are generally fat because of their behavior (calories consumed - calories used = pounds gained), and I have no desire to regulate that behavior. But, there is definitely a societal cost that should be recognized, especially if we move forward with a public option in health care.
10
"What I do have a problem with is being told that the sky is green and the grass is blue, e.g.. with being told that there's no relationship between diet, exercise, lifestyle, and weight, and that only a bigot would to suggest that there is."
Who told you that? Grossly misrepresenting your detractors is one way to win an argument, I suppose.
Who told you that? Grossly misrepresenting your detractors is one way to win an argument, I suppose.
11
Well, I guess Dan will get his revenge when Obamacare passes, because it provides that overweight people, smokers, and others with "unhealthy lifestyles" will have to pay higher premiums (if they're even able to get insurance at all).
12
@11 - Umm...You are aware that obese people and smokers already have to pay higher premiums - aren't you?
13
At least the State doesn't contribute to the obesity problem by giving a $1/gallon tax credit for corn syrup retail.
Oh wait...
Syrup Tax Credit [945]
Effective July 1, 2006, retailers that pay syrup tax when buying carbonated beverage syrup to make carbonated fountain drinks can claim a B&O tax credit. The portion of the syrup tax allowed as a credit increases each year as follows: July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 – 25%; July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 – 50%; July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 – 75%; After June 30, 2009 – 100%. The credit must be claimed in the tax reporting period in which the syrup was purchased. The B&O tax credit can not be refunded. No credit is allowed for syrup tax paid prior to July 1, 2006. The credit is itemized on the Credits section of the excise tax return. (Substitute Senate Bill 6533, Chapter 245, Laws of 2006)
Oh wait...
Syrup Tax Credit [945]
Effective July 1, 2006, retailers that pay syrup tax when buying carbonated beverage syrup to make carbonated fountain drinks can claim a B&O tax credit. The portion of the syrup tax allowed as a credit increases each year as follows: July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 – 25%; July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 – 50%; July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 – 75%; After June 30, 2009 – 100%. The credit must be claimed in the tax reporting period in which the syrup was purchased. The B&O tax credit can not be refunded. No credit is allowed for syrup tax paid prior to July 1, 2006. The credit is itemized on the Credits section of the excise tax return. (Substitute Senate Bill 6533, Chapter 245, Laws of 2006)
14
Acknowledging the health risks of being overweight is tantamount to hatred. Fat people are wonderful and magical and beautiful and give the best hugs. Stop being such a Hitler.
15
next up: "not that i give a shit" postings about pit bulls.
"I don't have a problem with people who are overweight, or even obese.." that statement is Dan telling us the sky is green. i have to say that i LOVE the "even obese" add on. WOW! Dan doesn't have a problem with the overweight or EVEN with the obese! he's just so accepting of everyone. someone give him a humanitarian award!
one part of the post i do believe is that he's "not really all that interested in the health of fat people."
"I don't have a problem with people who are overweight, or even obese.." that statement is Dan telling us the sky is green. i have to say that i LOVE the "even obese" add on. WOW! Dan doesn't have a problem with the overweight or EVEN with the obese! he's just so accepting of everyone. someone give him a humanitarian award!
one part of the post i do believe is that he's "not really all that interested in the health of fat people."
16
I stopped being fat this year. It wasn't the easiest thing ever, but it was really simple; stop eating so fucking much. And exercise.
Anyone who's fat and acts like they're an oppressed minority needs to STFU. What you are is an overindulgent whiner. Exercise some self control and gain some self respect in the process. And don't tell me you already have self respect because if you did you wouldn't be such a crybaby.
Anyone who's fat and acts like they're an oppressed minority needs to STFU. What you are is an overindulgent whiner. Exercise some self control and gain some self respect in the process. And don't tell me you already have self respect because if you did you wouldn't be such a crybaby.
17
#16, I agree with your first paragraph. It really is easy to eat healthy and exercise, especially when you begin losing weight. I've been working at this for a while now, and I've lost 41 pounds, simply by exercising for half an hour five days a week and cutting processed foods, white flour, sugar, and rice out of my diet. That's all I did. No white flour, no white sugar, no white rice. Nothing pre-made in a box. Exercise for half and hour five days a week.
Yes, brown rice and whole wheat bread are more expensive than white. I budget. I didn't join a gym. I saved my money and bought some 8-pound hand weights, a mat, and an elliptical machine.
I also learned to cook. Learning to make healthy and delicious meals is very important. And eating something delicious that isn't unhealthy is enormously more enjoyable than eating something delicious that is. I've found that emotional enjoyment of food is just as important to me as physical enjoyment.
I've lost 40 pounds and I feel 10 years younger. It's not easy, but it is possible.
Yes, brown rice and whole wheat bread are more expensive than white. I budget. I didn't join a gym. I saved my money and bought some 8-pound hand weights, a mat, and an elliptical machine.
I also learned to cook. Learning to make healthy and delicious meals is very important. And eating something delicious that isn't unhealthy is enormously more enjoyable than eating something delicious that is. I've found that emotional enjoyment of food is just as important to me as physical enjoyment.
I've lost 40 pounds and I feel 10 years younger. It's not easy, but it is possible.
18
BMI is a poor measure of health in general... I'm 6'4" and 265 pounds. According to the BMI I am obese. I'm in good shape, I eat well, and have incorporated an exercie routine in the last few months to shed the weight I put on when I transitioned to working on my fee to working at a desk. I'll till be considered obese till I reach 245 pounds, and will be considered overweight until I'm down to 205 pounds. I'm broad-shouldered and tall and I don't think that being under 200 pounds is a good weight for me. Basically, because I'm a few standard deviations from normal height and body shape, BMI indicates that I'm obese when I might be considered overweight by real people, and it indicates I'm overweight when I'm within my ideal weight. If I dipped far into what the scale considers normal then I would be underweight.
Rather than trying to find correlation between increased health risks on BMI, a scale that is distorted for anyone who isn't a very average height and weight we could look for correlations in diet (Cholesterol causes heart attacks. Surprise! Vegetarians have a healthier lifestyle. Who knew?) body fat (BMI is not a measure of body fat and many professional athletes are "obese;") exercise routines (If you sit on the couch all day, it doesn't matter how much you're not eating;) and other risk factors (Smoking causes cancer, but it reduces appetite. A number of smokers might be obese if they quit smoking, but they should still quit smoking.)
Or, long story short, we could all be a little healthier, but as long as we continue to pay attention to BMI instead of real risk factors, no one's going to improve their health.
And by the way folks, this is what obesity looks like.
More...
Rather than trying to find correlation between increased health risks on BMI, a scale that is distorted for anyone who isn't a very average height and weight we could look for correlations in diet (Cholesterol causes heart attacks. Surprise! Vegetarians have a healthier lifestyle. Who knew?) body fat (BMI is not a measure of body fat and many professional athletes are "obese;") exercise routines (If you sit on the couch all day, it doesn't matter how much you're not eating;) and other risk factors (Smoking causes cancer, but it reduces appetite. A number of smokers might be obese if they quit smoking, but they should still quit smoking.)
Or, long story short, we could all be a little healthier, but as long as we continue to pay attention to BMI instead of real risk factors, no one's going to improve their health.
And by the way folks, this is what obesity looks like.
20
Nice MySpace-angle on that pic. Chin positioned parallel to the neck to hide double chin, arms and breasts and loose clothing obscure gut.
Now, she DOES look nice, however, she COULD stand to lose some weight and pretending she ISN'T overweight just because she carries it well does nothing but provide cover for all those fatties that DON'T carry it well.
Now, she DOES look nice, however, she COULD stand to lose some weight and pretending she ISN'T overweight just because she carries it well does nothing but provide cover for all those fatties that DON'T carry it well.
22
"I don't have a problem with people who are overweight, or even obese, and think sane people have a right to take calculated health risks in pursuit of pleasure."
I have a problem when I have to pay for it. Smokers have to a pay for their habit both with insurance rates and every single time they decide to indulge their habit.
Fatties should be held to the same standard.
I have a problem when I have to pay for it. Smokers have to a pay for their habit both with insurance rates and every single time they decide to indulge their habit.
Fatties should be held to the same standard.
24
#21. The same could be said for me. I lost weight faster in the beginning. I'd still like to lose another 30 pounds. "Skinny" isn't my goal, but I'd like to be thin. But the losing is slowing down, and it's kind of depressing to think I'll have to eat even less if I want to keep this up. And the thought of gaining it all back is frightening.
We'll see...
We'll see...
25
@24, not less, just better.
Good time to plug my current read:
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-…
Good time to plug my current read:
http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-…
26
Dan thank you so much for writing this.
I'm fat -- I know it, I know it's because of what I put in my mouth and shouldn't be blamed on any secret hidden medical condition, and I don't expect the rest of the world to make sure there are accommodations for fatties.
However, I also work at a popular plus size women's clothing store, and am SO tired of hearing about thyroid issues and slow metabolism. No, it couldn't have anything to do with six pretzel dogs the fatty shoved down her throat.
Oh, and @22, obese people do have higher insurance rates, and since the easiest way to become obese is eating in excess, we do pay more to indulge our habit... just like smokers.
I'm fat -- I know it, I know it's because of what I put in my mouth and shouldn't be blamed on any secret hidden medical condition, and I don't expect the rest of the world to make sure there are accommodations for fatties.
However, I also work at a popular plus size women's clothing store, and am SO tired of hearing about thyroid issues and slow metabolism. No, it couldn't have anything to do with six pretzel dogs the fatty shoved down her throat.
Oh, and @22, obese people do have higher insurance rates, and since the easiest way to become obese is eating in excess, we do pay more to indulge our habit... just like smokers.
27
@26, oh so you pay a special fat tax on your bonbons and hohos? No, I don't think so. Please reread my post if you missed the part about smokers paying for the state to take care of their habit.
28
#25. Thank you for reminding me about this book. I've seen Pollan in a lot of interviews, but have not read his books. I just ordered them.
29
@28, No problem it is a REALLY eye opening book. Haven't even finished it yet, but it's already changed my life... well at least it changed my lunch. :D Did you you that SPAM has as many ingredients as Tyson's 'All Natural' Chicken? That should give you a pause. Just started the part on 'Industrial Organic' and I'm quite sure I'm gonna like what I read... :/
30
Check out this cool photo tagging software called Fotobounce! It can help you sort your images using face recognition! It can also download & tag your photos from facebook & flickr! You can get it for free at: www.Fotohotline.com
32
@31 Good deal. A sin tax combined with the removal of state subsidies to support that crap (the US government spends billions to keep corn cheap, most of which is turned into state subsidized High Fructose Corn Syrup [aka fake sugar, but all real negative side effects]) would go a long way to curbing obesity in this nation.
33
#29, I usually (mostly) buy organic everything, and actually drag my butt to the Farmers Market every Saturday during the season. And I buy local as much as I can.
The chapter on "Industrial Organic" alone will be worth the price of the book.
The chapter on "Industrial Organic" alone will be worth the price of the book.
34
@33... Ack, that should read.... NOT gonna like what I read.... ;)
Yeah, a buddy of mine is a farmer out in Oklahoma (stayed at his place earlier this year when me and the wife moved from Seattle to bumfuck NC) and he is a big fan of Pollan and Salatin, he's transitioning his Industrial monoculture farm into a poly-faced farm a little more each year. He's the one that made me buy the book. Apparently, at least from his perspective he is pretty spot on.
He's moving away from the Industrial Agriculture model, but not as fast as he would like. It's hard to wean yourself off the gubment teat.... that applies to the lauded farmers as much as the maligned welfare queens.
Yeah, a buddy of mine is a farmer out in Oklahoma (stayed at his place earlier this year when me and the wife moved from Seattle to bumfuck NC) and he is a big fan of Pollan and Salatin, he's transitioning his Industrial monoculture farm into a poly-faced farm a little more each year. He's the one that made me buy the book. Apparently, at least from his perspective he is pretty spot on.
He's moving away from the Industrial Agriculture model, but not as fast as he would like. It's hard to wean yourself off the gubment teat.... that applies to the lauded farmers as much as the maligned welfare queens.
35
@22 How do you define who is fat? BMI fails as it doesn't measure adiposity (fatness), it's just a relationship between height and weight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_i…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_i…
36
@35, the Would I Do Her Test, is a very complicated scientific system that really can't be explained on a Blog... ;)
But just to put things in perspective my wife is a size 16 (at a little under 6'2") so I'm talking eating disorder skinny here.... when I talk about a fatties, I mean real fatties, where it is unhealthy, not just those who have some meat on their bones...
But just to put things in perspective my wife is a size 16 (at a little under 6'2") so I'm talking eating disorder skinny here.... when I talk about a fatties, I mean real fatties, where it is unhealthy, not just those who have some meat on their bones...
38
@18
Indeed, BMI is not a good measure of how "fat" you are. Both Michael Jordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese on the BMI charts that doctors use.
BMI is also misused by doctors and nutritionists. Most will recommend anyone with an above average BMI should lose weight, ignoring that there is a natural genetic distribution of BMI. So people who are at their natural weight end up dieting, but fighting your natural weight is futile and usually results in weight gain.
That said, obesity is a real epidemic. I blame corn syrup.
Indeed, BMI is not a good measure of how "fat" you are. Both Michael Jordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered obese on the BMI charts that doctors use.
BMI is also misused by doctors and nutritionists. Most will recommend anyone with an above average BMI should lose weight, ignoring that there is a natural genetic distribution of BMI. So people who are at their natural weight end up dieting, but fighting your natural weight is futile and usually results in weight gain.
That said, obesity is a real epidemic. I blame corn syrup.
39
All these comments and no mention of Meghan McCain? If it was featured on SLOG, I missed it. Blogsearch "meghan mccain twitter boobs" to find lively discussions and lovely descriptions of fatty tissue and other weighty topics.
[god, this comment looks like @30jaynne's spam. sorry]
[god, this comment looks like @30jaynne's spam. sorry]
40
#36.
hahaha! One night, while watching The Daily Show, some stupid diet show before-and-after commercial came on, and I said, "God, if the "before" girl is fat, I'm a goddamn whale," and my spouse said, "I do both of them."
Reason number 7,927,658,761,037 of why I married him.
the Would I Do Her Test, is a very complicated scientific system that really can't be explained on a Blog...
hahaha! One night, while watching The Daily Show, some stupid diet show before-and-after commercial came on, and I said, "God, if the "before" girl is fat, I'm a goddamn whale," and my spouse said, "I do both of them."
Reason number 7,927,658,761,037 of why I married him.
41
@38 I'm not denying obesity is a rising problem for Americans. (Though 'epidemic' is kind of a lousy metaphor, it is a social disease.)
However given that the BMI is bullshit (which it is) any study which relies on BMI, like this one, is probably bullshit as well.
However given that the BMI is bullshit (which it is) any study which relies on BMI, like this one, is probably bullshit as well.
42
@41.... Rising? RISING? We are the fattest country in the world and have been for a while now. Obesity now costs the taxpayer more than smoking. This isn't some new RISING problem, but is a long standing national epidemic that has to be halted and reversed. I don't care how you measure it, we are fat nation, and our national health (and healthcare system) is paying the price for it (just look at our life expectancy compared to W. Europe and Japan).
43
Exercise doesn't make you lose weight. It makes you lose weight faster. Proper diet makes you lose weight.
The problem is that the majority of obese people are low income people who can't afford proper food. So they wind up eating shit food full of empty calories.
Wanna get rid of the fatties? Give them something good to eat.
The problem is that the majority of obese people are low income people who can't afford proper food. So they wind up eating shit food full of empty calories.
Wanna get rid of the fatties? Give them something good to eat.
45
I think they're more pissed that you treat fat people like lepers. Whenever there's a call for cover models, it's always the skinny twinks that get the part. Oh wait- you DID feature a fat person, but you used a photo that likened them to a beached whale.
46
@9 says, "But, there is definitely a societal cost that should be recognized, especially if we move forward with a public option in health care."
I think this is bullshit. Who is going to cost more in the long run, a fat person that dies prematurely from a heart attack or stroke, or a person who lives a long time, but must be treated for age-related degenerative conditions, convalescence, etc? We wouldn't have to worry about paying for these baby boomers if they still had their parents' life spans. At best, it's a bust as far as cost.
Obesity is prevalent in my mother's family. They all tend to drop dead, as opposed to having long, drawn-out health issues, like my father's family, who are naturally thinner and live longer, but require more actual healthcare in terms of treatment, over a longer period of time.
Clearly, rising waters raise all boats. Medical advances have allowed us to live longer, but at what cost? We just end up being able to treat once terminal illnesses for a longer period of time, before they eventually kill us. We leave a larger healthcare bill when we go, that's all.
I think this is bullshit. Who is going to cost more in the long run, a fat person that dies prematurely from a heart attack or stroke, or a person who lives a long time, but must be treated for age-related degenerative conditions, convalescence, etc? We wouldn't have to worry about paying for these baby boomers if they still had their parents' life spans. At best, it's a bust as far as cost.
Obesity is prevalent in my mother's family. They all tend to drop dead, as opposed to having long, drawn-out health issues, like my father's family, who are naturally thinner and live longer, but require more actual healthcare in terms of treatment, over a longer period of time.
Clearly, rising waters raise all boats. Medical advances have allowed us to live longer, but at what cost? We just end up being able to treat once terminal illnesses for a longer period of time, before they eventually kill us. We leave a larger healthcare bill when we go, that's all.
47
@46, yeah, but how long is that obese person on Insulin that we have to pay for? And when the diabetes starts taking limbs who pays for that surgery? And when the eyesight goes, who pays for that care?
What about when the fact that they are just fat fucks starts to impact their knees and hips? We all gonna pay so they can get a Rascal? We gonna pay their Social Security Disability payments?
Seriously dude/babe, are you honestly trying to argue that unhealthy people cost less than healthy people?
What about when the fact that they are just fat fucks starts to impact their knees and hips? We all gonna pay so they can get a Rascal? We gonna pay their Social Security Disability payments?
Seriously dude/babe, are you honestly trying to argue that unhealthy people cost less than healthy people?
48
@47...Well, people don't die from healthiness, they die from illness...and everyone dies eventually. Alzheimer's and dementia are on the rise and people can live for many more years now with degenerative disease. Even people of normal weight need new knees and hips due to degenerative old age, or jogging.
Obesity is unhealthy, no doubt about that, but it does generate a shorter life span, by 20% as we have seen. I don't think obesity, in and of itself, is something we should single out from a policy perspective in thinking about healthcare reform (a junk food tax is fine). We are all going to cost the system, some a little more and some a little less than the average.
Obesity is unhealthy, no doubt about that, but it does generate a shorter life span, by 20% as we have seen. I don't think obesity, in and of itself, is something we should single out from a policy perspective in thinking about healthcare reform (a junk food tax is fine). We are all going to cost the system, some a little more and some a little less than the average.
49
@41
Although an individual's BMI doesn't tell you whether he or she is truly overweight or obese, if the BMI of a person or population rises, you can infer they've gained weight.
And our population's BMI has risen dramatically.
Although an individual's BMI doesn't tell you whether he or she is truly overweight or obese, if the BMI of a person or population rises, you can infer they've gained weight.
And our population's BMI has risen dramatically.
50
I just don't think fat people should be hated on.
I've been at that place where I lost a bunch of weight and scolded people that you just had to exercise and eat less...then I got hungry and wasn't able to starve myself any longer...oops!
Now I'm super-fat and was just diagnosed with every illness known to man! FUCK! Okay, it is my fault! I knew it was going to happen. I was just trying to eat as much sugar as I could while I was still technically healthy. :( Still, why do people have to hate on fat people? Why treat them/us like we are lepers?
I've been at that place where I lost a bunch of weight and scolded people that you just had to exercise and eat less...then I got hungry and wasn't able to starve myself any longer...oops!
Now I'm super-fat and was just diagnosed with every illness known to man! FUCK! Okay, it is my fault! I knew it was going to happen. I was just trying to eat as much sugar as I could while I was still technically healthy. :( Still, why do people have to hate on fat people? Why treat them/us like we are lepers?
51
@48, yes they may live a little shorter, but their time here is MUCH more expensive.
"Obese people spent an extra $1,429 per year or 42% more for medical care in 2006 than did normal weight people, with most of that spent on prescription drugs, the researchers said."
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article…
"Obese people spent an extra $1,429 per year or 42% more for medical care in 2006 than did normal weight people, with most of that spent on prescription drugs, the researchers said."
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article…
52
When people write of the "risk of death," what do they mean? The risk of premature death? Is this just sloppy writing, or is "risk of death" a term of art with which I am unfamiliar? Because it would seem to me that there is no risk of death; indeed, it's a certainty.
I would argue in favor of a "Value-Added Tax" for foodstuffs. Each time a food is processed (i.e. each time "value" is added, or, in my opinion, detracted) and then passed along to the next stage in production, a steep tax should be levied. Foods that are not processed (foods that are, in general, good for you) would not be taxed. Foods that are heavily processed would be priced out of the marketplace. Hopefully.
I would argue in favor of a "Value-Added Tax" for foodstuffs. Each time a food is processed (i.e. each time "value" is added, or, in my opinion, detracted) and then passed along to the next stage in production, a steep tax should be levied. Foods that are not processed (foods that are, in general, good for you) would not be taxed. Foods that are heavily processed would be priced out of the marketplace. Hopefully.
53
@52, an interesting idea, and something worth considering, however I think we should first clear out the current market distortions (subsidies that keep corn so cheap) before we consider adding more market distortions.
54
@43 You are wrong.
Proper diet does not make you lose weight. Proper diet can prevent you from gaining more weight, but you're only going to lose pounds if you exercise.
Why? Because the fat cells don't just go away on their own. Exercise will convert the fat into sugar, which will be burned as energy. But simply changing you're diet (unless you are starving yourself) isn't enough to convert those fat cells.
And of course, everyone should have access to healthy food, I agree with you there.
BUT a person with a slow metabolism may gain weight even when eating healthy food in moderation. Some bodies just need more physical activity than others in order to stay slim. Life really isn't fair!
Proper diet does not make you lose weight. Proper diet can prevent you from gaining more weight, but you're only going to lose pounds if you exercise.
Why? Because the fat cells don't just go away on their own. Exercise will convert the fat into sugar, which will be burned as energy. But simply changing you're diet (unless you are starving yourself) isn't enough to convert those fat cells.
And of course, everyone should have access to healthy food, I agree with you there.
BUT a person with a slow metabolism may gain weight even when eating healthy food in moderation. Some bodies just need more physical activity than others in order to stay slim. Life really isn't fair!
55
Anc, your morbid, selfish, misguided zero sum game doesn't include all the numbers. over a lifetime, those who live longer will "cost" society more than those who die prematurely. (societal costs include more than just health care)
@48 is spot on. "We are all going to cost the system, some a little more and some a little less than the average."
people who praise sin taxes and demonize individuals are more interested in blaming than solving. sin taxes will not stop obesity. yelling "fattie" is not productive. nothing Savage posts on Slog is ever productive when it comes to this matter.
obesity is a problem, no doubt. and if solving it requires taking more money out of Anc's precious wallet, well, i don't give a sh!t.
with the Anc view, i'm thin, why should i have to pay for the sins of the overweight? i don't smoke, why should i have to pay for the sins of the smokers? i am monogamous, why should i have to pay for the sins of the promiscuous (through free condoms and free clinics treating STD including AIDS)? and we can keep going - i have no children, why do i have to pay for public education? i do not own a car, why do i have to pay for highway repair?
"oh that mean, mean, mean, mean, mean green..."
@48 is spot on. "We are all going to cost the system, some a little more and some a little less than the average."
people who praise sin taxes and demonize individuals are more interested in blaming than solving. sin taxes will not stop obesity. yelling "fattie" is not productive. nothing Savage posts on Slog is ever productive when it comes to this matter.
obesity is a problem, no doubt. and if solving it requires taking more money out of Anc's precious wallet, well, i don't give a sh!t.
with the Anc view, i'm thin, why should i have to pay for the sins of the overweight? i don't smoke, why should i have to pay for the sins of the smokers? i am monogamous, why should i have to pay for the sins of the promiscuous (through free condoms and free clinics treating STD including AIDS)? and we can keep going - i have no children, why do i have to pay for public education? i do not own a car, why do i have to pay for highway repair?
"oh that mean, mean, mean, mean, mean green..."
56
Ohhh J, you should spend more time reading my posts instead of insulting. My arguement has been I have to pay for my added costs when I buy smokes, fatties should have to pay more for their habit.
Not only would this help recoup costs (which under your idiot logic, smoking doesn't cost anything extra b/c smokers die earlier, which we all know is patently untrue), but it would also discourage behaviour.
If you had actually paid attention, you'd realize I wasn't talking about putting fatties on treadmills to generate alternative energy, or driving them out into the desert to cull the herd, but instead just making them pay more for their habit AND helping to discourage their problem (same logic that has worked for smoking). I really don't understand why you get so defensive when people start talking about removing the state subsidies that make crap food cheaper than real food, and possibly taxing unhealthy food.
How you get from that to your ridiculous strawman arguments, I have no idea. I can assume that ate too many Twinkies for breakfast and went into a blind sugarfed rage. *shrug*
Not only would this help recoup costs (which under your idiot logic, smoking doesn't cost anything extra b/c smokers die earlier, which we all know is patently untrue), but it would also discourage behaviour.
If you had actually paid attention, you'd realize I wasn't talking about putting fatties on treadmills to generate alternative energy, or driving them out into the desert to cull the herd, but instead just making them pay more for their habit AND helping to discourage their problem (same logic that has worked for smoking). I really don't understand why you get so defensive when people start talking about removing the state subsidies that make crap food cheaper than real food, and possibly taxing unhealthy food.
How you get from that to your ridiculous strawman arguments, I have no idea. I can assume that ate too many Twinkies for breakfast and went into a blind sugarfed rage. *shrug*
57
#54, I think that's my issue now. I lost a lot of weight rapidly, and then . . . plateau.
I've not lost anymore weight for about a month. It's wonderful not to have that constant, steady gaining that was going on for the past few years, and my health is a lot better, but I want/need to lose about 30 more pounds.
My diet is healthy and normal (now). So what you're saying is that I shouldn't concentrate on eating less (which scares me because if I walk around hungry all the time, I'll start overeating again, I just know it), but exercising more? That's actually doable.
I've not lost anymore weight for about a month. It's wonderful not to have that constant, steady gaining that was going on for the past few years, and my health is a lot better, but I want/need to lose about 30 more pounds.
My diet is healthy and normal (now). So what you're saying is that I shouldn't concentrate on eating less (which scares me because if I walk around hungry all the time, I'll start overeating again, I just know it), but exercising more? That's actually doable.
58
Unhealthy unwise eating behavior makes you fat. And gives you diseases. And complications. It's nature's way of slapping you down when you're breaking the rules.
Unhealthy unwise sexual behavior makes unwanted pregnancies. And gives you diseases. And complications. It's nature's way of slapping you down when you're breaking the rules.
Dan seems to get the 'fat' thing but not the 'sex' lesson.
And a thin layer of rubber doesn't fool Mother Nature.
Anymore that those fat blockers that really just make you shit grease in your pants 'cure' unhealthy unwise eating behavior. Nor liposuction or gastric bypass.
Those are just short-cut scams that try to sweep the consequences of unhealthy unwise eating behavior under the rug. They mask the symptoms for awhile but do not address the underlying unhealthy unwise eating behavior.
'Safe Sex' is the same. Condoms and AIDS vaccines and abortion try to postpone or mitigate the consequences of unhealthy unwise sexual behavior. But if the underlying behavior is not addressed it's just a short term scam. Reality (and Mother Nature) will catch up with you eventually and slap you down.
Right Wing Conservatives don't make people fat. They didn't invent nutritional guidelines to punish people who eat too much. It would be silly to suggest that.
What is and isn't healthy eating behavior is already set. People don't make it up or invent it- they just discover what it is.
Right Wing Conservatives don't make people get AIDS or unwanted pregnancies or STDs. They didn't invent moral guidelines to punish people who have sex. It would be silly to suggest that.
What is and isn't healthy sexual behavior is already set. People don't make it up or invent it- they just discover what it is.
More...
Unhealthy unwise sexual behavior makes unwanted pregnancies. And gives you diseases. And complications. It's nature's way of slapping you down when you're breaking the rules.
Dan seems to get the 'fat' thing but not the 'sex' lesson.
And a thin layer of rubber doesn't fool Mother Nature.
Anymore that those fat blockers that really just make you shit grease in your pants 'cure' unhealthy unwise eating behavior. Nor liposuction or gastric bypass.
Those are just short-cut scams that try to sweep the consequences of unhealthy unwise eating behavior under the rug. They mask the symptoms for awhile but do not address the underlying unhealthy unwise eating behavior.
'Safe Sex' is the same. Condoms and AIDS vaccines and abortion try to postpone or mitigate the consequences of unhealthy unwise sexual behavior. But if the underlying behavior is not addressed it's just a short term scam. Reality (and Mother Nature) will catch up with you eventually and slap you down.
Right Wing Conservatives don't make people fat. They didn't invent nutritional guidelines to punish people who eat too much. It would be silly to suggest that.
What is and isn't healthy eating behavior is already set. People don't make it up or invent it- they just discover what it is.
Right Wing Conservatives don't make people get AIDS or unwanted pregnancies or STDs. They didn't invent moral guidelines to punish people who have sex. It would be silly to suggest that.
What is and isn't healthy sexual behavior is already set. People don't make it up or invent it- they just discover what it is.
59
@49 Or, you could infer that the population is getting taller, but we don't talk about the height epidemic. Getting taller with BMI punishes you. The height of the American population has been on the rise for more than a hundred years.
The formula for BMI is:
Given this we can assume that the average American weighs 177.5 lbs, is 63.8" tall, and has a BMI of 30.66.
Assume someone gains some height. All of the sudden this average person is 6'4" (just like me). And because ze gained height ze also gained some weight, but just enough that hir BMI(2.3) remained the same. Using the above formula I determined if ze is 6'4" (76") then ze is 265.4 pounds
Assuming a person is 6'4" and 265.4 pounds (which, incidentally, is almost exactly my weight) using BMI as it is calculated we find the person now has a BMI of 32.3. When they were of average height and weight their BMI would be calculated at 30.66 but because they got taller they're suddenly more obese. And I believe the 2.3 in this formula is conservative, an exponent of 2.5 or 2.6 is likely to be more accurate in scaling height and weight.
I'm overweight, I don't deny it, but I'm very tall and thus acutely aware that BMI is calculated incorrectly because if we trust BMI, I am 'obese' which no one whose seen me can agree with and have been recently 'extremely obese' which is extremely ridiculous. The statistical guesswork that BMI is based on is designed for a shorter population, and as our population gets taller so does our BMI. I'm not denying a growing weight problem, just noting the numbers that we use to talk about weight are inaccurate. As our height as a population grows the already shoddy meaningfulness of BMI crumbles.
If we want to use a weight-height correlation the ratio should be somewhere between weight/height^2.3 and weight/height^2.7, but since what were really talking about are correlations between body fat percentage and health, we shouldn't use the weight-height ratios to generalize a correlation between BMI and health, we should get a comparison of populations based on Body Fat Percentage.
* From the Usage section of the Wikipedia BMI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_i…
Body_mass_index#Limitations_and_shortcomings
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight…
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_heigh…
More...
The formula for BMI is:
BMI = 703 ( weight in lbs/(height in inches^2) )but experts agree that the exponent in the denominator should be between 2.3 and 2.7.* The average weight of an American woman is 164 lbs while the average heigh of an American man is 191 lbs.** The average height of an American is 5'3.8", or 63.8".***
Given this we can assume that the average American weighs 177.5 lbs, is 63.8" tall, and has a BMI of 30.66.
703*177.5/63.8^2 = 124,782.5/4070.44 = 30.66If we calculate BMI with the proposed exponent of 2.3 we get a BMI(2.3) of 8.81.
703*177.5/63.8^2.3 = 124,782.5/14160.8 = 8.81This number sounds arbitrary, because just like actual BMI, it is, but using this we can generalize what weight someone might be at if they gained a foot in height. Both BMI's are simple ratios, to determine ones weight in pounds if you know the BMI and height simply use this formula weight = BMI * height^2 and for BMI(2.3) use this formula weight = BMI(2.3) * height^2.3.
BMI = 703 * weight / height^2 thus weight = BMI * height^2/703
BMI(2.3) = 703 * weight / height^2.3 thus weight = BMI(2.3) * height^2.3/703
Assume someone gains some height. All of the sudden this average person is 6'4" (just like me). And because ze gained height ze also gained some weight, but just enough that hir BMI(2.3) remained the same. Using the above formula I determined if ze is 6'4" (76") then ze is 265.4 pounds
weight = 8.81 * 76^2.3/703 = 265.4 pounds
Assuming a person is 6'4" and 265.4 pounds (which, incidentally, is almost exactly my weight) using BMI as it is calculated we find the person now has a BMI of 32.3. When they were of average height and weight their BMI would be calculated at 30.66 but because they got taller they're suddenly more obese. And I believe the 2.3 in this formula is conservative, an exponent of 2.5 or 2.6 is likely to be more accurate in scaling height and weight.
I'm overweight, I don't deny it, but I'm very tall and thus acutely aware that BMI is calculated incorrectly because if we trust BMI, I am 'obese' which no one whose seen me can agree with and have been recently 'extremely obese' which is extremely ridiculous. The statistical guesswork that BMI is based on is designed for a shorter population, and as our population gets taller so does our BMI. I'm not denying a growing weight problem, just noting the numbers that we use to talk about weight are inaccurate. As our height as a population grows the already shoddy meaningfulness of BMI crumbles.
If we want to use a weight-height correlation the ratio should be somewhere between weight/height^2.3 and weight/height^2.7, but since what were really talking about are correlations between body fat percentage and health, we shouldn't use the weight-height ratios to generalize a correlation between BMI and health, we should get a comparison of populations based on Body Fat Percentage.
* From the Usage section of the Wikipedia BMI page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_i…
Body_mass_index#Limitations_and_shortcomings
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight…
*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_heigh…
60
Anc - Strawman arguments? Not even close. No one has misrepresented your position, just followed it to what they see as its logical conclusion. You can disagree with that conclusion, but it simply is not a strawman argument. In fact, by comparing the obese to smokers as you do, you make the argument for O Jay. First they targeted the smokers, now they are after the eaters. Seems logical to think they'll go after another "sin" next, especially when people like you crow about how it is unfair not to do so.
And if you think sin taxes are intended to stop behavior, you are simply gullible. The government taxes these items precisely because they will be able to raise revenue. It is interesting to note that you speak in the present tense about buying smokes. You are just what the government wants - an addicted smoker who will pay no matter the cost.
Also, O Jay did not argue against your comments about subsidies on crap food. Nope, wasn't there. For someone who begins a post with the suggestion your detractor read your multiple posts on this subject, you seemed incapable of reading that one post and comprehending it. That topic may be stronger ground for you, which is no doubt why O Jay did not argue against it, he/she probably agrees. Your attempt to claim O Jay disagrees with you on that subject is, in point of fact, a strawman argument.
The twinkie attack? If you wish your posts to be taken seriously, for your opinions to be thought of as thoughtful points on a subject, I would suggest you refrain from that sort of response. Everyone who suggests that part of your opinion on this matter is incorrect is not necessarily fat. Everyone who supports gay marriage is not gay. Everyone who supports a woman's right to choose is not a pregnant woman. Those examples, by the way, are not strawman arguments.
Finally, using the examples above, calling folks "fatty" "fag" or "slut" doesn't support a point of view, it only lessens your argument and makes the poster seem like another internet wackjob.
PS - Not every anonymous poster is the same person. I cannot be bothered to register. I also like that it allows everyone to view my rare opinions on this and other board based only on what I type, not on who they think I am because of some avatar or profile.
More...
And if you think sin taxes are intended to stop behavior, you are simply gullible. The government taxes these items precisely because they will be able to raise revenue. It is interesting to note that you speak in the present tense about buying smokes. You are just what the government wants - an addicted smoker who will pay no matter the cost.
Also, O Jay did not argue against your comments about subsidies on crap food. Nope, wasn't there. For someone who begins a post with the suggestion your detractor read your multiple posts on this subject, you seemed incapable of reading that one post and comprehending it. That topic may be stronger ground for you, which is no doubt why O Jay did not argue against it, he/she probably agrees. Your attempt to claim O Jay disagrees with you on that subject is, in point of fact, a strawman argument.
The twinkie attack? If you wish your posts to be taken seriously, for your opinions to be thought of as thoughtful points on a subject, I would suggest you refrain from that sort of response. Everyone who suggests that part of your opinion on this matter is incorrect is not necessarily fat. Everyone who supports gay marriage is not gay. Everyone who supports a woman's right to choose is not a pregnant woman. Those examples, by the way, are not strawman arguments.
Finally, using the examples above, calling folks "fatty" "fag" or "slut" doesn't support a point of view, it only lessens your argument and makes the poster seem like another internet wackjob.
PS - Not every anonymous poster is the same person. I cannot be bothered to register. I also like that it allows everyone to view my rare opinions on this and other board based only on what I type, not on who they think I am because of some avatar or profile.
61
So sad... you'd think someone on the Slog of all places couldn't miss such a gift wrapped allusion to the Twinkie Defense...
I find your inability to grasp that indicative of your entire post. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_def…
I find your inability to grasp that indicative of your entire post. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_def…
62
See what happens when Dan writes responsibly about the difference between overweight and obesity?
The commenters do a better job, too.
Now if only Dan would do a better job of encouraging gay teens to use condoms. . .
The commenters do a better job, too.
Now if only Dan would do a better job of encouraging gay teens to use condoms. . .
63
@57 Glad that I could help :)
Definitely don't eat too little or you'll develop vitamin deficiencies, etc. Just healthy eating and a bit more exercise should do the trick. Also the last 20/30 lbs tend to come off more slowly, so don't be discouraged if the weight loss takes time. And congrats to you for adopting a more healthy lifestyle!
If you want some great tips, I blog for a site that's written by fitness gurus. Here's the link: www.portablefitnessnews.com
Definitely don't eat too little or you'll develop vitamin deficiencies, etc. Just healthy eating and a bit more exercise should do the trick. Also the last 20/30 lbs tend to come off more slowly, so don't be discouraged if the weight loss takes time. And congrats to you for adopting a more healthy lifestyle!
If you want some great tips, I blog for a site that's written by fitness gurus. Here's the link: www.portablefitnessnews.com
64
62, Do you want him to physically place the condom on the teens? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
While exercise does provide many health benefits, and everyone should have a regular exercise routine, most people won't lose a significant amount of weight by exercise alone if their diets are bad. Healthy eating habits are the most important aspect if weight loss is your goal.
65
When we get older, we get fatter. When we birth children, we get fatter. When we get married, we get fatter. When we quit smoking, we get fatter.
Sure, you could simplistically boil it all down to calories in versus calories out, but you could also boil sex down to merely its reproductive aspects and tsk-tsk anyone who engages in sex for its own sweet sake. Which is pretty much everyone. Some of our "choices" turn out to be riskier than others, and it hardly matters that some of those "choices" might be biologically driven.
I'm not that crazy about Kate Harding/the Fatosphere in general, but one thing KH says really sticks with me: "Tell me about your diet after you've kept the weight off for FIVE YEARS."
After all, we all know dozens of people who've lost significant amounts of weight at one point or another. They all think they've got it all figured out while it lasts.
But I've NEVER known a former fattie who kept that weight off for five or more years. The fat-acceptance people seem, to my mind, to be making the saner choice in the long run.
To me, preachy ex-fats are like "ex-gays." Sure, sure, you've figured out how to plug this gaping hole in your psyche FOR NOW.
You bargain with God, you bargain with Nutrisystem, you throw the sheer weight of your willpower at this all-consuming problem. You belong to support groups and avoid internet porn and carefully dole out a half-a-cup of brown rice twice a day.
Talk to me in five years, fuckers. Tell me how that's working out.
Sure, you could simplistically boil it all down to calories in versus calories out, but you could also boil sex down to merely its reproductive aspects and tsk-tsk anyone who engages in sex for its own sweet sake. Which is pretty much everyone. Some of our "choices" turn out to be riskier than others, and it hardly matters that some of those "choices" might be biologically driven.
I'm not that crazy about Kate Harding/the Fatosphere in general, but one thing KH says really sticks with me: "Tell me about your diet after you've kept the weight off for FIVE YEARS."
After all, we all know dozens of people who've lost significant amounts of weight at one point or another. They all think they've got it all figured out while it lasts.
But I've NEVER known a former fattie who kept that weight off for five or more years. The fat-acceptance people seem, to my mind, to be making the saner choice in the long run.
To me, preachy ex-fats are like "ex-gays." Sure, sure, you've figured out how to plug this gaping hole in your psyche FOR NOW.
You bargain with God, you bargain with Nutrisystem, you throw the sheer weight of your willpower at this all-consuming problem. You belong to support groups and avoid internet porn and carefully dole out a half-a-cup of brown rice twice a day.
Talk to me in five years, fuckers. Tell me how that's working out.
66
Yeah you aright over weight people start attracting different diseases starting from diabetes to blood pressure to heart stroke.
Jim from Fat Farm
Jim from Fat Farm
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (67) RSS