I figured out how to cure the "Obesity Epidemic"

That's OK. Pursue your happiness but don't expect government or health concious taxpayers to pay for the negative outcomes of those pursuits.

It would be a shame if parents couldn't afford to send their kids to college or retire at 65 due to 45% personal tax rates (to fund that national health care plan) because Bubba couldn't lay off the Monster Thick Burger Value Meal everyday and now needs expensive dialysis and blood thinners to stay above ground.

The Law, Twisted wrote:

For starters, vote Republican. Any liberal selling universal health care is just dumb and dangerous.

You are aware, I hope, that a Republican administration has just recently (in the last year) decided that obesity is an "illness" and that it can thusly be treated under Medicare? So your tax dollars will be going to pay for obesity treatmens that they did not pay for before? Weren't you guys uhh...all for keeping taxes down (or something)??? From the Wash times, July 16, 2004:

"Obesity is now an illness and can be covered by Medicare, the federal health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled."

"Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson announced yesterday the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would remove language in Medicare's coverage manual that states obesity is not an illness."

"The change means Medicare participants may ask for reimbursement for treating excessive weight."

Herbalife Fraud wrote:

Miles and miles, doesn't your herbalife scam depend on obese suckers at the bottom of the pyramid? what's your plan to end multilevel marketing scams?

This is more important. Don't dodge it.

And BTW, Bill Maher's about 5-10 years ahead of you, pal.

The issues you've listed are legitimate, but what do you suppose the percentages are as a portion of the overweight and/or obese population? At a guess:

glandular problems - 1%

poor coping mechanisms - 3%

reaction to medicine - 5%

legitimate psychological food addiction (disorder) - 5%

That's 14%. Surely more people claim food addiction when interviewed. "I just can't stop eating!" That's lack of self control. And I'm being generous with my estimates. Please provide hard data to counter. Roughly 86% of the US chubbies are just plain old ignorant or lazy or both.

I have had an idea that my co-workers and I always laugh about. The idea is that restaurants that are fast food oriented like McDonalds or Krispy Creme, would have to install Body Mass Index scales in front of the restaurant. Then if a person was over a certain BMI the door simply wouldn't open. It would be so funny to see things like fat guys getting rejecting from going into McDonalds or having to get some kid to go in and buy a dozen donuts for them.

But the majority are and here's the proof: obesity rates have doubled in the last 20 years. That can not be explained by skyrocketing thyroid problems, increased medicine intact or an outbreak of people feeling depressed after a spouse dies.

Weight gain comes down to simple mathematics: calories in minus calories out equals net calories. If net calories is a positive number, then there will be weight gain. If net calories is a negative number, there will be weight loss. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

If your calorie intake is increasing, then in order to prevent weight gain, one must increase calorie output. That could mean running, swimming, biking, taking the stairs or playing with the kids. Not only will you keep the weight off, but you'll feel better in general too.

There is no excuse, the knowledge of the above math is available to everyone. The knowledge of what comprises a healthy diet and active lifestyle is available to everyone. Whether they CHOOSE to use that knowledge is their CHOICE, but then they have no one to blame but themselves for the outcome of those choices.

Just because there is a Wendy's down the street does not make you purchase a Biggie-sized extra value meal five times a week. The consumer made that choice and the consumer can make the choice to layoff the grease.

I'm not defending anorexics or promoting anorexia. I believe that people should be CHOOSING to follow a healthy lifestyle, one that incorporates healthy eating and physical activity. Those two, properly balanced, should not result in obesity or anorexia.

Furthermore, how do overly skinny people cause more of a societal expense? How are the rates for anorexia increasing compared to obesity?

No kidding. For you and I it may be easy to go for 10 miles, but I do not buy the arguement that there is not some form of physical activity that someone can find fun in, nor that there are people who are incapable of understanding what a healthy diet comprises of. We're supposed to be living in an educated society.

So that means we should just stick our heads in the sand, ignore the statistics which tell us very clearly that western society is eating more and more junk, is getting less and less physical activity and therefore getting fatter and fatter? Yes, I'm sure things will improve if we just wish really hard that everyone all get along and be happy in who they are, with their Monster Thickburger in one hand and diet Coke in the other, sitting in their SUV.

The facts are there. The knowledge to do something about it is there. It just needs the willingness of individual people to take their lives in their own hands, to excerise their grey matter and make the best CHOICES for their own life.

by that logic... wrote:

The Law, Twisted wrote:

For starters, vote Republican....

apparently, the fat people do.

Damn that's funny. I can't wait for the bumper stickers:

"VOTE REPUBLICAN - YOUR RIGHT TO A CHEESEBURGER CANNOT BE ABRIDGED!"

"TIP THE SCALES IN YOUR FAVOR - VOTE REPUBLICAN"

"VOTE REPUBLICAN - 2400 CALORIES CAN'T BE WRONG"

"JOINT THE REST OF THE FAT CATS - VOTE REPUBLICAN."

"VOTE REPUBLICAN - A WAIST IS A TERRIBLE THING TO MIND"

Californian wrote:

Why is it that everyone wants to attack and berate obease people, when overly skinny people actually cause more of an expense to society?

I don't disagree with some of what you have said, but you don't help your case much when you make statements like this. It seems very unlikely to be true. Do you have any data that backs this up?

ok miles and miles, and others.

you win. we can start charging higher insurance rates based on your BMI. lets charge those fat people thin!

of course, while we're at it, you'll probably wind up being charged yourself. thats because being too skinny carries its own health risks. yeah, thats right. all you distance runners have higher mortality rates! see here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8788324&dopt=Abstract

oh, yeah, this isn't a study about anorexic girls or anything, its about underweight men. and it concludes that those with a BMI of under 23 have increased mortality rates. (FYI: a 6 foot male who weighs 150 lbs has a BMI of 20.3)

not as healthy as you thought?

dukerdog wrote:

I don't disagree with some of what you have said, but you don't help your case much when you make statements like this. It seems very unlikely to be true. Do you have any data that backs this up?

actually, yes:

it just so happens that there are more fat people than skinny, but overly skinny people (distance runners) are a burden too. if everyone who was fat was overly skinny, we'd be in the same boat.

be careful what you wish for.

by that logic... wrote:

when people start paying attention to the warnings on cigarette packages about cancer

People have been paying attention to the warnings on cigarettes. Smoking rates have plummeted in the past 30 years. And maybe that's part of the problem.

What sometimes goes unsaid is that the quality of food has really declined over the years. A 1950's hamburger is a vastly different hamburger than today -- both in size and nutritional content. I think we all know that portion sizes have gone way, way, up. I grew up in a house where you finished what your mom put on the plate, no matter what. I find it hard to NOT finish a meal at a restaurant. I was at Chili's the other day and the veggie burger with fries was immense. Next time, I'm going to tell them to only give me half the fries. Don't even bring 'em out -- too tempting.

Food in the 1950's, 1960's, etc, wasn't laden with trans-fats, partially hydrogenated crapola, and all that junk. This stuff has strange effects on your digestive systems. Some European countries (Denmark?) have actually banned this stuff. Grains are over-processed and bleached out. The nutritional content stinks, we eat more to get the nutrients we need. I grew up in the 1970's. We were all rail thin. Watch some old 1970's movies and see what I mean. It wasn't that we didn't have ready access to food, or that we couldn't afford it. Food has changed. It's not 100% of the issue, but it's a big part.

by that logic... wrote:

ok miles and miles, and others.

you win. we can start charging higher insurance rates based on your BMI.

I never said that, please don't put words in my mouth. I only said to outlaw sweats in public. Plus people who wear sweats in public have no class anyways, ha.

by that logic... wrote:

actually, yes:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8788324&dopt=Abstract

it just so happens that there are more fat people than skinny, but overly skinny people (distance runners) are a burden too. if everyone who was fat was overly skinny, we'd be in the same boat.

I was reading Californian's statement as the problem of underweight people is more of a burden on society than the problem of obese people. I still don't think that's true just because there are a lot more overweight people than underweight people.

The article you linked does seem to show, however, that an underweight individual is just as much a burden as an obese person. Surprizing.

But I hope you don't expect that something as trivial as the facts is going to change many people's opinion on this topic.

Substitute all sugar with Splenda

I read in several studies that a lower daily calorie intake results in a longer life span, not an increased mortality rate (actually that would be the case for severe anoretics... and yes, "anoretics" is the correct spelling).

There is also a condition pertaining to one's thyroid called hypothyroidism. Your thyroid is underactive and causes your metabolism to slow down a lot. Make an exception for these people. I have two friends who have this condition and one of them does track while the other does every single sport known to woman/man and yet they are both pudge-balls. But not gross pudge-balls. Cute ones.

For the rest of the fat people - ESPECIALLY the ones (mostly women) who wear those skin-tight LOW-RISE jeans just so everyone can see your speshul, HUGE ASS - they should go on a diet. Fast food should be consumed only on birthdays and special occasions. That's the way it was done in the 50's (so I'm told, I'm 17).

chipper wrote:

There is also a condition pertaining to one's thyroid called hypothyroidism. Your thyroid is underactive and causes your metabolism to slow down a lot. Make an exception for these people. I have two friends who have this condition and one of them does track while the other does every single sport known to woman/man and yet they are both pudge-balls. But not gross pudge-balls. Cute ones.

This is also something that can be taken care of with a little effort. I take a thyroid pill everyone morning and have for about the last 5 years. I am 6'1" 155 lbs.

KevinM wrote:

I don't disagree with you 100% here, but I do think you drastically over-simplify things. Many people believe, as you do, that alcoholics/over-eaters/drug addicts simply need to decide to stop for a miraculous recovery to occur. Truth is, those that go cold turkey, with no support system or help along the way, are more likely to go right back into their addiction. You have to realize that people who truly fight to overcome addictions will never be rid of their addictive traits and will have to fight their addictions every single day for the rest of their lives. If they don't have those impulses, then they weren't addicts.

Addiction is a real problem. It has real solutions. Sometimes a person can't solve their problems without help just like sometimes a runner can't improve on their own but needs a coach. Still, every person has the ability to act and to act according to purpose and towards a specific goal (whether a marathon pr or a waistline pr) demands something we call self-control.

Californian wrote:

You are confusing self control with addiction. If you have a chemical food addiction, you do not have control over whether or not you stop. Just like a smoker does not have a choice as to whether or not they stop. The only solution is to get treatment for the problem. Some people do not have self-control, others have an addiction. There is a difference between the two.

Sorry, you are to whom I meant to respond, not Kevin M. Please don't think or make this apology separating addiction from self-control and responsibility. I won't claim that addicts don't need help but needing help does not mean an addict is powerless. If that were true then addicts would be oppressed and if fast-food oppresses addicts then you would/should be on the boat for abolishing fast-food (at least if you really care for obese food addicts as you claim to do).