backtop


Print 128 comment(s) - last by 0ldman.. on Aug 18 at 12:33 AM


Americans are using more fuel because they weigh so much.  (Source: Healthy Me!)
"If you see me coming your way/Better give me plenty space"

Americans these days are living big, though not necessarily in a good way. Even as some people in America turn to healthier lifestyles, obesity rates continue to soar upwards.  That's frustrating news not only for doctors, but for transportation engineers as well.

We already covered how obesity was costing the U.S. airline industry $275M USD more a year in fuel use.  But according to
Consumer Reports, it's not the only transportation industry to buckle under the America's growing mass.

The publication cites a 2006 study which indicates that for every pound added to the national average passenger weight, 39 million more gallons of fuel are used.  In total, over 1 billion gallons of fuel a year (about 0.7 percent of the nation's total use) can be attributed to fat.

Other studies show that the effect, while small, may be larger than those previous estimates.  Non-profit company Resources for the Future in 2009 showed that between 1999 to 2005 a 10-percent increase in overweight and obese drivers reduced fuel economy of new vehicle demand by 2.5 percent.

The report also comes to the more controversial conclusion that obesity is driving SUV, van, and pickup truck purchases.  It attributes much of the rise in this sector from 16 percent of total sales in the 1970s to over 40 percent today as being the result of passengers seeking cars to deal with their growing size.

Another study, which we previously covered, comes to the conclusion that obese drivers are more likely to be injured during car wrecks despite their extra mass apparently overcoming whatever padding their flab provided.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in America obesity rose 1.1 percent from 2007 to 2009 -- meaning that roughly 2.4 million people entered the category for the first time.  Plus the number of states with over 30 percent obesity rates jumped from three to nine.

Consumer Reports suggests both that Americans need to lose weight and that plus-sized crash test dummies need to be implemented to better protect those who haven't lost weight yet.

There's not always an easy answer for obese drivers.  An Edmonton, Alberta Kia dealer last year was forced to inform a woman who purchased a Kia Rio that she might be too heavy for it.  The sedan was pulling towards the left.  The dealership tried to correct it, to no avail, but eventually gave up, realizing the laws of physics were stacked against them; the driver had too much mass.  

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/12/2010 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
An Edmonton, Alberta Kia dealer last year was forced to inform a woman who purchased a Kia Rio sedan that she might be too heavy for it. The sedan was pulling towards the left. The dealership tried to correct it, to no avail, but eventually gave up, realizing the laws of physics were stacked against them; the driver had too much mass.


I know I shouldn't laugh... but... HAHAHAHAH :)




RE: ...
By hughlle on 8/12/2010 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 5
I think there was a UK politician who recently stated that doctors should be telling their patients that they are "fat" to make them more aware of a need for change by using a possibly insulting word :)


RE: ...
By FaceMaster on 8/12/2010 8:46:27 PM , Rating: 5
Being called 'fat' offends me. I prefer, 'More attractive ... gravitationally'


RE: ...
By tedrodai on 8/12/2010 10:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I'd rate you up, but I just gotta poast and say how that made me laugh for a good 30 seconds.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
That is epic.


RE: ...
By Zuul on 8/12/2010 2:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Before I event got the part where they referenced Tiffany, I was thinking about that incident!

It was discussed on a local automotive forum i frequent as well. Needless to say, many people sided w/ the dealership:

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/251517/fatty-cant-get-a...


RE: ...
By Zuul on 8/12/2010 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
I should've proof read my post better. First sentence should've read...

Before I got to the part where they referenced Tiffany, I was thinking about that incident!


RE: ...
By ChugokuOtaku on 8/12/2010 2:34:01 PM , Rating: 5
RE: ...
By gerf on 8/13/2010 6:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
I've always noted how large people seem to drive little bitty cars. Jokingly, I figure they want to be efficient at something.

Economically, wasn't there a statistic showing larger people earned less per capita, and taller people earned more? Perhaps on average they tend to only be able to afford the smaller cars.

Or, perhaps with their weight class, they cannot on average find a mate to procreate with, thus not needing 8 row seating?

I didn't read the article, but the conclusions smack of simple hatred of the prejudiced ideal of a stereotypical "American."


RE: ...
By The Raven on 8/13/2010 10:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you don't laugh at this you have no sense of humor or you have a serious weight problem.

Also, last I checked "Edmonton, Alberta" is not in these United States. Why do only Americans get the bum rap?

I guess the title of "Americans' Large Girth is Weighing Down Fuel Efficiency, Compromising Safety" wouldn't be as sexy. lol

Or you could just change it to " North Americans..." and not diminish the sex appeal.


Zombie Apocalypse
By InvertMe on 8/12/2010 3:12:14 PM , Rating: 5
The zombie apocalypse will thin (no pun intended) the fatty herd out. That should get our gas mileage back into check.

On a serious note - I don't understand how people can be so damn fat. If I even gain a few pounds I correct my diet and up my cardio a bit until I am back to lean. Fat is not where it's at.




RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By zozzlhandler on 8/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By InvertMe on 8/12/2010 3:30:43 PM , Rating: 4
I am almost "old"... Definitely not the spring chicken I was 10-20 years ago. Besides that just an excuse - I know people in their 60s who run marathons and still hit the gym 4-5 times a week. I can only hope I am able to do the same thing.


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By adiposity on 8/12/2010 3:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On a serious note - I don't understand how people can be so damn fat. If I even gain a few pounds I correct my diet and up my cardio a bit until I am back to lean. Fat is not where it's at.


quote:
I am almost "old"... Definitely not the spring chicken I was 10-20 years ago. Besides that just an excuse - I know people in their 60s who run marathons and still hit the gym 4-5 times a week. I can only hope I am able to do the same thing.


Maybe you don't understand. Going to the gym 4-5 times per week and running marathons is not the same as "oh I got fat, better start exercising!" Yes, you can stay in shape when you are old, but getting rid of fat as you get older becomes harder and harder.

Your initial post implied that you can diet and exercise on a corrective basis, while your second post references people who exercise regularly. Corrective diet and exercise do not last forever.

I am in good shape and thin, but I exercise regularly. If you want to stay in good shape, don't lay off when you get older, even for a short time.


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By dark matter on 8/13/2010 2:19:38 AM , Rating: 3
Does being old somehow excuse from stuffing your face full of cream cakes and donuts?


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By InvertMe on 8/13/2010 10:05:12 AM , Rating: 3
It sure does seem too. A good buddy of mine, his step-dad, was in fair shape when he was young. Now he is older (late 60s) and will eat an entire row of pastries, sheet of coffee cake or whatever in one sitting. He is so fat now that some-days all he does is sit in his chair (only wearing underwear (gag)) and will doze off and on for the entire day because he cannot get the energy to stand up.

I can only hope that if I start to be like that when I get older my loved ones wont be enablers to let it happen.


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By dgingeri on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By Nutzo on 8/12/2010 6:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
That gives you a BMI (body mass index) of 33.5 which puts you in the obese range (over 30)
If you have a "large" build or have a more muscular build than average, then 33.5 is not really unhealthy.

Body builders usually fall into the obese or morbidly obese category due the muscle weighing more than fat.

Most people with a BMI under 40 will NOT have serious health problems due to their weight. It’s the people who are so fat they have trouble walking that are the drain on health care. The reason they group everyone who is overweight together in their so called studies, is so they can create a obesity crisis (OMG 45% are over weight) and get more funding for studies (just like global warning). If they reported that 4% of the population has health problems due to their weight, nobody would really care.

There was a major health study a couple years ago that broke weight down into 5 groups. Under weight, normal, over weight (BMI< 30 ), obese BMI < 40 , and morbidly obese BMI >= 40

The healthiest group was of course normal weight.
2nd healthiest was over weight (almost as healthy as normal weight)
3rd was under weight (underweight IS a health risk)
4th was obese (almost as healthy as under weight)
And last (way last) was the morbidly obese

Groups 1-4 had very little difference in over all health issues or in the cost of their health card, it was only the morbidly obese group that has the huge increase in healthcare cost. Part of the problem is that lower weight people tend to be more active, and end up with costly “sports” type injuries, as opposed to weight related problems. Cost tend to balance out.


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By jabber on 8/13/2010 12:44:43 PM , Rating: 1
Its mass not weight when it comes to fat and muscle.

a pound of fat weights the same as a pound of muscle.

However, a pound of fat will be larger than a pound of muscle.

Thats the difference.


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By abscode on 8/12/2010 11:04:56 PM , Rating: 4
Rule #1: Cardio


RE: Zombie Apocalypse
By 0ldman on 8/18/2010 12:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
Rule #4: Doubletap


Significant?
By lotharamious on 8/12/2010 2:20:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In total over 1 billion gallons of fuel a year (about 0.7 percent of the nation's total use) can be attributed to fat.

quote:
On-profit company Resources for the Future in 2009 showed that between 1999 to 2005, a 10-percent increase in overweight and obese drivers reduced fuel economy of new vehicle demand by 2.5 percent.

I don't see how 0.7 percent and 2.5 percent is significant. I would believe that these numbers are within the standard +/-3% margin of error.




RE: Significant?
By rcc on 8/12/2010 2:57:37 PM , Rating: 4
It is perhaps unfortunate the the study didn't also cover the effects of the unnecessary junk that people haul around on a regular basis because it's a pain to take it out when you'll need it again in a week/month/etc.

Also, lets ban driving above 40 MPH with the windows down, the extra drag is burning unnecessary fuel.

I think everyone can agree that we should all watch our weight for our own health. But studies like this are fruitless wastes of money. Of course additional weight in a given vehicle is going to require more fuel.

And, because so many people here seem to prefer off-the-wall, over-the-top statements and questions in posts. How any starving people could this money have fed? And how many man hour of time was spent that could have been used for something useful?

As far as the lady in the Kia goes, when you are seriously overweight there are some things you just don't do. Buy furniture at Walmart and Ikea, or buy cheap cars, sit on the side of a rowboat. And a lot more really common sense stuff.

Then again, if you have an IQ of 70, would you sign up for calculus classes?


RE: Significant?
By tedrodai on 8/12/2010 10:00:32 PM , Rating: 3
This means I have to take my 2 45 lb. dumbells out of the car now, don't I? =(

I just never know when I'm gonna need them!


RE: Significant?
By rcc on 8/13/2010 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 5
What an unkind thing to call your children!!!


RE: Significant?
By Hoeser on 8/16/2010 11:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, lets ban driving above 40 MPH with the windows down, the extra drag is burning unnecessary fuel.


I have yet to own a vehicle where it was less efficient to drive with the windows down than with the A/C on. Most modern cars and light trucks are still far more efficient with their windows down than with their AC compressors running...

I monitor fuel consumption every time I get in the car (2007 A4 Quattro 3.2) and I gain about .5-7 L/100km of consumption with the AC on vs .1-2 with the windows down at 110KM/h. I did the same test with my other car (2009 Jetta TDI) and the impacts were very similar... way more efficient with the windows down.

Maybe you expect people to run with the windows up with the AC off?.. In Southwestern Ontario, in the summer, that is simply not an option.


A strain on the Economy
By MrX8503 on 8/12/2010 4:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
All of the factors that obese people contribute to straining the economy are many. Some examples are

Fuel costs (like the article suggests)
Food costs
Healthcare
Resources needed to produce more food
More textile materials for larger clothing

I wonder how much an obese person costs the country vs a normal weight person.




RE: A strain on the Economy
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 1
Unless the country is paying for all of those things, then it isn't costing the country any more, it is costing the obese person more.

Just think, if you reduce the amount consumed of these things, then the production of them will drop with the decreased demand to maintain the overall profitability in each segment. That drop in production would cause a drop in employment which would decrease the money available to be spent which would further cause a decrease in production.

It may be straining the "socialized" aspects of the economy, but increased consumption is definitely not straining a normal economy. In fact, decreased consumption is what strains an economy most, otherwise why are the economist encouraging people today to buy more to strengthen the current economy?


RE: A strain on the Economy
By dgingeri on 8/12/2010 6:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless the country is paying for all of those things, then it isn't costing the country any more, it is costing the obese person more.


unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people who are 400+ lbs and live on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. Yes, it is costing us more.

now, I'm considered obese at 5'8" and 220lbs, but I'm pretty solid. I'm not fat, but these stupid government guidelines say I'm obese. I also make a good living and pay >$10k in taxes every year. I'm not costing anyone anything. People who complain about my weight can just go jump off a bridge.


RE: A strain on the Economy
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 6:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
I concur, the numbers the gov uses for BMI is based on a wag and everyone is different. The only real way to tell what someone's true weight should be is a very long and time consuming test.

I know some people who were forced out of the military on BMI standards but they were gymaholics but don't let that get in the way.

No I'm not justifying severe obesity, just many are classified as obese without real knowledge of their true medical position.

Take a look at food labels, they are supposedly designed for all but are really geared around a small number of society prone to severe hypertension. Government in action!

This should be between the person and their doctor, not a bunch of supper skinny people saying I'm skinny why aren't you? BTW I'm not fat.


RE: A strain on the Economy
By JediJeb on 8/13/2010 5:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people who are 400+ lbs and live on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. Yes, it is costing us more.


That is why I included the part about the "socialized" economy. The progressives make a socialized economy sound good, but in the end it is the ones that want to take from the system without paying into it that reap the benefits while those who pay in but don't qualify for benefits get the raw deal.


RE: A strain on the Economy
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. The fact is that most of the people who are 400+ pounds and live on welfare, food stamps and medicaid ALREADY had disorders, mental and physical, that would have kept them from working BEFORE they got that overweight.

I know three families in my area that are like that, and I thought that of them as well.... until I actually talked to them and they showed me the documentation that the wife had MS and the husband had mental disorders that even while medicated, with his past history, meant that no one would hire him.

He had been looking for a job because he wasn't on total disability like his wife and no one would hire him. They gave him his past history (which he was legally required to reveal) as the reason.


RE: A strain on the Economy
By WW102 on 8/16/2010 5:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know three families in my area that are like that, and I thought that of them as well....


Well if you know three familes that must be how it is everywhere huh?


By Unspoken Thought on 8/15/2010 1:59:33 AM , Rating: 4
Sigh...when will we stop thinking we are the center of the universe.

Check this out, most of the food produced out there and available to us is produced out of soy (genetically modified) and (refined) wheat. Both of those products are there to fatten us up and are reproduced to be in nearly every item in your super market. All of it is government subsidized and handled by a handful of companies run by the very people who are supposed to be for the people. The cheaper the processed food, the more "modified" it is. Who normally pays for the dollar menu? The poor and ignorant. Who doesn't have the health care and are buoyed by all our "systems"? Mostly the same people. I'll let your minds start putting things together. It's a huge wheel and most of us are stuck in the middle thinking that we aren't being controlled with the illusion that we have choices. We think that the so called professionals in suits must be right because we're made to believe that. The people who want out have to work harder and pay more because the solutions we want are not massed produced.

If I hear the word socialized again I'm going to gag. No one even mentioned the word till it hit main stream media and now it's used as a weak label on both sides of the argument.

I agree with helping humanity, but greed takes over and begins to abuse everyone in the process. I don't care what side your on, just wake up and start making informed decisions.


I thought
By Alexstarfire on 8/12/2010 2:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
that when the EPA tests the cars that they use an average load of 300 lbs. Are they suggesting that on average we use more gas because people weigh more than that? Cause 300lbs is already heavy as hell. Of course, if they are just talking about those who are obese then it's really only half the picture.




RE: I thought
By xprojected on 8/12/2010 3:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
That may be assuming two 150 lb people to be the "average load". Imagine a car full of 300 lb passengers.


RE: I thought
By Alexstarfire on 8/12/2010 6:52:09 PM , Rating: 2
Could be, I didn't look to see what qualified as "average load." Most of the time it's only one person per car anyway.


RE: I thought
By Hiawa23 on 8/12/2010 8:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
My Lancer & Civic get the same mileage they did years ago & the only one who rides in my cars is me, the only other stuff I have in them are subs & amps. I seriously doubt my weight affects any of you & how much you pay for your gas. I don't buy this report. Hate to say it, there are just going to be fat people, I know there are some that think just cause some star gets on tv or Mrs Obama is trying to stop childhood obesity, is going to fix anything is living in a pipe dream. People will continue to live their lives as they see fit. To say they are contributing to higher fuel costs, come on.


Easy man...
By Sazabi19 on 8/12/2010 3:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow Jaon... love how you put it all out there so delicately and unoffensively. :P




RE: Easy man...
By Sazabi19 on 8/12/2010 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry Jason**, didn't mean to butcher your name like that


RE: Easy man...
By SSDMaster on 8/12/2010 4:03:47 PM , Rating: 4
Jaon sounds cooler; I don't think he'll mind.


If you don't wanna excersize...
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/13/2010 7:00:07 AM , Rating: 3
I have the cure:

Become a vegetarian....

yup, that's right. quit eating stuff like steaks, rice, bread, potatoes and just eat vegatables, fruits, some small slices of chicken (or eggs), fish (about once or twice a week). instead of eating 3 big meals a day (breakfast lunch dinner), eat small snacks. like 5-6 a day. enough to get rid of your hunger. you don't "HAVE" to eat til you're full. and for pete's sake, stop drinking sodas and beer. just stick to mainly water and 100% juices (not the fake processed juices). and if you wanna drink tea, make it unsweetened. stay away from sugar drinks... it's so easy!




By Donkeyshins on 8/13/2010 1:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Become a vegetarian....

yup, that's right. quit eating stuff like steaks, rice, bread, potatoes and just eat vegatables, fruits, some small slices of chicken (or eggs), fish (about once or twice a week).


Last I checked, chicken and fish were not considered vegetables...

Easy rule of thumb: if it has a brain, it's not a vegetable (please, no Terri Schivo jokes).

Just sayin'


Disagree
By mindless1 on 8/12/2010 9:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
The heavier a person becomes the less active they become including driving or riding in a car.

I dispute their presumed assumption that all else would be equal, that we could assume more gas to move more weight but rather that these people are less likely to take the automobile trip at all. Unless they are out of potato chips.




RE: Disagree
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:31:11 AM , Rating: 2
True. A lot of people who I know who are overweight, myself included, very rarely leave their homes to go any farther than maybe 10 miles away from home, excepting going to work.

Even then, it's maybe 2 or 3 times a week.


Girth?
By quiksilvr on 8/12/2010 2:19:41 PM , Rating: 3
I know I'm heavy down there but damn!




BMI
By Sulphademus on 8/12/2010 3:56:38 PM , Rating: 3
So when are measurements going to be done that actually determine what percentage of the population is fat? BMI, which all these studies are based on, reports on mass and doesn't differentiate between what kind of mass it is.
Until an actual fat measurement is created, all those gym freaks and NBA stars are going to remain in the Obese category.




really??
By dgingeri on 8/12/2010 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The publication cites a 2006 study which indicates that for every pound added to the national average passenger weight, 39 million more gallons of fuel are used.


So, calculating 300 million Americans, which means 300 million pounds, we use an extra .13 gallons of gas per year for every pound overweight. I am 30 pounds overweight, so my extra fuel consumption is 3.9 gallon per year.

You know what? That's not enough for me to worry about.




Yo Momma So Fat...
By AstroCreep on 8/12/2010 7:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
...bitch fills up her tank twice a week!
OOOOOOHHHHHH DAAAAAYYYYUMM!

...sorry, couldn't resist. :p




It's scary
By Beenthere on 8/13/2010 1:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
In all honesty it's scary to see what is happening in America. I have always been toward the heavy end of "normal weight" but the absurd obesity in America is staggering to say the least.

I mean daily I see 300+ lb. men and woman in every town I visit. How can this be? Good God you don't just wake up one morning and your weight has doubled overnight.




DUH!!
By Dr of crap on 8/13/2010 10:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
Like we couldn't realize this ourselves?
When can we stop doing these stupid studies of the obvious?

In another study -
It's not the clothes that make you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat!

HA,HA,HA!!!!!!!!




kia morons
By Jeffk464 on 8/13/2010 10:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
That kia dealership was retarded, just put more air in the tires on the left side of the car.




Frustrating for doctors?
By brundall on 8/14/2010 8:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even as some people in America turn to healthier lifestyles, obesity rates continue to soar upwards. That's frustrating news not only for doctors , but for transportation engineers as well.


How is that frustrating for doctors? That is fantastic news for doctors. More fat people = more people to treat for a variety of diseases = more money for doctors.




"Fat American"
By seeker353 on 8/12/2010 7:15:54 PM , Rating: 1
Hmmm. Small car. Stick shift. I'm thinking that the "fat American" is really an European. Just saying.




Load of crap is what this is
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:00:01 AM , Rating: 1
My cousin and I have the same type, model year, and brand of car, which we drive about the same (very rarely). She weighs 140 pounds, I weigh almost 200 pounds.... we get the same gas mileage, EXACTLY the same.

Something tells me that this is being put out in order to 'guilt' Americans into losing pounds, which does not work in the real world.




...
By neothe0ne on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: So What.
By SSDMaster on 8/12/2010 2:36:38 PM , Rating: 5
Its fun to laugh at them. It also makes me feel superior.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 3
But they will affect me when I have to pay for their additional health care under the new health care reform.


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 3:45:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm...I think if I look at diabetes, heart disease, strokes, blood pressure, kidney problems, and I’m sure a multitude of other “conditions” that are a result of someone’s level of health, I think I would come out a head betting that the car accidents would cost less than the health problems related to their weight.


RE: So What.
By clovell on 8/12/2010 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
... and you'd bet right. You'd still miss the point, though.

The overall cost of Obesity is, in fact, not a cost. Fact is that it costs more to grow old and die from aging than it does to get fat and die young from obesity.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 4:15:49 PM , Rating: 5
I would bet right and still miss the point?

If you were to compare a health person living to 75 able to work and contribute society for say 45 years versus a unhealthy person who lives to 55 and contributes say 30 years of their life, the overall cost burden would be greater for the obese person versus the healthy person.


RE: So What.
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
What about the people who are very thin, yet have all the same health conditions of the over weight people? Believe it or not, most of those conditions are not limited to over weigh people. Yes being overweight can increase your risk of such things as diabetes and heart problems but it is definitely not the only factor.

If you really want to keep over weight people from being a burden on the health care system, then just take the government totally out of paying for health care and leave it to individuals to pay their own way. That way noone else has to pay for the poor decisions of others, and if people wanted to save money on health care they would take steps on their own to live more healthy lives. As long as someone else is paying for health care why would people worry about how much it might cost them.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 6:19:43 PM , Rating: 1
If you see in my post below, I would agree that taking the government out of the equation is the best way to not make the life choices of others my problem.

As far as very thin people? I don't know if your talking about people with eating disorders or people thin compared to obese people. I think we should be thinking outside healthy. And if you ask what is healthy? We can look at that in terms of dollars. As I said before, we all get old, we all get sick and there is an associated cost with that. The problem is when we start having burdens. When we have the 80/20 rule. 80% of the money goes to 20% of the people. That is where the sociallized health care will become a problem. I think where it will get crazy is being taxed for doing things like eating french fries and milk shakes. If you think thats something the government can't impose an extra tax on, then I suggest you look up the new tax on people who tan. I don't tan, but I think its silly that we can tax that.

Now none of this relates to the one 25 year old guy who eats healthy exercises 4-5 times a week and gets sick for what most would call no good reason. If he does get sick and needs medical treatment then well he falls outside the norm of what happens. Its the people who make life style choices that effect what society has to pay to keep them going without an increase in contributions from that person.


RE: So What.
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
No, it won't cause problems to have 80% of the money going to 20% of the people when you take into account that EVEN IF THOSE PEOPLE WERE STICK THIN, in most cases they would still have the health problems that they have.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/16/2010 5:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
Youre calling out "Stick Thin" people like we have a problem with people unable to stand due to the weight of their clothes on their small puny bodies. I don't know why we have to keep calling this point out, but yes I agree we have thin people. I agree you can have eating disorders ranging from not eating to over eating. However, if you bunched all the medical cost from over eating versus the medical cost from malnourishment the numbers wouldn't be even close.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 6:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
If you see in my post below, I would agree that taking the government out of the equation is the best way to not make the life choices of others my problem.

As far as very thin people? I don't know if your talking about people with eating disorders or people thin compared to obese people. I think we should be thinking outside healthy. And if you ask what is healthy? We can look at that in terms of dollars. As I said before, we all get old, we all get sick and there is an associated cost with that. The problem is when we start having burdens. When we have the 80/20 rule. 80% of the money goes to 20% of the people. That is where the sociallized health care will become a problem. I think where it will get crazy is being taxed for doing things like eating french fries and milk shakes. If you think thats something the government can't impose an extra tax on, then I suggest you look up the new tax on people who tan. I don't tan, but I think its silly that we can tax that.

Now none of this relates to the one 25 year old guy who eats healthy exercises 4-5 times a week and gets sick for what most would call no good reason. If he does get sick and needs medical treatment then well he falls outside the norm of what happens. Its the people who make life style choices that effect what society has to pay to keep them going without an increase in contributions from that person.


RE: So What.
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2010 7:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
You speak logic sir. Begone!


RE: So What.
By SilentSin on 8/12/2010 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 3
They also contribute to overall health care costs by constantly having to get heart surgeries, operations, and more illness in general than "normal" weight citizens.

Plus they directly affect my level of disgust by being in my line of sight and taking up too much room on the metro.

/me spit shines his No Fat Chicks bumper sticker


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: So What.
By SilentSin on 8/12/2010 2:54:24 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client...

Not an opinion, just stating facts really. Out of the first 3 pages I could only find 1 article that stated the opposite, and their reasoning was because obese people died much younger than healthy people so over an entire lifetime their costs were less. Not exactly a glorious victory for team Tons o' Fun.


RE: So What.
By gixser on 8/13/2010 10:43:40 AM , Rating: 4
Complete drival.

Assumption #1: People that are a healthy weight are engaging in exercise that causes or is likely to cause "exercise related injuries."

Assumption #2: Even if I grant assumption #1, and all those that are at a healthy weight are engaging in activities that put them at risk of injury, what makes you think an exercise related injury has anywhere near the burden/cost of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and/or any of a myriad of obesity related diseases?

I think you should put your "theory" back in the oven...this one, along with almost all your other theories/posts, are half baked.


RE: So What.
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, his argument is NOT complete drivel. I know quite a few people with type 2 diabetes who are underweight. I know quite a few who DON'T have type 2 diabetes who are VERY overweight, even more than I personally am (I don't have diabetes either).

The fact is that for some people unless they are willing to STARVE themselves (as I did during elementary - high school by eating only 1 meal a day, dinner, and a EXTREMELY SMALL one at that [to the point where the doctor ordered me to eat more because I was stunting my growth]) they are not going to be thin!
In fact, I know many people who eat salads every day and NOTHING BUT and guess what? OVERWEIGHT BY 200 POUNDS!

It's mainly about genetics today when you are talking about a person's weight, and there is jack-all that a person can do about their genetics.

We need to stop focusing on bashing on people because of their weight and realize that most of those overweight people are EATING NO MORE OR LESS THAN UNDERWEIGHT PEOPLE, and the underweight people are usually NOT getting any more exercise than the overweight people!

Start focusing on finding ways to ramp up people's metabolisms, which is the be-all, end-all solution to obesity.


RE: So What.
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
I also have to continue by saying that just because someone has certain health problems, it does NOT mean that they are from his/her weight.
We need to get out of that thinking as well.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/16/2010 5:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, Lets not get into a Chicken or the Egg argument, the connection is there with weight and health issues such as heart disease, strokes, diabetes etc...

Yes genetics can play a factor in someons metabolism, however the person eating only salads and over weight isnt eating just greens. I'm sure it has meat, eggs, cup of ranch and everything else on it.

Fat is energy, energy is measured typically for this in calories. As long as they calories in is less than calories out then you lose weight. How do you think these lap band surgries work?


RE: So What.
By Spuke on 8/12/2010 6:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus they directly affect my level of disgust by being in my line of sight and taking up too much room on the metro.
LMAO!!


RE: So What.
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/13/2010 7:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
you must be one of those peope who easily LYAO?


RE: So What.
By CloudFire on 8/12/2010 2:47:10 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it is affecting everyone. Health care issues related to obesity and other diseases that obese people are prone to such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, strokes, are costing over 140 billion a year if not more by now.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/short...


RE: So What.
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:14:54 AM , Rating: 1
What you are missing is that underweight people are using JUST AS MUCH healthcare as those people are. Another thing you are missing: cardiovascular disease, strokes, and diabetes are NOT solely limited to overweight people!

I personally had a stroke when I was still UNDERWEIGHT, which the doctor said was more about stress than anything else.

My one cousin who is UNDERWEIGHT just had to have a heart bypass surgery because they had a nearly blocked artery to the heart.

So, it's time to stop assuming that these costs would go away even if these people were underweight, and ALSO realize that you have no right to dictate to these people what they eat, drink, etc.

It is a HUMAN RIGHT to drink, eat, etc. as you wish to, PERIOD AND DONE WITH!

Even as an extreme liberal on most other subjects, I have to say that.


RE: So What.
By eggman on 8/12/2010 3:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
They strain our health care system which already pretty much sucks.

Russ


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 4:04:26 PM , Rating: 4
Strange my healthcare is excellent...you in canada?


RE: So What.
By Iaiken on 8/12/2010 4:25:29 PM , Rating: 5
Kind of a cheap dig...

I've lived under both the California system and the Ontario system and I would take the Canadian system any day of the week.

I injured my shoulder here, I had no wait at emergency and once I was patched up I was on doctor ordered rest (woot! no work!) until I could begin physio.

I talked to a US specialist about it later and he was shocked at how well it had healed. When I told him about the surgery and the physio regiment, he told me there was no way he could get that approved by an insurer. I would have simply recieved a sling, a pat on the butt, a bill and a f***ed up shoulder for the rest of my life.

No thanks.


RE: So What.
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 5:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I talked to a US specialist about it later and he was shocked at how well it had healed. When I told him about the surgery and the physio regiment, he told me there was no way he could get that approved by an insurer. I would have simply recieved a sling, a pat on the butt, a bill and a f***ed up shoulder for the rest of my life.


Must be something with the California system, because here in Kentucky I have known several people who got the same type of care you talk about receiving in Canada right here and paid for by the insurance company. A lot of it depends on what insurance company you have.


RE: So What.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 5:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I talked to a US specialist about it later and he was shocked at how well it had healed. When I told him about the surgery and the physio regiment, he told me there was no way he could get that approved by an insurer. I would have simply recieved a sling, a pat on the butt, a bill and a f***ed up shoulder for the rest of my life.


Coming from someone with a completely rebuilt left knee and extensive physical therapy before I could extend my leg, much less walk, I call BULL.

I don't know who this doctor was, but there is no way he could possibly make that statement with the utter validity you just stated.


RE: So What.
By Spuke on 8/12/2010 6:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you guys rating these people down? They're stating their experience. My healthcare is also excellent. My experience. I won't say that it sucks when it doesn't. Do some have crappy healthcare? Yep. Am I and other two posters part of that group? Nope. If everyone in the US is covered, will US healtcare automatically become great? As far as I'm concerned, that has sh!t to do with quality of care.


RE: So What.
By FITCamaro on 8/12/2010 7:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
Take several million illegal aliens out of the mix in California and see what happens.

And my health care here in dumb @ss South Carolina is excellent.


RE: So What.
By Lerianis on 8/14/2010 12:22:01 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, excuse me, but I'm usually on the side of people who say "I wouldn't have gotten this treatment in America!" and I know it's BULLCRAP in this case.

My father works for Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and he had the same type of injury.... he got surgery for it, physical therapy, and even a cold machine (so he wouldn't have to keep on putting ice on the wound himself) from the insurer at NO cost other than his usual deductible.

So, you would have gotten this same stuff in the United States unless your doctor is a gutless jackass who wasn't pushing hard enough for it.


RE: So What.
By GTVic on 8/12/2010 3:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
This is not just a few people. I was watching one of those documentary type shows showing an enormous machine carting a pre-manufactured overpass down the highway and it happened to go by a Walmart where a small crowd of people had gathered to watch. Only the small crowd wasn't too small, every single person was well over 200lbs, no healthy-sized (or even slightly over weight) people in sight.

You make no sense whatsoever, over consumption of everything is a problem not an economic benefit. Do you actually think that people buying truckloads of sugar snacks is somehow good for our civilization?


RE: So What.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: So What.
By MozeeToby on 8/12/2010 4:10:26 PM , Rating: 3
Imagine if instead of eating all that extra food, they went into the pantry and stomped all the cookies into dust. Wouldn't you admit that that's a wasteful behavior? It becomes much harder to argue that there is a net economic benefit in that case. Why is it really any different?

Money spent on one thing is not around to be spent on another, yes it supports the farmers and bakers, but it is at its very heart an inefficiency in the economic system. People are spending more money on food than they need to. That is their choice of course, if it weren't we'd all be living off the cheapest food that can sustain us. Spending it on food (that you really don't need) is little different then breaking a window and paying to have it repaired (see the Broken Window Fallacy). Yes, it gets the money flowing through the system, but it ignores the fact that the money would have flowed somewhere else anyway.


RE: So What.
By knutjb on 8/12/2010 6:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying the money spent fallacy is just like Nancy Pelosi stating unemployment checks are good for the economy?


RE: So What.
By InvertMe on 8/13/2010 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's not a good analogy.
An unemployment check can be spent on heat, rent, necessary food and whatever else you need to actually live. That's not wasteful. What is wasteful is stuffing your face full of food that you don't need and trying to make a false argument that you are actually helping the economy by doing so.


RE: So What.
By ebakke on 8/12/2010 4:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all about people having the freedom to make whatever choices they want, even if it means allowing someone to choose to kill themselves with a poor diet. But are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't see their decisions as bad?

And it becomes particularly troublesome when they teach the same behavior to their children.


RE: So What.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2010 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't see their decisions as bad?


Nope, I'm not. I just don't feel comfortable judging them on it to be honest.

I think man has an innate need to assert it's dominance over others. And "fat" people have become the newest politically correct target. I mean, their fat and disgusting, right? How could they GET that way? We would NEVER let that happen to us. So something must be wrong with them, or we must make comments on them, or insult them, or blame them for stuff etc etc.

I just really don't feel like taking a part in that to be honest.


RE: So What.
By Spuke on 8/12/2010 7:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just really don't feel like taking a part in that to be honest.
I can understand this.


RE: So What.
By thurston on 8/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: So What.
By ebakke on 8/12/2010 9:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
So you're comfortable making judgments about people who follow more liberal political views, but not fat people? Just so we're on the same page here...


RE: So What.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2010 12:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're comfortable making judgments about people who follow more liberal political views


If they support measures and opinions that increase my taxes, lower my standard of living, impose restrictions on me etc etc? You're goddamn right.

How is someone weighing more compare to that exactly? I know a lot of people here are trying to make some Butterfly Effect argument that somehow an overweight person is negatively impacting everyone else. But even if that's true, it doesn't come close to the effect runaway Liberalism does.

Hope we're on the same page now.


RE: So What.
By ebakke on 8/13/2010 10:05:14 AM , Rating: 1
All I'm saying is don't take this holier than thou attitude about how you're above judging others when you do it all the damn time. And if you're going to, expect to be called out on it.


RE: So What.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2010 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say I was "above" judging others? Holier than thou? OH come on, you surely must have a beef with me and are just projecting it onto this conversation. Because that's ludicrous. Where did I come down on ANYONE for judging fat people here? I didn't. I just said I don't want to. Your attempt to portray me as a hypocrite just isn't going to work.

This discussion is over, and everyone is dumber for having read it. A guy/girl eating "too much" cookies are whatever is none of my business, and none of my concern. It doesn't effect anyone in the slightest.


RE: So What.
By ebakke on 8/13/2010 1:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
I have no beef with you, and more often than not, I agree with your viewpoints expressed here. Maybe I read your post with a tone/inflection that you didn't have when you wrote it. I don't know. But it sure came across as "I know everyone else is fine with bashing fat people, but I'm just not comfortable stooping to that level."


RE: So What.
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well you could go so far as to assume that a bunch of people standing in a WalMart parking lot in the middle of the day were people who were not working and living off welfare. Therefore you could come to the assumption that welfare makes people fat, so we should do away with welfare. See if there was no welfare, then people would be thin because they are either working hard and burning off the calories or they have no money for food and therefore can't eat enough calories to become fat. It would be a total win for everyone to do away with welfare, people would be thinner and healthier, which would reduce the cost of health care, plus we would save all the money we pay people on welfare. We would also be saving energy for transportation, energy for running air conditioners since thin people can take the heat better, and so many other savings.

Just think, all that savings from just cutting out welfare, amazing.

/devil's advocate off


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 4:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Only the small crowd wasn't too small, every single person was well over 200lbs, no healthy-sized (or even slightly over weight) people in sight.


So who determines who is “Healthy Weight” is and who isn't? The same people that decided to sterilize the mentally retarded at the turn of the 20th century? perhaps Government? It’s a myth that weight is always an indicator of poor overall health. My point is people are free to make whatever destructive choice they want in a free society it’s called personal responsibility. It’s only a societal problem when it directly affects others such as drunk driving. Like Smokers, skydivers, people who practice Erotic Asphyxiation or have unprotected sex, play Russian roulette, shoot heroin etc.. People that are obese assume the risks of such behavior as an individual and only ruin themselves. Frankly its none of my business what you choose to do with our life and its none of your business what I do with mine.


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 4:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly it is no ones business until the we socialize medicine. At that moment that society becomes responsible for health care bills then society should have a right to do something about it.

Best way to not make it my problem or my business....Stop socializing everything.

I would 100% perfer to not to care or pay for someones life habits as you stated such as sky diving, smoking, drinking etc...


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 4:32:19 PM , Rating: 1
Oh but you know you will becasue jogging, skydiving, mountain biking are all acceptable destructive activities. I agree my problems should not be societies problems..so why is society so eager to own them?


RE: So What.
By WW102 on 8/12/2010 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
So now we are on two different topics. One is the way it should be, meaning society is not responsible for pay for I guess the word we are using is destructive behavior. So if I over eat, break my arm skiing, fail to deploy my parachute then all that cost and responsiblity falls back on me or on my assets and securities.

Now the second topic is if we socialize everything meaning were all in this together and we all pay into the same pot and we all withdraw from the same pot. Then if the healthy are paying for the unhealthy lifestyles, who gets a voice on how the money should get distributed?

Now we will all grow old and die. Thats a given and to a degree you can account for the cost of death. Its when someones medical cost start to grow past what the cost for someones life is that we start to have issues.

Please don't get caught up on singluar or direct pronouns, this is a general discussion not singling out anyone.


RE: So What.
By JediJeb on 8/12/2010 5:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now the second topic is if we socialize everything meaning were all in this together and we all pay into the same pot and we all withdraw from the same pot. Then if the healthy are paying for the unhealthy lifestyles, who gets a voice on how the money should get distributed?


This is the part if socialized everything that I have a problem with. Unless everyone is making the same amount of money then they can't all pay the same amount into the pot. And with how most of the socialized societies are working now, those that don't make money to put into the pot, are the very ones drawing the most out of the pot! This is in no way a fair and equitable society.


RE: So What.
By rcc on 8/13/2010 12:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then if the healthy are paying for the unhealthy lifestyles, who gets a voice on how the money should get distributed?


And, who gets a voice on welfare payments if the employed are paying for the unemployed?

Or the people with or without diabetes, Parkinson's disease, etc. Alcoholics, or even just habitual drinkers. Other partakers in modern pharaceutical recreation. Personally, I'm really worried about rodeo clowns and pro wrestlers, I don't want any part of their medical bills. : )

Who gets to draw any of those lines. And if you draw it in one place for one group, is it fair to draw it elsewhere for another group.


RE: So What.
By sp33dklz on 8/12/2010 6:17:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree to a point. I think over-eaters and morbidly obese people are just as disgusting and revolting as drug addicts on street corners.

I'm glad they exist and if I had enough corn syrup and overprocessed meat products, I'd shove everyone into a line at McDonalds and have them all supersize their fat intake.

I'm going into the medical field. All these fat lazy people are job security. Please continue to eat up! My future children's college funds will thank your size 44" wallets.

-Josh


RE: So What.
By Mathos on 8/12/2010 7:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what reality you live in, but you needa get an education on weight. You say 200lbs like it's some magical weight that makes someone fat regardless of height and frame build.

I'll agree there are tons, no pun intended, of people at wally world that need to get off their butts and get some physical activity goin. I should know because I work there, and get to see 500lb people riding around the scooter things constantly.

But Dude, I can look at that statement and outright tell you, I'd look like a walking skeleton, if I were down to 200lbs with my height and frame. And not everyones weight problems has to do with eating a lot. Some of it just has to do with eating the wrong type of food. Or it couldn't possibly have to do with all the hormones and steroids and other crap they put in our meat and other food products. Don't even get me started on what the hells going on with fast food. When you can make at home the same food, at 1/2-1/3 the fat and calorie count, somethings goin on.


RE: So What.
By GTVic on 8/13/2010 5:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
I said well over 200lbs and the exact number is not an issue.

I would have expected in a crowd of 20-25 people to see a cross-section of the population and what I saw was 20-25 average height people weighing 240-270 lbs, everyone in the group was significantly obese.

What was a shock to me is that is what a cross-section of today's American looks like.


RE: So What.
By Murloc on 8/12/2010 4:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
that's called wasting resources, not contribuiting to the economy.


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 1
who's resources? when i exchange work for money they pay for the resources they are mine to do whatever i want with. There isn't such a thing globally owned shared resource get that crap out of your head.


RE: So What.
By ClownPuncher on 8/12/2010 5:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Second hand burrito "smoke" kills. OK?


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 5:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you inhale!


RE: So What.
By ggordonliddy on 8/12/2010 4:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
People who are not obese are "skin and bones exercise freaks"?


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 5:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Um so i used a little poetic license for dramatic effect.


RE: So What.
By Motoman on 8/12/2010 5:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Total demand for a commodity (gas, in this case) affects the price...the more demand, the higher the price. Fatties need more fuel - therefore, the cost goes up for everyone.

Also, since they're burning more fuel to make the same trips as non-fatties, the total amount of pollution is higher too - which also affects everyone.


RE: So What.
By Yawgm0th on 8/12/2010 5:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So obese people contribute more to the economy that skin and bones exercise freaks by purchasing more gas and food stuffs.
That's ridiculous. Using more resources doesn't "contribute" to the economy. Simply because they spend more money on food and fuel doesn't mean they do anything for the economy.

Economic contribution is measured in output after resource use -- that is, what one produces compared to what one uses. I would wager obese people (not fat people; obese, specifically) contribute less as a group and less per-capita than the rest of society or "healthy" people as a group. Being obese means people are less able to work and produce output and use more resources (gas, food, materials and space for housing and transportation, etc). They might stimulate individual markets, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

Also, if you think people who are obese don't directly affect others, obviously you've never had to sit next to an obese person in a car, bus, plane, train, room, etc.


RE: So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/10, Rating: 0
RE: So What.
By tmouse on 8/13/2010 8:10:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, if you think people who are obese don't directly affect others, obviously you've never had to sit next to an obese person in a car, bus, plane, train, room, etc.


I think smelly people directly affect us more in those situations; at least heavier people are buying things that allows others to make money producing them. Let’s be honest here the additional fuel costs are a drop in the bucket when you consider the weight added because of the amount of junk people keep in their cars all the time. Now add all of those "quick trips" for this or that, instead of one planned trip. Health care I will give you but this "fuel" argument is totally bullshite. Its equivalent of a mosquito humping an elephant and someone is planning to do a "study" to see if it is hurting the elephant. These types of "studies" probably hurt the economy more in wasted resources.


Thanks Mick
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/10, Rating: -1
RE: Thanks Mick
By nafhan on 8/12/2010 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree. This article is legit. The US was the first nation to hit the productivity and leisure levels we now enjoy, and we're also the first nation to deal with the consequences. As all those alcohol and drug abuse programs say (more or less): awareness is the first step.
Japan, along with the wealthier Asian countries, and the "Euro-trash" are catching up quickly, but we're the number one fatties (for now). Hopefully, we can also be number one in taking care of our weight problem. I think discrimination against fat people (who don't have a genuine health problem) is a reasonable way to deal with it. To be clear, by discrimination I don't mean calling names or physical abuse. I mean stuff like higher airline ticket prices, etc.


RE: Thanks Mick
By DarthKaos on 8/12/2010 3:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you nafhan. I don't want to pay more for airplane tickets because of over weight people. I am no skinny mini either. I am above my BMI but would not consider myself obese. Also I don't live in denial saying thing like "the obesity problem in the US is not that bad" or "the percentage is so low how could it matter". Some of these posts make similar statements to these and I just had to cringe. .7 percent of 100 is not much but .7 percent of 3 million sure is. Plus no matter what the studies say being over weight is leading to more health issues than we know. Being over weight is just plain bad for you like smoking, drinking too much too often, or doing crack. If you had a friend who only did crack once a day would you say "that is fine. you don't do it that much so it is not bad for you"?


RE: Thanks Mick
By tmouse on 8/13/2010 8:44:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
.7 percent of 100 is not much but .7 percent of 3 million sure is.


Yes .7% of 3 million is a larger number but so is 97.3% of 3 million.

quote:
no matter what the studies say being overweight is leading to more health issues than we know


I do not even know what you are talking about here. I have never even heard of a study that states that being morbidly obese does not lead to health problems. Now the term overweight is totally meaningless since it depends on who is determining the ideal weight. The percent fat is what is critical and the only real accurate and reproducible way to measure that is hydrostatic weighing, although body fat scales and skin calipers will do in a pinch (pun intended).

Too much of ANYTHING including exercise is bad for you; the devil is in the details what defines “too much”. The problem I see is “powers that be” choose a segment and demonize them like smokers, sex offenders and overweight people. The majority can agree they have "bad" traits and accept penalties on them. The problem is we slowly allow the government to erode our self determination in the name of "security". Now I’m not saying some taxes, penalties ect. are not to the benefit of the majority but think twice before blindly accepting these things.

Put a frog in boiling water and he will jump out, put one in cool water and slowly raise the temperature and you will have frog soup.


RE: Thanks Mick
By Nutzo on 8/12/2010 6:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you can fit in a single airline seat (with the arms down), and can easily walk a couple miles when you go to the local park or beach, then you do not have health related weight problem and people should mind thier own business


RE: Thanks Mick
By Lerianis on 8/15/2010 4:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
Little problem with that second part. Even when I weighed 140 pounds at 5' tall, I couldn't do that second part easily.

Wasn't from 'lack of exercise' either since I got LESS than my cousin did and she didn't have problems with that.

As to fitting in a single airline seat? Get real, even a MIDGET would have a hard time doing that with as freaking small as the seats are today.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki