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

So What.
By Ammohunt on 8/12/2010 2:18:04 PM , Rating: -1
So obese people contribute more to the economy that skin and bones exercise freaks by purchasing more gas and food stuffs. Since they are not directly affecting anyone else with their choices who the f*** cares?




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.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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