Prejudice against fat people???

[shernajwine]

the answer is good nutrition and a lifestyle change to eating how and what

i agree 100%. when i started delving into nutritional research it amazed me the things i didn't know! it is absolutely about good nutrition. and the amazing thing is that when your body starts getting good nutrition it does more that cause you to lose weight. you're skin looks better, your hair, your insides start working like the properly oiled machine it was created to be!!

i think there is just too much false information out there and people selling quick solutions to desperate people who will spend ridiculous amounts of money rather than change their habits.

it's unfair that it is harder for some than others but it comes down to making a choice and changing no matter what you have to do to get the result you are after. no matter how difficult, you wake up and make a choice to do it right that day and just take it one day at a time.

Annella that's so awesome you were able to lose weight and overcome your 'bad' genes! 

[klkwid]

I see both sides of the argument here, but I tend to side with a yes on the fat tax.  I think that things like candy and pop should be taxed higher and that is the best way to actually have a  "fat tax".  I mean, what are you going to do?  Have people get on a scale every time they go to H&R Block???

[klkwid]

Just thought of something else-Did you guys know that Medicaid (at least Illinois Medicaid) is paying for gastric bypass surgery now??  What do you think about everyone else's tax dollars going towards that sort of thing?? 

[Annella]

Shernajwine, you said some great stuff also.  I forgot about how it does make your body "work" like it's suppose to.  Your whole body benefits, inside and out.  I also try to drink 3 quarts of water a day.  Makes your skin glow, eyes sparkle, and hair healthy/shiny.  That's because our bodies are "processing" the "real food" we eating  I also purchase organic as often as possible.

[Annella]

Bypass Surgery is forced starvation, and should only be considered in rare medical cases where the life is threatened, not for just losing weight.  A friend of mine had it.  She had a couple heart attacks, and her Dr. approved her for it.  If you ask some people who have had it......some would rethink it.  I know of someone else who had it done, and she went right back to her heavy weight in a couple years.  Weight should be lost naturally.  Just sayin.............

[Annella]

klkwid......fat tax?  Oh like how the price of cigarettes have gone way up?  People will still pay what they want for what they want!!  Adding a tax on candy, soda, etc., isn't going to make a difference.  People have got to have the "want to" to make better choices in what they eat and drink. 

[shernajwine]

klkwid......fat tax?  Oh like how the price of cigarettes have gone way up?  People will still pay what they want for what they want!!  Adding a tax on candy, soda, etc., isn't going to make a difference.  People have got to have the "want to" to make better choices in what they eat and drink. 

that's true Annella. also taxing junk food is essentially taxing everyone, which defeats the purpose of singling out fat people.

and i do understand the other side of the coin, my sister is overweight and despite losing her son in a custody battle and facing jail time for non payment of child support, she still refuses to get a job cuz.....she has a bad back and wants to claim disability....

this is ridiculous. she may have a genetic predisposition to be overweight but that is just plain laziness. although i know skinny people who live off welfare cuz they are too lazy to work. so i don't think the answer is taxing certain people. i think the answer is stricter welfare policies and more investigation into welfare fraud.

[klkwid]

klkwid......fat tax?  Oh like how the price of cigarettes have gone way up?  People will still pay what they want for what they want!!  Adding a tax on candy, soda, etc., isn't going to make a difference.  People have got to have the "want to" to make better choices in what they eat and drink. 

Exactly-that's the point.  If people want to continue to eat like crap, then let them be taxed on it.  The tax dollars should go towards health research, Medicare, and other health related places.  Same with the cigarette tax-maybe if we continue to tax the crap out of these things, we will get out of debt as a country one of these days. 

[klkwid]

Bypass Surgery is forced starvation, and should only be considered in rare medical cases where the life is threatened, not for just losing weight.  A friend of mine had it.  She had a couple heart attacks, and her Dr. approved her for it.  If you ask some people who have had it......some would rethink it.  I know of someone else who had it done, and she went right back to her heavy weight in a couple years.  Weight should be lost naturally.  Just sayin.............

Actually, since gastric bypass is a relatively new procedure, they are still doing studies on it and are starting to find that it really isn't helping as much as they thought it would.  I'm cutting and pasting an article from theheart.org (you have to be a member to view it so I can't put in the link) regarding the lack of long term reduction in incidence of heart attack.  I think that there is a healthy weight for everyone-people are not meant to look like models all the time and it's actually supposed to be healthier to have a couple extra pounds on you.  I also believe that in the cases of major obesity and morbid obesity, we need to take responsiblilty and stop blaming it on genes.  There's way too much "it's not my fault" in this society....



Bariatric surgery fails to reduce risk of MI long term
October 28, 2009 | Michael O'Riordan
 
 
Washington, DC - A long-term prospective study of bariatric surgery for weight loss in obese individuals showed the procedure has no effect on the rates of MI when compared with individuals who underwent conventional care.

While the rates of MI were equivalent in follow-up out to 20 years, investigators suggest there was a significant effect of surgery on fatal and nonfatal MI in subjects with elevated baseline glucose levels.

 
Dr Lars Sjöström

"Patients with elevated glucose levels are at higher risk, and it is reduced with surgery," lead investigator Dr Lars Sjöström (Gothenburg University, Sweden) told heartwire. "For patients with lower glucose levels, those below the median, glucose levels aren't reduced as much, so we're unable to reduce the outcome on myocardial infarction in the same way when compared with those who have higher levels."

He cautioned, however, against making too much of the MI benefit with surgery in patients with elevated glucose levels, because the analysis was post hoc and needs to be confirmed in other studies.

The results of the study, an analysis of the Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study, were presented here this week during the late-breaking clinical-trials session at Obesity 2009.



Mortality benefits observed earlier
 

The SOS study was initiated in 1987 and is a prospective, matched, surgical-interventional trial that includes 4047 obese subjects at 25 surgical departments and 480 primary-healthcare centers.


Regarding the primary end point of the study, investigators showed that 10 years after bariatric surgery, the procedure was associated with a 29% reduction in total mortality when compared with conventional treatment [1]. These results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007. Other analyses have shown that surgery was also associated with reductions in the incidence of new diabetes mellitus and reductions in cancer in women. As recently reported by heartwire, there is also growing enthusiasm for performing bariatric surgery, even in people who do not meet the definition of obese, in response to evidence suggesting that the procedure can "cure" diabetes.

In this analysis, investigators presented data on the secondary end point, the effect of bariatric surgery on fatal and nonfatal MI. Patients were well matched regarding clinical characteristics, including baseline body-mass index. As reported previously, patients who underwent surgery lost significantly more weight after one, two, and 15 years, although the weight loss occurred primarily in the first year. From baseline, surgical patients lost approximately 30 kg in the first year compared with just 1 kg in the conventional-treatment arm.

After a median follow-up of 12.9 years, investigators showed there to be essentially no difference in event rates between the two treatment groups. The cumulative incidence curves were separated maximally after 11 years but later converged. Overall, there were 104 MIs in the surgery arm and 113 events in the control group. As noted, only patients with elevated blood glucose levels at baseline—those with levels higher than the median 4.72 mmol/L—had a reduction in MI events, and this finding was driven by the benefit in men only.

Sjöström said the overall results are "discouraging" and pointed to the low event rates in SOS as a possible reason for the negative findings. He said other studies have shown a benefit of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular disease event rates, including one that suggested a 50% to 60% reduction in risk. He cautioned, however, that these are retrospective studies, and the field is littered with conflicting findings.

"There are a number of studies that have shown that weight loss is associated with improved cardiovascular risk factors, suggesting perhaps that weight loss would also be associated with decreased incidence of cardiovascular disease," said Sjöström. "However, the controlled, prospective interventions proving that weight loss is in fact associated with decreased cardiovascular disease have so far been lacking."

[jordandog]

also taxing junk food is essentially taxing everyone, which defeats the purpose of singling out fat people

I would have to disagree with that. It wouldn't affect me, or others like me, who don't buy 'junk food' as a rule. I would be more than willing to pay extra tax for the few items in that category I buy in a year's time. This is like saying the high taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products affects everyone. It doesn't affect people who don't smoke or use any tobacco products, period.

I think it might be a great idea to make it so anyone who is receiving food stamps/food cards is exempt from being able to buy non-nutritional foods with them. They can't use them to buy alcohol, tobacco, and a few other things, but yet they always seem to be able to pull money out to pay for them. If they want junk food, then let it be out-of-pocket too.

[tiffkk09]

i have bee slightly over weight almost my whole life and it has nothing to do with the way i eat or exercise, i eat possibly 2 meals a day and exercise atleast an hour a day , but still dont lose anything!!! Doctors dono why i cannt lose it but i just dont 

[shernajwine]

also taxing junk food is essentially taxing everyone, which defeats the purpose of singling out fat people

I would have to disagree with that. It wouldn't affect me, or others like me, who don't buy 'junk food' as a rule. I would be more than willing to pay extra tax for the few items in that category I buy in a year's time. This is like saying the high taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products affects everyone. It doesn't affect people who don't smoke or use any tobacco products, period.

I think it might be a great idea to make it so anyone who is receiving food stamps/food cards is exempt from being able to buy non-nutritional foods with them. They can't use them to buy alcohol, tobacco, and a few other things, but yet they always seem to be able to pull money out to pay for them. If they want junk food, then let it be out-of-pocket too.

you have a point there! i agree people with foodstamps should not be allowed to buy junk with it!

[Annella]

klkwid, it's a scientific fact that some generations "carry" a fat gene, and pass it down the line (heredity).  There are so many things passed down generation after generation.  A lot of your Cholesterol readings are from family heredity.  I was like tiffkk09, where I did everything I knew what to do at the time, and still remained heavy.  I've NEVER been a lazy person.  What works for one person, does NOT work for another.  Also, some prescribed medication can put weight on you faster than food.......did you know that?  All of our bodies process everything we put into our mouth differently.  The very enzymes that break down food, in our different blood types are a factor.  Did you know that?  Does the acid in your intestines break down food correctly?  There are so many variables as we're all original.  There is no cookie cutter way to lose weight.  Research and find what works for you.  Believe me, I've done the homework. 

It's ignorance that lumps everybody in a "lazy" group.  This label is so insulting to those of us who battle with this everyday of our lives....like tiggkk09.  My heart goes out to her, because I know the struggle.  Does everyone who have Diabeties put themselves there?  Juvenile Diabeties?  Allergies?  Asthma?  Heart Disease?  High Cholesterol?  All of these, and more, have a hereditary imprint. 

Yes, some people are not willing to lift a finger, and sit around eating junk food, and have no intention of losing anything, but NOT EVERYBODY.  It took me years to find what worked for me.  All the while crying inside because I could see the disgust in people's eyes.  It's easy to judge someone else, when we don't have to fight the battle ourselves. 

[Angelbot]

Well i agree with alot of what has been said so far... some people are overweight due to medication, or because of what they eat (ie junk food or a lot of fastfood) or hereditary. But there is one thing i would like to also point out, there is alot more growth hormones/steroids given to animals in which we consume. Think about it, what ever a cow, chicken, fish etc eat , it affects their mass (what WE eat) which in turn, when we consume them, it is absorbed into our systems. Pesticides and other things are used in vegetables aswell to make them grow faster and/or keep insects off them, which ironically enough, effects us aswell! I can honestly say that although i am overweight myself by 100 lbs (by AMERICAN standards) i dont eat junk food or food with high fat content. I eat more veggies than i do meat, and maybe once a month i will eat out at mcdonalds or wendys or a restaurant and eat small portions of everything. So its not always HOW MUCH of what we eat but what is in those foods that make people over weight.

 And yes medication will make you retain weight/water or certain medical conditions will create the inability for one to burn off calories or eliminate the excess fluids/weight that one will carry

[jcribb16]

   I'm off and on steroids a lot because of my asthma/allergies.  It's a constant battle with the weight (not to mention emotions) with these.  I work hard to lose or maintain the weight and then here come the steroids adding it back on.  One thing I have discovered that has helped some with the weight, when on steroids, is to constantly drink water, and eats fruits and veggies. This is combined with the walking. This last time on steroids, I actually lost 2 lbs.  It's hard work! (P.S.  I never had any weight problem until asthma/allergies hit with a major force. We (drs. and I) are still trying to get it in more control.)