I know - if corn were in any more products...well, let's say I'm not going to be surprised if they come out with corn paper towels and corn based cleaner.
I agree, we need to demand more produce and better standards, but the way overweight people are treated is just totally abhorrent. We already KNOW we are overweight - discriminating and denying services and treatment won't do anything except to make it THAT more difficult for people to care for themselves.
It must be horrible to be shunned and feel hopeless, simply because of your weight, and denied services because some bureaucrat has deemed you unworthy because it's your own fault, you should know better, shame, shame, shame. There are SO MANY reasons we gain weight and become obese - it's not like it happens overnight, you know? Yes, alot of it can be emotional, a substitute for an emptiness inside, a band-aid for something, or just palin love of food. Hey, no one was around to stop me from eating, and I was an unhappy person, so 105 pounds later...I realized that THIS was not who I was, NOT how I wanted to feel, and I DID something about it. I was lucky in a sense that I had not got to a place where I would require special help, surgery, drugs or other means to help. Yes, I put the food in my face, and no, it wasn't the gov'ts fault. BUT, the gov't having these ridiculous stringent policies, red tape, hassle, middlemen, expensive drugs (don't even get me going on the cost of cancer drugs)IS NOT GOING TO make the situation any better.
Can't they see the way they treat this obesity problem is NOT the best way to handle it? I don't have all the answers, but some people here (not naming names) have this attitude that it is so simple to do a 180 and instantly restore order to theur life, wake up and smell the coffee...as anyone reading our storeis here can see, we are a crossection example of American women struggling with weight. Yes, it's a small sample, but what WE here represent is the point that it IS NOT easy to deal with - easy to put on, but not so easy to take off.
Our bodies are crafty and can be diffucult sometimes in regards to losing weight. Yes, willpower does come into it, and I saw it first hand with myself when I was put on a diet and I stuck to it. Of course I lost weight. I was on reduced fat, carbs, calories, but it was HOW it was mapped out and presented to me, and how I was made to feel - NOT like a failure or less of a person for being a cow, but that I was WORTH it to be as beautiful on the outside as I was inside.
All of us here are worth it, inside and out. If only the rest of the country could see that fat people are just as wonderful as thin people and deserve help just as much, then that will be a MUCH welcomed day.
Amy
Edited to try and fix icon at top - meant to put in the Candle, not Caution. DUR!
"Obesity is caused by consuming more calories that the body uses for fuel."
Yes, we all know that.
"All the studies in the world haven't changed that one jot."
That's not what Erin said, either. The point of her post, as I understand it, is that the biological and psychological mechanisms related to calorie consumption and weight regulation are not well understood; worse, simple-minded people often say that weight control is solely a matter of "personal choice" or "willpower." That's not what obesity researchers say, though. Now, who should I listen to? Something who has spent years researching obesity and has an actual medical background . . . or you? Hmm. Not a hard decision, that one!
***
"But to most obesity experts this notion of personal choice is downright nutty. 'Who would choose to be obese?' asks Rudolph Leibel, a Columbia University geneticist and a noted obesity researcher. 'Telling someone they've decided to become obese is like saying, "You've decided to give yourself a brain tumor."'
"Increasingly, researchers are demonstrating that obesity is controlled by a powerful biological system of hormones, proteins, neurotransmitters, and genes that regulate fat storage and body weight and tell the brain when, what, and how much to eat. 'This is not debatable,' says Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and president-elect of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity. 'Once people gain weight, then these biological mechanisms, which we're beginning to understand, develop to prevent people from losing weight. It's not someone fighting "willpower." The body resists weight loss.'
"This wonder of natural chemical engineering evolved over centuries to protect humans against famine and assure reproduction of the species. 'The idea that nature would leave this system to a matter of "choice" is naive,' says Arthur Frank, director of George Washington University's Weight Management Program. 'Eating is largely driven by signals from fat tissue, from the gastrointestinal tract, the liver. All those organs are sending information to the brain to eat or not to eat. So, saying to an obese person who wants to lose weight, "All you have to do is eat less," is like saying to a person suffering from asthma, "All you have to do is breathe better."'
Amanda Spake, "Rethinking Weight," US News & World Report, Feb. 9, 2004, at 50.
***
"And really, it's a personal matter not requiring *big brother* in terms of govt intervention, and tax increases for medicare IMO too."
We ALREADY pay for people's obesity. I used to fill thousands of dollars of prescription medications every month for people who had debilitating arthritis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, and all the other ailments that have been linked to persistent obesity. The government (and private insurance companies) are too reactive in treating obesity; they spend money only when someone has developed chronic problems. If they spent a little money researching weight-loss methods THAT ACTUALLY WORKED, they could prevent a catastrophic rise in obesity and its horrible side effects.
>>discriminating and denying services and treatment won't do anything except to make it THAT more difficult for people to care for themselves<<
But it's not really about discriminating and denying services to say that medicare shouldn't redefine obesity as medical. In fact, doing that can actually hurt people who are struggling with weight issues. In ways, it redefines them as "victims," and "helpless," and nothing could be farther from the truth. As I think I said earlier, obesity can lead to diseases (heart disease for one) but it's not in and of itself a disease. It's something within the control of the individual who is obese, through healthy eating and exercise. It's not like AIDS or schitzophrenia, a disease over which the sick person has no personal control. Anyway, I personally think the fact that medicare has redefined "obesity" has a lot more to do with politics, and maybe even the election year, but certainly shuffling money around within the govt, and a whole lot less to do with actually helping the individual who may be obese. It will raise taxes, it will (eventually) raise insurance premiums....but help the individual citizen, I have serious doubts about that.
Nice talking to you about this though. I think it has potential for lively discussion. BTW, last night (for some odd reason) I woke up at 2:30 am and couldn't get back to sleep. So, me being me, I turned on the tv and for the first time watched the health channel. They were talking about this very topic, and the program followed two people through weight loss surgery, one a relatively new "banding" procedure, and the other a more traditional stomach stapling. And the point was made that surgery is the only "proven" effective method of weight loss (with results lasting more than a few years) and so if the medicare laws actually change, it will likely be that this "form" of treatment is the only treatment which will/maybe/might ever receive any funding. But not before years and years of testing, to see if it's safe and if long term results are in excess of 10 years (!) and right now, the point was made, this is still a very dangerous procedure--since those operated on are already morbidly obese, so at increased risk of death from surgery, and until and unless that changes, the government could not approve that method. Anyway, it was all very interesting. I also learned that the health channel has programs twice daily (morning, and at 3pm) dealing with "success stories," people who have lost great amounts of weight through means other than surgery, and the impact it's had on their lives. As I said, I have never watched that channel before. But for the wee small hours of the morning, it was very interesting.
>>Hey, no one was around to stop me from eating, and I was an unhappy person, so 105 pounds later...I realized that THIS was not who I was, NOT how I wanted to feel, and I DID something about it.<<
My post is getting really, really long (again). But it sounds like we have something in common there! Perhaps we can talk (er, write) about that another time. I've enjoyed this conversation.
>>That's not what Erin said, either. The point of her post, as I understand it, is that the biological and psychological mechanisms related to calorie consumption and weight regulation are not well understood; worse, simple-minded people often say that weight control is solely a matter of "personal choice" or "willpower." That's not what obesity researchers say, though. Now, who should I listen to? Something who has spent years researching obesity and has an actual medical background . . . or you? Hmm. Not a hard decision, that one! <<
I know there's a lot that isn't known about obesity, but the point I'm making is that there's no evidence to support our government's contention (in changing Medicare rules) that obesity is a disease. In fact, it's not a disease but it is the result of human behaviors. And the fact that it's been redefined may, also, do more harm to those suffering from obesity. I don't think the govts new policy vis obesity/medicare is an answer, that's all.
>>Now, who should I listen to? Something who has spent years researching obesity and has an actual medical background . . . or you? Hmm. Not a hard decision, that one! <<
There are lots of researchers who write about obesity, besides the one you offer. And it looks like the best minds in the country, on that subject, all come to the same conclusion...as top research has for years and years: obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body uses for fuel. It's not a disease. The way to "cure" obesity is to not eat more calories than the body needs for fuel, and to exercise. There has not been anything new on that score Rudolph Leibel and the magazine you name notwithstanding
Not trying to butt in here since you guys are having a good conversation about this but you said: as top research has for years and years: obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body uses for fuel. It's not a disease. The way to "cure" obesity is to not eat more calories than the body needs for fuel, and to exercise.
If I can interject here? The points you're making about "emotional disease" are well-taken, but emotional effects are not something which is fundable by Medicare either. You have to understand what medicare is set up to do, and more importantly what it IS NOT to be used for. We're not talking about paid counseling here. That's not what medicare is about either. The effects you name are not "disease"
Yes, it's difficult to be overweight. Yes, there can be emotional side-effects, and even emotional causes (in some, not all people). But none of those things have anything to do with medicare. I think that's what Forte has been commenting on. "What's happening in the brain," as you say, is not a disease.
Forte10 and Hippolytes: If your definition of what should be covered by Medicare are only diseases that aren't affected or caused by one's personal actions, then do you think that any disease or cancer caused by smoking should be covered by Medicare? After all, one *chooses* to smoke. You aren't taking into account that people can become addicted to food in the same way they become addicted to smoking. For many people, it's not just a matter of stopping overeating and getting more exercise. It's a matter of psychological dependency upon a substance. In this case, the substance is food. Until the mental attitude towards one's relationship with food changes, that person will likely have trouble maintaining permanant weight loss. Although I can understand the reasons why you are against Medicare covering the costs of obesity, it's crass to just assume that most people can easily control their behavior and just don't want to make the effort. It's quite a struggle for many people.
Pages
I agree, we need to demand more produce and better standards, but the way overweight people are treated is just totally abhorrent. We already KNOW we are overweight - discriminating and denying services and treatment won't do anything except to make it THAT more difficult for people to care for themselves.
It must be horrible to be shunned and feel hopeless, simply because of your weight, and denied services because some bureaucrat has deemed you unworthy because it's your own fault, you should know better, shame, shame, shame. There are SO MANY reasons we gain weight and become obese - it's not like it happens overnight, you know? Yes, alot of it can be emotional, a substitute for an emptiness inside, a band-aid for something, or just palin love of food. Hey, no one was around to stop me from eating, and I was an unhappy person, so 105 pounds later...I realized that THIS was not who I was, NOT how I wanted to feel, and I DID something about it. I was lucky in a sense that I had not got to a place where I would require special help, surgery, drugs or other means to help. Yes, I put the food in my face, and no, it wasn't the gov'ts fault. BUT, the gov't having these ridiculous stringent policies, red tape, hassle, middlemen, expensive drugs (don't even get me going on the cost of cancer drugs)IS NOT GOING TO make the situation any better.
Can't they see the way they treat this obesity problem is NOT the best way to handle it? I don't have all the answers, but some people here (not naming names) have this attitude that it is so simple to do a 180 and instantly restore order to theur life, wake up and smell the coffee...as anyone reading our storeis here can see, we are a crossection example of American women struggling with weight. Yes, it's a small sample, but what WE here represent is the point that it IS NOT easy to deal with - easy to put on, but not so easy to take off.
Our bodies are crafty and can be diffucult sometimes in regards to losing weight. Yes, willpower does come into it, and I saw it first hand with myself when I was put on a diet and I stuck to it. Of course I lost weight. I was on reduced fat, carbs, calories, but it was HOW it was mapped out and presented to me, and how I was made to feel - NOT like a failure or less of a person for being a cow, but that I was WORTH it to be as beautiful on the outside as I was inside.
All of us here are worth it, inside and out. If only the rest of the country could see that fat people are just as wonderful as thin people and deserve help just as much, then that will be a MUCH welcomed day.
Amy
Edited to try and fix icon at top - meant to put in the Candle, not Caution. DUR!
Edited 7/21/2004 10:53 pm ET ET by barkingshark
Yes, we all know that.
"All the studies in the world haven't changed that one jot."
That's not what Erin said, either. The point of her post, as I understand it, is that the biological and psychological mechanisms related to calorie consumption and weight regulation are not well understood; worse, simple-minded people often say that weight control is solely a matter of "personal choice" or "willpower." That's not what obesity researchers say, though. Now, who should I listen to? Something who has spent years researching obesity and has an actual medical background . . . or you? Hmm. Not a hard decision, that one!
***
"But to most obesity experts this notion of personal choice is downright nutty. 'Who would choose to be obese?' asks Rudolph Leibel, a Columbia University geneticist and a noted obesity researcher. 'Telling someone they've decided to become obese is like saying, "You've decided to give yourself a brain tumor."'
"Increasingly, researchers are demonstrating that obesity is controlled by a powerful biological system of hormones, proteins, neurotransmitters, and genes that regulate fat storage and body weight and tell the brain when, what, and how much to eat. 'This is not debatable,' says Louis Aronne, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and president-elect of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity. 'Once people gain weight, then these biological mechanisms, which we're beginning to understand, develop to prevent people from losing weight. It's not someone fighting "willpower." The body resists weight loss.'
"This wonder of natural chemical engineering evolved over centuries to protect humans against famine and assure reproduction of the species. 'The idea that nature would leave this system to a matter of "choice" is naive,' says Arthur Frank, director of George Washington University's Weight Management Program. 'Eating is largely driven by signals from fat tissue, from the gastrointestinal tract, the liver. All those organs are sending information to the brain to eat or not to eat. So, saying to an obese person who wants to lose weight, "All you have to do is eat less," is like saying to a person suffering from asthma, "All you have to do is breathe better."'
Amanda Spake, "Rethinking Weight," US News & World Report, Feb. 9, 2004, at 50.
***
"And really, it's a personal matter not requiring *big brother* in terms of govt intervention, and tax increases for medicare IMO too."
We ALREADY pay for people's obesity. I used to fill thousands of dollars of prescription medications every month for people who had debilitating arthritis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, and all the other ailments that have been linked to persistent obesity. The government (and private insurance companies) are too reactive in treating obesity; they spend money only when someone has developed chronic problems. If they spent a little money researching weight-loss methods THAT ACTUALLY WORKED, they could prevent a catastrophic rise in obesity and its horrible side effects.
Edited 7/27/2004 1:56 pm ET ET by forte10
But it's not really about discriminating and denying services to say that medicare shouldn't redefine obesity as medical. In fact, doing that can actually hurt people who are struggling with weight issues. In ways, it redefines them as "victims," and "helpless," and nothing could be farther from the truth. As I think I said earlier, obesity can lead to diseases (heart disease for one) but it's not in and of itself a disease. It's something within the control of the individual who is obese, through healthy eating and exercise. It's not like AIDS or schitzophrenia, a disease over which the sick person has no personal control. Anyway, I personally think the fact that medicare has redefined "obesity" has a lot more to do with politics, and maybe even the election year, but certainly shuffling money around within the govt, and a whole lot less to do with actually helping the individual who may be obese. It will raise taxes, it will (eventually) raise insurance premiums....but help the individual citizen, I have serious doubts about that.
Nice talking to you about this though. I think it has potential for lively discussion. BTW, last night (for some odd reason) I woke up at 2:30 am and couldn't get back to sleep. So, me being me, I turned on the tv and for the first time watched the health channel. They were talking about this very topic, and the program followed two people through weight loss surgery, one a relatively new "banding" procedure, and the other a more traditional stomach stapling. And the point was made that surgery is the only "proven" effective method of weight loss (with results lasting more than a few years) and so if the medicare laws actually change, it will likely be that this "form" of treatment is the only treatment which will/maybe/might ever receive any funding. But not before years and years of testing, to see if it's safe and if long term results are in excess of 10 years (!) and right now, the point was made, this is still a very dangerous procedure--since those operated on are already morbidly obese, so at increased risk of death from surgery, and until and unless that changes, the government could not approve that method. Anyway, it was all very interesting. I also learned that the health channel has programs twice daily (morning, and at 3pm) dealing with "success stories," people who have lost great amounts of weight through means other than surgery, and the impact it's had on their lives. As I said, I have never watched that channel before. But for the wee small hours of the morning, it was very interesting.
>>Hey, no one was around to stop me from eating, and I was an unhappy person, so 105 pounds later...I realized that THIS was not who I was, NOT how I wanted to feel, and I DID something about it.<<
My post is getting really, really long (again). But it sounds like we have something in common there! Perhaps we can talk (er, write) about that another time. I've enjoyed this conversation.
Forte
I know there's a lot that isn't known about obesity, but the point I'm making is that there's no evidence to support our government's contention (in changing Medicare rules) that obesity is a disease. In fact, it's not a disease but it is the result of human behaviors. And the fact that it's been redefined may, also, do more harm to those suffering from obesity. I don't think the govts new policy vis obesity/medicare is an answer, that's all.
>>Now, who should I listen to? Something who has spent years researching obesity and has an actual medical background . . . or you? Hmm. Not a hard decision, that one! <<
There are lots of researchers who write about obesity, besides the one you offer. And it looks like the best minds in the country, on that subject, all come to the same conclusion...as top research has for years and years: obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body uses for fuel. It's not a disease. The way to "cure" obesity is to not eat more calories than the body needs for fuel, and to exercise. There has not been anything new on that score Rudolph Leibel and the magazine you name notwithstanding
forte
hippolytes
Not trying to butt in here since you guys are having a good conversation about this but you said: as top research has for years and years: obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body uses for fuel. It's not a disease. The way to "cure" obesity is to not eat more calories than the body needs for fuel, and to exercise.
It could be also be said that the actual
If I can interject here? The points you're making about "emotional disease" are well-taken, but emotional effects are not something which is fundable by Medicare either. You have to understand what medicare is set up to do, and more importantly what it IS NOT to be used for. We're not talking about paid counseling here. That's not what medicare is about either. The effects you name are not "disease"
Yes, it's difficult to be overweight. Yes, there can be emotional side-effects, and even emotional causes (in some, not all people). But none of those things have anything to do with medicare. I think that's what Forte has been commenting on. "What's happening in the brain," as you say, is not a disease.
Thank you for reposting my post.
Pages