# So now you're Fat AND Dumb...



## mango (Oct 10, 2006)

*Now the boffins can 'prove' it  


Heavier weight link to poorer mental function

From Amy Norton in New York
October 10, 2006 08:21am*
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20555415-2,00.html

*OVERWEIGHT middle-aged adults tend to score more poorly on tests of memory, attention and learning ability than their thinner peers do, researchers reported today.*

The findings, they say, suggest that a heavier weight in middle age may mean a higher risk of dementia later in life.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, the researchers speculate that higher rates of cardiovascular disease or diabetes might help explain the link. But it's also possible that substances produced by fat cells, such as the hormone leptin, have direct effects on the brain.

Both obesity and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, are becoming increasingly common, noted lead study author Dr Maxime Cournot, of Toulouse University Hospital in France.

"Our results, along with other previous studies, strongly suggest a greater risk of dementia in these (overweight) persons at middle-age," Dr Cournot said to Reuters Heath.

The study included 2223 healthy French adults who were between the ages of 32 and 62 in 1996. At that time, they took a battery of standard cognitive tests, assessing abilities like memory, attention and speed of learning. Five years later, they took the tests again.

In general, the researchers found, people with a high body mass index (BMI) garnered lower test scores than those with a lower BMI. They also tended to show greater cognitive decline between the two test periods.

Factors such as age, education and general health did not seem to explain the link.

According to Dr Cournot, the tests used in the study are sensitive enough to detect "small variations" in cognition, and the weight-related differences seen among these healthy middle-aged adults would probably not be obvious in daily life.

But over time, the researcher explained, there could be more apparent effects on the rate of age-related mental decline.

It's possible, according to Dr Cournot's team, that excess fat cells have some direct effect on brain function. For example, some studies suggest the "hunger" hormone leptin, which is produced by fat cells, plays a role in learning and memory.

And although these study participants were in generally good health, disorders like elevated blood pressure and diabetes could act as a bridge between high BMI and poorer cognitive function.

Thickening and hardening of the blood vessels supplying the brain can contribute to dementia, Dr Cournot noted. Similarly, diabetes may harm cognition by either leading to artery disease or via direct effects of the hormone insulin on brain cells.

Regardless of what the impact of weight on dementia risk turns out to be, Dr Cournot said, there are already many reasons to maintain a healthy weight. The potential effects on mental function, the researcher added, may give people added motivation to change their lifestyle habits.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Oct 10, 2006)

"The potential effects on mental function, the researcher added, may give people added motivation to change their lifestyle habits." Did they factor in depression...  ? This last sentence seems very political. Society should offer alternatives to terror and dread:shocked: ...


----------



## Ericthonius (Oct 10, 2006)

I've been through this before and if the article is re-read notice how much legalese is contained therin. 'Shoulds', 'coulds', 'mights' and 'possibilities' are nebulous terms utilized in stories, (as repetitively calling them 'articles' gives them too much credibility), like this to scare the un or under-educated public into bouts of worry. It bores me to tears. 

Arterio and athero-sclerosis and their killer off-spring atelectasis strike everybody over the age of, IIRC, 45 or 50 until you die. Some of the,'Statins', like _Lipitor_, etc. may help in those with hyperlipidaemia hold off the ravages of time but as to someone's mental state becoming altered because of an arbitrary BMI number on a chart? Non-sense! Do you _know_ how many skinny old people there _ARE_ out there with, "_Senile Dementia_"? Literally millions! Anyone who has worked in either a nursing home/CCF or a hospital's gerontology unit can tell you that. 

Next they'll say that if you vote, "X"*, your showing signs of early-onset Dementia and your voting rights will be suspended until you can produce a note from your PCP that you're NOT nuts. But... How is it, again, that you can prove a negative? Oh, that's right multiply by Zero. Whew! I thought for a minute the half-dozen jelly doughnuts I ate over the weekend had adversely effected my mind... 

See ya all in the, (Fat) Funny Farm...

*'X', being anything or any party that is arbitrarily 'Out' at the moment. The communists were big on using phony data to diagnose anything perceived as anti-social to mental instability, coming from any number of bogus vectors.


----------



## ManOWar (Oct 10, 2006)

Let's get it over with.

Excess fat may cause IQ to plunge, makes you racist and sexist, causes acne and hair loss and blindness and nose hairs and hangnails and long lines at the Motor Vehicle.

Fat people make your radio signal get dim in the middle of a great song, cause you to be put on hold for a long time when calling customer service, make the ice cream cone melt onto your hand, make your razor dull and your computer freeze.

Good god. Ain't there more important things to think about? Weren't there such things as cancer and heart attacks 100 years ago when most of the population was thin?


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Oct 10, 2006)

ManOWar said:


> Good god. Ain't there more important things to think about? Weren't there such things as cancer and heart attacks 100 years ago when most of the population was thin?



No. No one in Ethiopia ever dies.


----------



## The Obstreperous Ms. J (Oct 10, 2006)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheSadeianLinguist again.


----------



## Dibaby35 (Oct 10, 2006)

I sat there with my mouth open in shock as I saw that on the news this morning. Sometimes I think no matter how far we are stepping ahead..someone is always pushing us 2 steps behind..sigh. Really its just depressing. Just put "dumbass" over my forehead...geeze.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Oct 10, 2006)

Ok I know I'm going to go through the ringer for this BUT I have TOTALLY become absent minded as the years progress. I don't know that it's cause I'm fat or not but it is a reality for me. It could be just age in general.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 10, 2006)

Beautiful people score less on tests too so you got TWO strikes against you B. Dye your hair blonde and we'll have to water you two times a week.


----------



## wavetank (Oct 10, 2006)

i quit smoking, so i gained a few pounds, but i've always been a little flaky, 
so now, i blame my cognitive deficiencies on college and working in manhattan for 10 years, and the bush presidency...


----------



## Theatrmuse/Kara (Oct 10, 2006)

I blame EVERYTHING on the Bush Presidency!!!!!!!!

JOKE.............that was a joke, please no death threats from Republicans!!!!

Tee-hee, Kara


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 10, 2006)

Is it me, or are they trying to blame every aliment on fatness?

One of these days they are going to say that we are contagious. 

History are littered with fat people that lived to or beyond the life expectency of the time, where are they when they are doing these studies?


----------



## calauria (Oct 10, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Is it me, or are they trying to blame every aliment on fatness?
> 
> One of these days they are going to say that we are contagious.
> 
> History are littered with fat people that lived to or beyond the life expectency of the time, where are they when they are doing these studies?




They already have. One NBC news I think in 2003 or 2004, there was a story with a theory about obesity being a virus.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Oct 10, 2006)

I can't help wondering if they took sleep apnea into account. Especially _undiagnosed_ sleep apnea. (Yes, I know, obviously, if it's undiagnosed, they couldn't have. But they could have at least taken diagnosed cases into account). It's well documented that the oxygen desaturations that occur with sleep apnea cause significant memory loss and brain cell damage. And since a significant number of fat people have sleep apnea, it would make sense. 

Of course, my personal theory is that apnea _causes_ weight gain, not the other way around. I mean, duh. Let's see - when you're sleeping your body regulates hormones known to influence hunger and satiety, leptin and ghrelin. These become out of balance, causing increased appetite and reduced feelings of satiety. It also takes that time to regulate your metabolism and "burn" any calories you've used that day. If you're not getting effective sleep, you're not getting ANY of this. Additionally, you're going to be so tired that you don't have the energy to be active. All this adds up to - imagine that - a fat person, especially when we're talking DECADES of undiagnosed apnea. But of course, doctors always place fat in the "cause" column when they're looking at cause and effect, because they're just so brainwashed.

And no one will ever accept MY theory, because, dammit, being fat has to be our own "fault" somehow. :huh:  

It's also becoming obvious over time that the current "profile" of people likely to have apnea is inaccurate. On a forum that I frequent for people with apnea, at least half the users are "normal" sized, or even smaller, and even some of the larger ones have HAD apnea since they were "normal" sized and young. Many of these weren't diagnosed for years because they "didn't fit the profile."

I would be willing to bet that if they focused on ALL people with sleep apnea, rather than just fat people, they'd find the REAL cause of the phenomenon they're claiming to see.


----------



## activistfatgirl (Oct 10, 2006)

This is another one of those studies that blames fat for other connections researchers willingly or subconsciously fail to examine. Who were the fatter people tested? Were they more likely from working class populations and populations that have historically less access to quality education and less access to healthy food choices that can help memory retention and brain function? Where is class and lifestyle factored into these studies that blame fat on everything?

Makes me insane cause I DO want to trust research and understand what fat does to our bodies. But study after study makes me wanna barf. That's my super smart answer--best I could do as a fatty.


----------



## PhatBiatch (Oct 10, 2006)

calauria said:


> They already have. One NBC news I think in 2003 or 2004, there was a story with a theory about obesity being a virus.



omg *shaking head* what will they come out with next?


----------



## Jane (Oct 10, 2006)

Okay, they got oopty-jillions for a research study, farted it away, wrote it up overnight (remember term papers) and blamed everything on fat.

I just say we blame their results on Lazy.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 10, 2006)

Screw 'em

My two ex-husbands, not my weight, are absolute proof of my stupidity


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 10, 2006)

Lemme get the article to see what's screwy. I have no doubt there are some major problems. Sigh.

Why don't people just have me design their research studies? It would make their results SO much better.


----------



## ripley (Oct 10, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> Of course, my personal theory is that apnea _causes_ weight gain, not the other way around. I mean, duh. Let's see - when you're sleeping your body regulates hormones known to influence hunger and satiety, leptin and ghrelin. These become out of balance, causing increased appetite and reduced feelings of satiety. It also takes that time to regulate your metabolism and "burn" any calories you've used that day. If you're not getting effective sleep, you're not getting ANY of this. Additionally, you're going to be so tired that you don't have the energy to be active. All this adds up to - imagine that - a fat person, especially when we're talking DECADES of undiagnosed apnea. But of course, doctors always place fat in the "cause" column when they're looking at cause and effect, because they're just so brainwashed.
> 
> And no one will ever accept MY theory, because, dammit, being fat has to be our own "fault" somehow. :huh:
> 
> It's also becoming obvious over time that the current "profile" of people likely to have apnea is inaccurate. On a forum that I frequent for people with apnea, at least half the users are "normal" sized, or even smaller, and even some of the larger ones have HAD apnea since they were "normal" sized and young. Many of these weren't diagnosed for years because they "didn't fit the profile."



You can add me into your theory...I was diagnosed with apnea at eight years old, and I was a SKINNY lil kid.

And everyone knows I'm dumb as a stump.


----------



## Timberwolf (Oct 10, 2006)

calauria said:


> They already have. One NBC news I think in 2003 or 2004, there was a story with a theory about obesity being a virus.


I've read about that this year. They belive there is a virus related to the influenza group (if I remember properly - no liability assumed) that could cause obesity in some cases, but not as a stand-alone, there have to be other factors (like genetic preconditions) to match.


----------



## Melian (Oct 10, 2006)

Please please don't everyone murder me for mentioning this.....but as someone who runs clinical research AND respects everyone's right to live as they please, I must add that obesity (as well as smoking and drinking) confound basically every trial you can imagine. Unless they stratify for obesity, much like age, sex, etc, experiment results do not represent the true distribution in a population.

It's come up thousands of times (mostly when no one was even looking for this result) that obesity correlates with a vast array of conditions. This study probably wasn't designed to convince people to lose weight or blame obesity for neurodegeneration, despite the one guy's comment at the end; it just aimed to elucidate some potential cause, eg. linking obesity to neurodegeneration nominates leptin as a culprit.

Anyway...give the scientists a break


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Oct 10, 2006)

The problem with that, Melian, is that everyone with even basic common sense knows that correlation does NOT equal causation, and that's always how it's presented by those scientists.

Fat is found to have a correlation to heart disease. Right. So is dieting. And how many fat people do you know that haven't dieted? One could make this argument for EVERY "correlation" found out there. They just aren't taking important things into account, like history of dieting or sleep apnea. Read Glen Gaesser's Big Fat Lies or Paul Campos' Obesity Myth (aka Diet Myth). They're real eye-openers.

I'll reiterate: *Correlation does not equal causation.*


----------



## Ericthonius (Oct 10, 2006)

ripley said:


> And everyone knows I'm dumb as a stump.




Stump? Stump of _what_? Or did you mean _stub_? 
I wish you'd stop making these _height_ jokes of yours.
It makes the Leprechauns mad. *M-A-D*, I tells ya!


----------



## Spanky (Oct 10, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> *Correlation does not equal causation.*



Whatever you do, don't go to Hyde Park and say that to the Global Warming believers  . 

To keep on topic, I have watched studies go from correlation to causation in global warming then to a push for controlling our lives, income, taxes etc. Similarly, and I understand that this is fully arguable, the obesity police are doing the same thing. With "conclusive evidence" all dissenting arguments are deemed close-minded and ignorant. Then obesity is considered an epidemic, disease, virus, etc and the government comes in and wants to control food intake, weight, fast food industry even sending home weights of children in report cards. 

Prediction: When you get your carbon dioxide allotment stamps in the future, they will come in the same envelope as the calorie allotment stamps.  

Love the discussion!


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 11, 2006)

I've read through the article, and it's not as bad as it initially seems. Yes, there's a correlation between BMI and performance on the various cognitive tests they set out, but the authors acknowledge that an intervening variable, such as stress, could very easily contribute to both increased BMI (stress eating) and decreased performance on the tests.

Blame the crap on the popular press journalist, Amy Norton, who wrote the piece, not the researchers. It's typical that when any research study is described by a journalist, they get some major points wrong, or will miss the subtleties in the data, even though the researcher will have taken pains to explain them to the journalist. It's happened before, and will probably happen again.

Sigh.


----------



## out.of.habit (Oct 11, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> Blame the crap on the popular press journalist, Amy Norton, who wrote the piece, not the researchers. It's typical that when any research study is described by a journalist, they get some major points wrong, or will miss the subtleties in the data, even though the researcher will have taken pains to explain them to the journalist. It's happened before, and will probably happen again.
> 
> Sigh.



Frustrating when journalists are in the business of _news_ (i.e., ratings, reviews) over actual evidence, eh? Probably not so much a missing of the subtleties in the data as conveniently omitting them. Blah.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 11, 2006)

A little scientific report here. I tried to find the mentioned article in the "Neurology" medical journal, to no avail. It may be from an issue of a while back or maybe it was simply small and I overlooked it. Nevertheless, "Neurology" is far from a leading medical journal. I'm not sure how its impact rating compares with others, but it's not all that widely acknowledged by the scientific community. What this means: apart from the horrible sensationalist distortion of going from science to news, there can be a reasonable amount of doubt whether the original research was made thoroughly and reasonably. There is no need to take this as any more than wild speculation.


----------



## gypsy (Oct 11, 2006)

My theory? Science (and skinny) is just jealous that we don't have to work like sumbitches to lose that 'last five pounds'....so they are trying to bring us down. 

Fat is as Fat does.


----------



## TallFatSue (Oct 11, 2006)

mango said:


> *Heavier weight link to poorer mental function*


This isn't my experience at all. I'm a certified wise ass, and given the size of my big fat ass, I must be loaded with wisdom. 


ManOWar said:


> Weren't there such things as cancer and heart attacks 100 years ago when most of the population was thin?


Could be, but back then life expectancies were much shorter, so people probably died of other diseases which have long since been conquered, before cancer and heart attacks even had a chance. Let's face it, until we humans become truly immortal, *something* will always kill us.


Melian said:


> Please please don't everyone murder me for mentioning this.....but as someone who runs clinical research AND respects everyone's right to live as they please, I must add that obesity (as well as smoking and drinking) confound basically every trial you can imagine. Unless they stratify for obesity, much like age, sex, etc, experiment results do not represent the true distribution in a population.
> 
> It's come up thousands of times (mostly when no one was even looking for this result) that obesity correlates with a vast array of conditions. This study probably wasn't designed to convince people to lose weight or blame obesity for neurodegeneration, despite the one guy's comment at the end; it just aimed to elucidate some potential cause, eg. linking obesity to neurodegeneration nominates leptin as a culprit.


I readily accept that obesity carries certain health risks, so it makes sense to manage the risks. In order for me to lose a few hundred pounds and keep it off, it would entail a lifelong battle, and the resultant stress might only wreak more havoc on my body. So, I've opted for a program of informed obesity management which emphasizes good healthy foods (and plenty of it :eat2 and minimizes junk. My fat is made of only the finest ingredients.  One genuine benefit of my obesity is that it prompts me to have regular exams to nip any potential health problems in the bud. My doctor says I'm healthier than many of her other patients who assume they're healthy simply because they're thin and therefore abuse their bodies. Many of them them also ignore health problems until they become serious or critical. My engineer husband likens it to mid-course corrections in spaceflight: a little tweak now saves a big adjustment later. I've also convinced him that my health plan includes regular full-body massages. :smitten: 

Let's keep it all in perspective. I'm old enough to remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, the experts predicted that by the year 2000 we would face mass starvation due to overpopulation coupled with failed crops due to pollution. Instead, the experts are wringing their hands over the so-called obesity epidemic, while we enjoy our longest life expectancies and highest standards of living ever. Besides, I honestly believe carrying around a few hundred pounds of body fat has made me a better person because it has helped me focus on what is and is not truly important in life. All things being equal, if obesity is my worst problem in life, then I am one lucky woman.


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 11, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> A little scientific report here. I tried to find the mentioned article in the "Neurology" medical journal, to no avail. It may be from an issue of a while back or maybe it was simply small and I overlooked it. Nevertheless, "Neurology" is far from a leading medical journal. I'm not sure how its impact rating compares with others, but it's not all that widely acknowledged by the scientific community. What this means: apart from the horrible sensationalist distortion of going from science to news, there can be a reasonable amount of doubt whether the original research was made thoroughly and reasonably. There is no need to take this as any more than wild speculation.


It's in the latest issue--I can send you a PDF if you want. 

I didn't think to look up the citation index--excellent point.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 11, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> It's in the latest issue--I can send you a PDF if you want.
> 
> I didn't think to look up the citation index--excellent point.



October issue? Can't get the October issue yet, but it won't take long. I'll just wait it out. Thanks for the offer, anyway.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> I would be willing to bet that if they focused on ALL people with sleep apnea, rather than just fat people, they'd find the REAL cause of the phenomenon they're claiming to see.


That's the main problem with all of these so called "studies", they're all one sided. The focus is to generate a worldwide hysteria on the issue of bmi. There's no end to the amount of crap the scientific and medical communities are willing to fabricate in order to continue manipulating the masses. Why doesn't the SA community commission it's own study, conducted by an unrelated party and overseen by a third as QC, to insure no corruption of results? It's time to combat science with science. The only problem is getting the already "brainwashed" to realize that they've been had all this time. The truth is and always has been out there. Turning non-believers into believers is another bone of contention.


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 12, 2006)

FatKatLuvr said:


> That's the main problem with all of these so called "studies", they're all one sided. The focus is to generate a worldwide hysteria on the issue of bmi. There's no end to the amount of crap the scientific and medical communities are willing to fabricate in order to continue manipulating the masses. Why doesn't the SA community commission it's own study, conducted by an unrelated party and overseen by a third as QC, to insure no corruption of results? It's time to combat science with science. The only problem is getting the already "brainwashed" to realize that they've been had all this time. The truth is and always has been out there. Turning non-believers into believers is another bone of contention.



Oh, pull the other one, it has bells on. Scientists are not working on some sort of global conspiracy to keep fat people down, and I can assure you that the scientific and medical communities do not "fabricate crap", or anything else for that matter. All serious studies done by recognized members of the community are by definition repeatable and backed up by evidence. And yeah, there's boatloads of evidence that being overweight is unhealthy, it _is_, saying it's not is just some form of weird denial. But there are also lots of studies pointing out that being underweight is even more directly dangerous, and also that terms like under or overweight cannot be properly determined by a scale like BMI. In fact, there's still big debates over how well calibrated the BMI scale is, and recent studies have pointed out that the ideal weight was probably lower (even much lower) than it should've been. And it tends to be the same group of people that make all of these discoveries. Scientists, at least respected scientists, do not have an agenda. It's a prerequisite for the job, objectivity.

The fact is that scientific articles about just about everything are published every day, and journalists pick out the ones that go with the scare-of-the-month, many times from amongst the dregs of the scientific community, and make it sound like a Nobel Prize discovery. And no, they don't have an agenda either, they're just doing what they do, which is sell stories.

So drop the conspiracy theories. And I can't believe you said "the truth is out there" with a straight face.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> Oh, pull the other one, it has bells on. Scientists are not working on some sort of global conspiracy to keep fat people down, and I can assure you that the scientific and medical communities do not "fabricate crap", or anything else for that matter. All serious studies done by recognized members of the community are by definition repeatable and backed up by evidence. And yeah, there's boatloads of evidence that being overweight is unhealthy, it _is_, saying it's not is just some form of weird denial. But there are also lots of studies pointing out that being underweight is even more directly dangerous, and also that terms like under or overweight cannot be properly determined by a scale like BMI. In fact, there's still big debates over how well calibrated the BMI scale is, and recent studies have pointed out that the ideal weight was probably lower (even much lower) than it should've been. And it tends to be the same group of people that make all of these discoveries. Scientists, at least respected scientists, do not have an agenda. It's a prerequisite for the job, objectivity.
> 
> The fact is that scientific articles about just about everything are published every day, and journalists pick out the ones that go with the scare-of-the-month, many times from amongst the dregs of the scientific community, and make it sound like a Nobel Prize discovery. And no, they don't have an agenda either, they're just doing what they do, which is sell stories.
> 
> So drop the conspiracy theories. And I can't believe you said "the truth is out there" with a straight face.


Xq's me? Joe, but there's no denial in stating that there are just as many healthy fat people out there as there are skinny thin people. The scientific and medical communities take great strides in not making those statements because they are afraid that if they do it would appear that they are approving "fatness". Thus , making themselves seem in contradiction. A lot of people here feel the same way , why pounce on me for being more direct about it? There's always plenty of evidence to round in the negative but they never seem to show the positive that exist as well. That's my point. Everyone shouldn't be put in the same boat. There are sick people, big and small. Being fat is not the beginning of that fact nor is it the end. Until scientists take back the lie that being fat or the ugly "o" word is a disease and admit it's just an excuse covering the fact they don't have a clue about how fatness works or happens at all, you are not going to hear me say anything less than I've said. I'll say it again just for you. It 's not a conspiracy, it's done on purpose, it's manipulation, plain and simple. They have corrupted the facts to justify their lack of true understanding and they have gained wealth in the process. Straight face always!


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 12, 2006)

FatKatLuvr said:


> Xq's me? Joe, but there's no denial in stating that there just as many healthy fat people out there as there are skinny thin people. The scientific and medical communities take great strides in not making those statements because they are afraid that if they do it would appear that they are approving "fatness". Thus , making themselves seem in contradiction. A lot of people here feel the same way , why pounce on me for being more direct about it? There's always plenty of evidence to round in the negative but they never seem to show the postive that exist as well. That's my point. Everyone shouldn't be put in the same boat. There are sick people big and small. Being fat is not the beginning of that fact nor is it the end. Until scientists take back the lie that being fat or the ugly "o" word is a disease and it just an excuse covering the fact they don't have a clue about how fatness work or happens at all, you not going to hear me say anything less than I've said. I'll say it again just for you. It 's not a conspiracy, it's manipulation plain and simple. They have corrupted the facts to justify their lack of true understanding and they have gained wealth in the process. So, if you would answer a simple question. Joe? Why are you here?:huh:



To start by answering the last question, I'm here because I find many kinds of women beautiful, including many that go over what the media shows as the "perfect weight", and also because I support the appreciation of every kind of beauty, in every kind of person, without social discrimination. You don't need to think fat is healthy to be size-positive, nor do you need to think society's views on the issue are a product of blatant manioulation (by the scientific community, no less!).

We would all invariably be healthier not eating red meat, ever. And certainly not barbequed, exposing biological matter to smoke and fire contaminates it with cancerigenous substances. So don't even get me started on smoked products. Oh, and don't forget salt, we shouldn't use salt for cooking at all, the mineral content in the water we drink covers our salt needs well enough, we're just absorbing unhealthy excess sodium there. Also, we shouldn't watch most television, or read anything exciting, the stress on the organism from the adrenalin produced by excitement is cutting off whole days off your life expectancy. Going outside the door of your house is a major danger as well, the changing conditions induced by climate are detrimental to the correct functioning of our immune system, which is being exposed to all the viruses and bacteria present in the air, not to mention the ambient pollution just about everywhere in the world. All these things are unhealthy, and I could continue the list, yet it's pretty obvious how silly it would be to be stuck in a plastic bubble eating steamed vegetables.

From the moment you are born to the moment you die, you are engaging in unhealthy activities, this has practically been proven scientifically. Why exactly do you resent so much the idea of putting "being overweight" in that gigantic list? Yes, it's unhealthy. It's not sinful, it's not evil, but it's unhealthy. And that is all the scientific community has ever really said, because hell, it's true. New studies are brought out every day about how many kinds of foods we eat daily increase the risk of cancer or heart disease, and this isn't "manipulation". I'm not sure if "obesity is a disease" has been uttered in any scientific publication, and then it depends on your definition of "disease". Wikipedia gives a good explanation:


> A disease is any abnormal condition of the body or mind that causes discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person affected or those in contact with the person. Sometimes the term is used broadly to include injuries, disabilities, syndromes, symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts these may be considered distinguishable categories.


Yes, I say obesity could cause "discomfort", in some cases "dysfunction", and barring everything else, it certainly is an "atypical variation of structure". So I'm afraid it doesn't count as a "lie". Oh, and the scientific community says, every day and rather loudly, that it doesn't have a clue about the exact workings of fat and the body, which is why they are studying it so intensely. That people don't want to hear is another question altogether.

Pray tell, what scientific journals do you read through to make such convinced comments about the community?


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

TallFatSue said:


> This isn't my experience at all. I'm a certified wise ass, and given the size of my big fat ass, I must be loaded with wisdom.
> 
> Could be, but back then life expectancies were much shorter, so people probably died of other diseases which have long since been conquered, before cancer and heart attacks even had a chance. Let's face it, until we humans become truly immortal, *something* will always kill us.
> 
> ...


Sue ,you are indeed far healthier for not letting other people's truth ,be your truth. There are plenty of stories like yours that goe unknown to the mainstream society. I haven't seen one program on television that has ever given a two hour documentary about people who are healthy and also happen to be fat. I've seen just the opposite, many, many , many times. It's frustrating to see this go on unchecked, uncontested. I understand what you are saying: If we live long enough, in time everything that has been said by them now will seem all for not because the hysteria of a "disasterous future" , won't come to pass and they will look like fools and they'll have to start all over to find another "wolf" to cry about. Sue,You are a true gem.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> Pray tell, what scientific journals do you read through to make such convinced comments about the community?


Blah, Blah and freaking Blah!, Listen, Joe. I did't get on here to go back and forth with y-o-u. I made a statement , which is my belief, you did't like, maybe because you are "involved" with someone in the scientific community. I really don't give a flying fiddle. So, to answer your question I have read plenty of scientific journals and I'll never be convinced of total accuratcy in their assertions. You can make a case for them with a bleeding heart and all your guile, it won't changed the fact that a good half of what they publish is "hogwash", why, because of people that exist like TallSue. She is one of millions out there that debunk the scientific mumbo jumbo and I know plenty others personally. Life is the greatest teacher of all. All you have to do is pay attention and watch the contradictions goe by. You and I will no longer speak on this matter amigo. Adios.:bow:


----------



## Ericthonius (Oct 12, 2006)

Joseph the Weird said:


> ... Scientists are not working on some sort of global conspiracy to keep fat people down, and I can assure you that the scientific and medical communities do not "fabricate crap", or anything else for that matter...



"_*If the facts don't support the theory, they are to be disposed of.*_"

Depending on who they work for, many scientists are famous for saying what their employers wish to hear. If I'm wrong, explain how _Aspartame_ wasn't pushed through a review panel in record time or for that matter how the cox2 inhibitors that have proved so detrimental to human health yet were given a high rating by US Food and Drug Administration. Birth Control pillls are another example of a product known to have serious side-effects in a wide variety of patients taking them yet they, too are given a clean bill of health. You could go back almost 100 years and read scientific papers on Asbestos or Tobacco, and more recently on Hexaclorophene, that said all the above listed products were safe, as well. And don't even get me started on Mono Sodium Glutamate, another product that's bad for you yet is still called safe by every regulating agency in the world.

Not every scientist, every time on everything is culpable of intentional dishonesty but there are enough hacks out and about to say whatever it is they are told to say in exchange for a price. Money, prestige, tenure, research grants, advancement and plain, old, greed are a few to begin with when the question of, "Why?", is bantered about.

One last question... How can you assure anyone that there is nothing underhanded by either the medical or scientific communities throughout the industrialized world, when you're nothing more advanced than a Freshman at University? Unless you're misrepresenting yourself in your user profile, you aren't a student and are really really much older than 18 years and ten days?


----------



## Joseph the Weird (Oct 12, 2006)

I don't want to explain my life or cite the people I know in great detail here, but I have a significantly greater contact with the scientific community than the average freshman. I'd also note that this isn't of too much important because university students quite possibly are more immersed in the scientific community than anyone save the members of that community themselves.

Nevertheless, you make valid points. You make valid points that were _not_ made by FatKatLuvr, and they make this into a completely different debate. Yes, researchers working for national and international regulation agencies are influenced by their employers' political and economical agenda. But then i wouldn't consider the views of US or any nation's regulation departments the views of the scientific or medical community. In fact, many times they tend to be opposed. Yes, grant money is given according to interests, and as such more research is centered on areas of current economical, political or public interest. This can create a circular effect, where discoveries lead to a greater interest, and the volumes of research grow to a level where it is difficult to triple-check every conclusion, leading to the flourishing of speculation on both sides, which the media picks up much mroe readily than serious conclusions, again raising public interest. One could say this has happened with the issue of obesity, and it is in part to blame for ridiculousness such as the article that initiated this thread.

I am hardly defending the honesty of each and every scientist. That would certainly be a ludicrous assumption based on no facts whatsoever. I am trying to point out how it is highly improbable (because few thigns can be said to be impossible) that the scientific community, as an entity, engages in "outright manipulation" of society and the public opinion, and that they simply "lie". A combination of errors, interests and sensationalist journalism produces results so inaccurate as to be simply false, but if this stems from malignant intention of any party (which is doubtful) it is even more doubtful that this party be the scientists themselves, who clearly have little to gain by "fabricating" hysteria over any issue. Quite apart from the fact that every conclusion reached by a researcher is subject to important scrutiny and peer-review, so those who do sell out may get the front page of your favorite sensationalist magazine, but they are unlikely to have much respect amongst their fellows, or in serious publications.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 12, 2006)

Sadly, fabricating hysteria looks like a big business now, and it's only getting bigger. And, you don't have to just look at health to see that. 

The one question I would like to ask Joseph the Weird, is how does the scientific community deal with studies based on prejudices or pre-misconceptions? Because it is foolish to assume that it can not happen. 

Lastly, while I admit that not every fat person is healthy, I can't believe that all fat people are unhealthy. I believe that depending on their diet and level of physical activity, a fat person can just as healthy as a thin person.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 12, 2006)

Oh yes, and all thin people are healthy. We can tell just by looking at them. Highly unlikely that a thin person will contract diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease. 



EtobicokeFA said:


> Sadly, fabricating hysteria looks like a big business now, and it's only getting bigger. And, you don't have to just look at health to see that.
> 
> The one question I would like to ask Joseph the Weird, is how does the scientific community deal with studies based on prejudices or pre-misconceptions? Because it is foolish to assume that it can not happen.
> 
> Lastly, while I admit that not every fat person is healthy, I can't believe that all fat people are unhealthy. I believe that depending on their diet and level of physical activity, a fat person can just as healthy as a thin person.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

Ericthonius said:


> "_*If the facts don't support the theory, they are to be disposed of.*_"
> 
> Depending on who they work for, many scientists are famous for saying what their employers wish to hear. If I'm wrong, explain how _Aspartame_ wasn't pushed through a review panel in record time or for that matter how the cox2 inhibitors that have proved so detrimental to human health yet were given a high rating by US Food and Drug Administration. Birth Control pillls are another example of a product known to have serious side-effects in a wide variety of patients taking them yet they, too are given a clean bill of health. You could go back almost 100 years and read scientific papers on Asbestos or Tobacco, and more recently on Hexaclorophene, that said all the above listed products were safe, as well. And don't even get me started on Mono Sodium Glutamate, another product that's bad for you yet is still called safe by every regulating agency in the world.
> 
> ...


Joseph, basically wanted me to engage him in an academic debate that was neither academic nor a debate. Joseph amuses me because of the quote that he has plastered at the bottom of every one of his posts. It is amusing how he can have such a powerful quote in his mist and has not even gleaned one ounce of it's meaning so that had he done so, our previous exchange wouldn't have transpired in the least. It is obvious that he is not aware of the daily, I repeat daily atrocities committed in this country over satellite airwaves. We are constantly bombarded with daily rants of scientific findings, studies,polls, aimed at demeaning fat people on every conceivable level. I don't resent the fact that they place "being overweight" in a multitude of other so called by products of unhealthy behaviors. I detest it. I find it deplorable for the simple fact that there isn't any other form of blantant targeting going on toward any other faction of our society. Fat people are being targeted on televisions, in magazines, newspapers, of course the internet. And yet somehow I'm being brow beaten by a University freshman who has "personal" affiliations within the scientific community, all the way in Spain. He has the blind gull to stand in judgment of me because I question the motives of his "esteemed" brethren. I don't think I need to remind such a well "educated" young man that I live in a Democratic environment, as convoluted as it maybe, I reserve the right to not only stand in judgment of the scientific and medical communities but to also voice it and to challenge it. I'm 37 yrs. old as of last Sunday, and have witnessed the denigration of a people within our mists, I have sat and listened to academic essays on CSPAN that are nothing more than all out propaganda used to further a so called noble cause. The use of all this propaganda has fueled an insidious prejudice that grows with every passing day. A prejudice that has created the need for organizations like naafa and a multitude of other size positive groups. W.t.h., does this "kid" think we're fighting for? I stand by my belief that the scientific, medical, diet,fashion, media industries are in an amalgamated effort to cause mass hysteria about and against fat people, young and old. I will not stop saying it nor will I surrender to a so called higher court of opinion. I stand in defiance. I'm an FA/chubbychaser and I'm proud of it, and I will be ready at anytime to combat social injustices, especially when it comes to people of size. Until the last "safe" prejudice is banished from our consciousness forever. You can go round for round with this zealot if you want but I'm not going to waste another breath against his "blind" loyalty. Thanks for trying anyway.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Sadly, fabricating hysteria looks like a big business now, and it's only getting bigger. And, you don't have to just look at health to see that.
> 
> The one question I would like to ask Joseph the Weird, is how does the scientific community deal with studies based on prejudices or pre-misconceptions? Because it is foolish to assume that it can not happen.
> 
> Lastly, while I admit that not every fat person is healthy, I can't believe that all fat people are unhealthy. I believe that depending on their diet and level of physical activity, a fat person can just as healthy as a thin person.


That's exactly what I've been saying and I was "almost" shot down for it.


----------



## Jane (Oct 12, 2006)

Paragraphs, people, paragraphs. They make your words readable.


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 12, 2006)

FatKatLuvr, I'm going to step in here even though you were questioning Joseph, not me. Before you start questioning my credentials, I'll tell you: I'm a Ph.D. graduate student, I have a Master's degree in psychology from Brandeis University, I'm currently doing psychological research studies, teaching introductory psychology at a major U.S. university, and I just got some incredibly cool results on my latest study! Okay, that last bit was just bragging, but I couldn't resist. 

The fact is, Joseph knows what he's talking about. His age doesn't enter into it. He has valid points and expresses them eloquently, and, most importantly, *he's right*. No study is perfect. There will always be inherent problems, no matter what the researchers do. We acknowledge those limitations, do what we can do minimize them, and continue with the research. As far as a global scientific conspiracy to keep fat people down, I really don't think so. 

EtobicokeFA, you asked how research bias is addressed. Usually, we write a letter to the journal editor pointing out a major problem if one exists, or do another study to address those issues, which may or may not have different results. But again, Joseph was right in that a prerequisite for being a researcher is to be objective. A study may not turn out the way we expected or wanted. Them's the breaks. It doesn't mean those data are hidden away or falsified to make them into what we want. 

I read the study in question. It was done fairly well.  The limitations of the data were acknowledged. There weren't any obvious gaping flaws in the research design. Given these facts, I have to accept that the data were collected properly and the analyses were done as correctly as possible. So yes, this study found there's a negative correlation between BMI and performance on the handful of cognitive tests that were given to the study participants. This does NOT mean that there isn't something else going on. Correlation is not causation. 

As far as being "bombarded" with news of research studies, that has to do with the popular press, not necessarily the researchers themselves. You need to take that issue up with your local and national news outlets. I guarantee you there are hundreds of studies that get no press at all, and yet may have a much more important finding than most of the ones that get into mainstream media outlets. 

Read the article. I'll send you a copy if you want. I'll explain the statistics to you if you're not familiar with how they're calculated. Then we can have a reasoned debate if you still disagree with the conclusions. But FatKatLuvr, attacking Joseph for things that are irrelevant to the discussion because you didn't like what he had to say was not your most shining moment.


----------



## FatKatLuvr (Oct 12, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> FatKatLuvr, I'm going to step in here even though you were questioning Joseph, not me. Before you start questioning my credentials, I'll tell you: I'm a Ph.D. graduate student, I have a Master's degree in psychology from Brandeis University, I'm currently doing psychological research studies, teaching introductory psychology at a major U.S. university, and I just got some incredibly cool results on my latest study! Okay, that last bit was just bragging, but I couldn't resist.
> 
> The fact is, Joseph knows what he's talking about. His age doesn't enter into it. He has valid points and expresses them eloquently, and, most importantly, *he's right*. No study is perfect. There will always be inherent problems, no matter what the researchers do. We acknowledge those limitations, do what we can do minimize them, and continue with the research. As far as a global scientific conspiracy to keep fat people down, I really don't think so.
> 
> ...


Ok I would lkie to address this group. This over all thread had devolved into all out attack on me. If you would care to read the "whole" thread, I didn't start any of this. The first post I made was in reply *to BigBeautifulMe's*post. Joseph came at me first and since then I 've had to defend my stance. He singled me out for the "kill". Please read the posts, I never engaged Joseph before that. As a matter of fact Ren, you and Joseph were in an exchange of conversation when he came after me in the first place. 

So, how is it that I'm the bad guy for defending myself. I wasn't looking for a shining moment. It speaks to Joseph's character, that He would go after someone for having a different view than his. I think he got upset because he thinks I'm corrupting the thread against his usual overwhelming presence on other posts. He wants his views to be dominant and "make the thread". Joseph was the one who didn't like what I had to say, First and I wasn't even posting in reply to him. This "clique" , you have here needs to be stopped by the mods. 

I am being wrongfully accused of going after Joseph first. I not accusing everyone here , the simple fact is that there have been similar post like mine, I just worded mine from my point of view. And I have a right to my point of view without being "cornered", by a pack of medical cyberhounds. I did nothing different than anyone posting before or after me. Joseph has a chip on his shoulder and you (Ren) are keeping watch to make sure it stays intact. I'm not going to sit idle and have my actions put under scrutiny and embellished. So to everyone, please read this entire thread to see how this happened. Let the posts "speak" for themselves. This is my last post in this thread. This has to be bar none the most undemocratic process I've ever encountered. Someone please step in and set this right.

p.s.-Ren, Joseph is welcome to his "opinion" but just because he is in a certain field of studies doesn't make him *"right" *about everything. 

Eveything I said in the beginning of *my*first post was relevant to the thread, as was everything after as it pertained to having to defend myself about my first post. It's irrelevant to you because you are not the one being unfairly treated here. Do you think that is right?


----------



## out.of.habit (Oct 12, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> But again, Joseph was right in that a prerequisite for being a researcher is to be objective. A study may not turn out the way we expected or wanted. Them's the breaks. It doesn't mean those data are hidden away or falsified to make them into what we want.


 

Yes, true. Researchers are ethically bound to remain objective, and to present the data in such a way that it accurately depicts the actual outcome of a study. I'm not disputing the legitimacy of this particular article, but I do want to point out that researchers do not always act with an ethical heart. To assume that no researcher would ever falsify data for personal, political, or academic gain would be naive. 

I'm not trying to introduce more conflict here, but I simply wanted to point out the possibility. Sure there's a certain level of checks and balances in place, but like the government, the public cannot be protected from all corruption within the scientific community. It is good to have a healthy level of skepticism, and not take everything that comes from an academic journal as gospel because it comes from "smart people." 

(Again, not criticizing or supporting this particular piece.)


----------



## Renaissance Woman (Oct 12, 2006)

Yes, it happens, but it's really rare when data are falsified. When it comes out, that researcher's career is over. It's akin to somebody who works in a bank stealing money. It happens, but really not that often.


----------



## 3CatsAnd1Fish (Oct 13, 2006)

This is just the "scientific" community giving the general populace permission to discriminate against normal and heavier people. I've noticed that in these "scientific surveys" that they never publish their findings, research, test subjects, variables, and controls. Now, as any proper scientific study should, these experiments should be well documented. Findings should be at places such as the ADA, AMA, and such and should be accepted by the medical community as a whole before reported as a fact. (But even then, they get it drastically wrong.)
:doh:

P.S. I'm back! I got a new computer and I've been sewing up a storm. I've actually made a bunch of costumes and actually made a decent profit!


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Oct 13, 2006)

I highly recommend "Damn Lies and Statistics" by Joel Best. [And read the follow-up book, too.]

The questions posed [meaning, the relationships researchers seek to find] are as important as the quality of data and the ethics of the researchers. Setting up a study is hard work. Quality data collection can be expensive. It's good to have a goal before going into a study, and it's very frustrating to spend all that money and expend all that effort only to find your work showed nothing of worth.

I don't excuse poor research at all. I think it's more damaging than simply leaving an issue alone. It just helps to understand all the points where something can go wrong.


----------



## fatlane (Oct 13, 2006)

1. The scientific community is one big Jerry Springer show, as the recent debate over how many planets there REALLY are demonstrates. Moreover, there's lots of neato science we follow along with for now that will be shown to be complete rubbish in the next hundred years and we have NO IDEA what is going to stand up under the test of time and what's garbage. Oh well.

2. In a Lil' Abner story line, there was a time when Lil' Abner fell into the Mud Mushroom Mine and subsisted off them for a period of time. Due to their high caloric content, he became very fat - TO THE POINT THAT THE FAT SQUOOSHED HIS BRAIN AND HE COULD NOT REMEMBER WHO HE WAS!!!

Obviously, _that's_ one bit of evidence in favor of the story. I'll grant that other episodes of mud mushroom consumption did not result in loss of mental function, and that certain other portly characters seemed capable not only of regular thought, but even diabolical plans to do in the Hammus Alabammus or to use a computer to figure out how to get to marry Stupefyin' Jones in her original stupefyin' condition. That those plans failed had more to do with Mammy Yoakum or Stupefyin' Jones' GI capacity than any inherent flaw in the plan itself.

So, I guess the Lil' Abner comical strips provide mixed results on this issue and should be read for more evidence. Anyone want to work with me on getting a grant to do this?


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 14, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Oh yes, and all thin people are healthy. We can tell just by looking at them. Highly unlikely that a thin person will contract diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease.



Just look at my uncle he is rail thin and he contracted all three!


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 14, 2006)

Renaissance Woman said:


> Yes, it happens, but it's really rare when data are falsified. When it comes out, that researcher's career is over. It's akin to somebody who works in a bank stealing money. It happens, but really not that often.


I for one, never said that scientists would outright falsify data because of their basis! I am just saying it's possbile for scientists to misinterpet the data. For example, scientists say that a food item is bad for us one time, then they find out it good for us other time, then they find out it bad for us again. Historians find artifacts sometimes that requires them change the way they look at all the other artifacts. And, don't get me started with statistcs! 

If a study shows that most of the fat people in the study are unhealthy, is the scientist really required to follow up and see why they are unhealthy, or can he just conclude that the study proves that being fat is unhealthy?

There is a old saying, that goes "If the police are convinced the guy is the murderer, then they are going to prove it. "


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Oct 15, 2006)

I think the big problem is the confusion of cause and effect. People see too things around each other, and they assume one causes the other, and then social climate and sub-politics decide which one it is.

For example, america has a lot of fat people who are unhealthy and eat junk food. Now, the modern line of thinking seems to be that eating junk food makes you fat, and fat makes you unhealthy. It doesn't occur that both fatness and unhealthyness could be symptoms of eating junk food, or that one of those things could bear no relation to the others.

Frankly, I'm not just losing faith in the american medical society, I'm losing faith in the very concept of health. I'm not sure healthy or unhealthy really exist. Supposedly unhealthy means you do the bad things, smoke, eat fatty foods, etc. and you get sick more often and suffer from bodily problems. My mom's boyfriend is fifty years old, physically fit, works out, no smoking, no drinking, and now he needs to get a hip replacement. If that happens, and if there are people who smoke, and drink, and are fat and sedentary, and live to a ripe old age with high mobility, then how the hell does "unhealthy" mean anything anymore? What is real about it? Isn't it just a desperate attempt to connect various physical conditions that operate on environmental factors and patterns within the human body that are either completely random or so complex that humankind has no hope of fathoming their true interaction? I'm becoming a medical-dietary nihilist. ><


----------



## SexyCanadian (Oct 15, 2006)

I think it is important to look at any kind of study and really question how the results are being portrayed, the best way anyone ever explained correlations to me is exactly this. There is in fact a direct correlation between ice cream sales and violent crimes... which is true. So if you were to interpret this it may be put across to you that a link has been found between ice cream sales and violent crime, when in all reality if you look at what is being said youre not honestly foolish enough to truly believe that correlation is causation. You can look at an outside variable which is that in that study when ice cream sales are at their highest (summer) its hot outside, so therefore heat may come into play. You can look at a correlation but you have to look at it for what its worth, yes there is a relationship but that relationship may be due to an external variable unstudied or undetermined or even undiscussed in the media.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Oct 15, 2006)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> I think the big problem is the confusion of cause and effect. People see too things around each other, and they assume one causes the other, and then social climate and sub-politics decide which one it is.



Bingo! I desperately hated my statistics class (too much math, not enough interpretation) but one of the things I remember being told is that "correlation does not equal causation". Just because there are more fat folks who are diabetic doesn't necessarily mean that obesity causes diabetes. Unless we know the pathophysiological method that this happens, it's just an educated guess that the one causes the other. One of the things they're finding is that high levels of insulin cause increased hunger and weight gain, particularly in the abdomen. Blowing out your pancreas by having it produce too much insulin for too long is how you become a Type II diabetic. So you will see people who are both fat AND diabetic -- from the same cause, a poorly functioning pancreas and de-sensitized receptor sites. That's not to say weight doesn't contribute to the problem but I think one of the things we miss in the medical community is the more subtle connections between the issues. We're so quick to say 'this causes that' that we miss the intricate complexity of our systems.



> For example, america has a lot of fat people who are unhealthy and eat junk food. Now, the modern line of thinking seems to be that eating junk food makes you fat, and fat makes you unhealthy. It doesn't occur that both fatness and unhealthyness could be symptoms of eating junk food, or that one of those things could bear no relation to the others.



We also have a lot of fat people who have dieted their way up the scales. It's hard to find a fat person in this country who hasn't either a) dieted or b) had weight loss surgery or c) doesn't eat junk. I think if we found a fat person (or persons) with a pure diet, with a family history of obesity, and no diet history, we'd see a very different picture than what we see when we look at the "typical fat American". The Samoans, as an example, when eating their aboriginal diet, are both large, AND healthy. It's only when they come to the US and eat our crappy food that they become diabetic.



> Frankly, I'm not just losing faith in the american medical society, I'm losing faith in the very concept of health. I'm not sure healthy or unhealthy really exist.



I think they're artificial labels we place on people, or foods, or activities, to help us talk about them more easily. But I think it's way more complicated than we give it credit for. Foods can be healthy for some, unhealthy for others. It just depends. And people can look healthy, and have all their "stats" look perfect, and still be replicating cancer cells like nobody's business. That's obviously not healthy. 



> Supposedly unhealthy means you do the bad things, smoke, eat fatty foods, etc. and you get sick more often and suffer from bodily problems. My mom's boyfriend is fifty years old, physically fit, works out, no smoking, no drinking, and now he needs to get a hip replacement.



Yes, and I care for women who do everything right and still have babies with birth defects, or other congenital problems. And then I care for women who do everything wrong and they have gorgeous, big healthy babies. It seems like there's a lot of blind luck when it comes to health, doesn't it? All we can do is try to stack the deck in our favor by doing what's right (though that changes, depending on the latest study). Ultimately, I think our genetics, location, and just plain luck play the biggest part, I'm sorry to say. 

There are just no easy answers, but saying that takes way more many words than "fat people are dumb" or whatever the latest medical sound byte is.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Oct 16, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> There are just no easy answers, but saying that takes way more many words than "fat people are dumb" or whatever the latest medical sound byte is.



Well actually, I think it more to do with the fact they find it easlier to say "fat people are dumb" that to say "We haven't got a clue!"


----------

