Fat doctors less likely to help obese patients lose weight

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.
iceman132 said:
What a stupid justification. It's like saying not making cocaine legal infringes on my right as a parent to give my baby cocaine.
Click to expand...

No it's not.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
tryp said:
I wonder if a better intervention would be to try to LOWER the price of healthy food. There is some idea that one reason why there is a lot of obesity in poorer people is because they don't have the money to buy fresh produce.

Of course, people working 2-3 jobs tend not to have a lot of time to actually cook either. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm not sure taxing fast food is going to address the root problem.
Click to expand...

A lot of the problems with this is that even if you lower the cost of the healthy food it still won't be available to the people who need it. I think they call them food islands, but it describes a poor area where the only type of food available is fast food. Healthy food just isn't available to some.
 
tiedyeddog said:
Cocaine is an illicit drug. Food is not. I'll agree with you the day the US congress outlaws oreos.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should with the obesity rate.

Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
 
iceman132 said:
Maybe they should with the obesity rate.

Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
Click to expand...

For someone with pretty staunch conservative views you are taking a mildly liberal standpoint on this.
 
tryp said:
I wonder if a better intervention would be to try to LOWER the price of healthy food. There is some idea that one reason why there is a lot of obesity in poorer people is because they don't have the money to buy fresh produce.

Of course, people working 2-3 jobs tend not to have a lot of time to actually cook either. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm not sure taxing fast food is going to address the root problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all of this is true, which is why I'm sort of at a loss in terms of how to actually help all children eat more healthily, not just the subset that already have access to healthy food.
 
iceman132 said:
Maybe they should with the obesity rate.

Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should outlaw ciggarettes, first. I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

I am not even in favor of that. Taking away almost ANY personal freedoms is a slippery slope. What's next after oreos? Caffiene, because we usually find it in pop? Then outlaw television because it's unhealthy to sit and watch it for extended amounts of time? Then what, are we going to outlaw any more Tyler Perry movies because he keeps idolzing fat people?
R0001077.jpg
(Maybe we should do that one....)

And, what about people who are health conscious and enjoy an oreo every now and then? Are you going to punish them, even if they are healthy?

We shoudn't have to rely on our government to tell us what to eat. Really? You can't figure out what kind of stuff in your own muff you have to look to uncle sam to figure it out?

My solution:
1. Give them super high health insurance premiums. (make them pay it)
2. Subtract out welfare payments for every pound they are overweight, beyond thirty pounds.
 
iceman132 said:
Maybe they should with the obesity rate.

Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
Click to expand...

And if someone can't figure out how much food their body needs, they need to become fat. Wait, I guess that happens, anyway...
 
iceman132 said:
Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
Click to expand...

A lot of things are destructive in excess- should the government restrict those things, too?
 
tiedyeddog said:
Maybe they should outlaw ciggarettes, first. I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

My solution:
1. Give them super high health insurance premiums. (make them pay it)
2. Subtract out welfare payments for every pound they are overweight, beyond thirty pounds.
Click to expand...

Agree with the cigarettes. Agree with the first point. Disagree with the second simply because that the people on welfare usually do not have access to healthy food. They live in environments where the choice of dinner consists of burger king, McDonalds, or Taco Bell.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ppfizenm said:
Agree with the cigarettes. Agree with the first point. Disagree with the second simply because that the people on welfare usually do not have access to healthy food. They live in environments where the choice of dinner consists of burger king, McDonalds, or Taco Bell.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. I don't have an easy, idealized solution for that.
 
tantacles said:
Yeah, all of this is true, which is why I'm sort of at a loss in terms of how to actually help all children eat more healthily, not just the subset that already have access to healthy food.
Click to expand...

I suppose that modifying school lunches and food available at school is the option that immediately comes to mind, though I have to say that from what I have read even in areas where that has been implemented, there has been a lot of resistance from children and families :confused:
 
tryp said:
I suppose that modifying school lunches and food available at school is the option that immediately comes to mind, though I have to say that from what I have read even in areas where that has been implemented, there has been a lot of resistance from children and families :confused:
Click to expand...

The other problem is that for whatever reason (lobbyists, maybe? I don't know. If you do, englighten me) ridiculous things happen with these lunches. Potatoes are considered vegetables, for example, meaning that french fries are an acceptable vegetable.

Take a look at this site: http://fedupwithlunch.com/

If features a teacher who ate school lunches along with her students for an entire year and chronicled the experience. If you go back to 2010/2011, you can see how truly awful some of this food is (in addition to not necessarily being healthy). For this reason, I can definitely understand some of the resistance.
 
It's true that the changes that have been made seem quite cursory - the food is generally still quite greasy and soggy. Interesting site - I will have a read later.

I will also have to have a scout around to see if any studies have been done investigating barriers to uptake - it just seems that as health professionals there must be SOMETHING we can do, but the socioeconomic barriers are so strong that I feel at a loss.
 
That's true. Potatoes are served almost everyday at schools as a vegetable even in french fry form. Nutritionists don't recommend potatoes that often (I think they argue for like once a week or a few times a month) because even though they are vegetables they are very high in starch. Also tomato sauce on pizza counts as a vegetable. This kind of undermines what they were trying to do with these healthy lunches.
 
tiedyeddog said:
Maybe they should outlaw ciggarettes, first. I think you're getting ahead of yourself.

I am not even in favor of that. Taking away almost ANY personal freedoms is a slippery slope. What's next after oreos? Caffiene, because we usually find it in pop? Then outlaw television because it's unhealthy to sit and watch it for extended amounts of time? Then what, are we going to outlaw any more Tyler Perry movies because he keeps idolzing fat people?
R0001077.jpg
(Maybe we should do that one....)

And, what about people who are health conscious and enjoy an oreo every now and then? Are you going to punish them, even if they are healthy?

We shoudn't have to rely on our government to tell us what to eat. Really? You can't figure out what kind of stuff in your own muff you have to look to uncle sam to figure it out?

My solution:
1. Give them super high health insurance premiums. (make them pay it)
2. Subtract out welfare payments for every pound they are overweight, beyond thirty pounds.
Click to expand...

Some people can handle a sniff of cocaine every now and then. Should we punish them?

If oreos are the reason people are getting outrageously overweight then you should get rid of it.

Whatever is for the GREATER GOOD.



PantherPride said:
A lot of things are destructive in excess- should the government restrict those things, too?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
ppfizenm said:
That's true. Potatoes are served almost everyday at schools as a vegetable even in french fry form. Nutritionists don't recommend potatoes that often (I think they argue for like once a week or a few times a month) because even though they are vegetables they are very high in starch. Also tomato sauce on pizza counts as a vegetable. This kind of undermines what they were trying to do with these healthy lunches.
Click to expand...

Yeah, very similar. Not too many examples I can think of off the top of my head, but I also remember form the blog I posted that the fruit cups are extremely sugary. Probably sweetened, which is ridiculous. I mean, it's fruit! It's already sweet!
 
iceman132 said:
Whatever is for the GREATER GOOD.
Click to expand...

Could you define 'the greater good'? What if everyone walked around at 5% body fat and lived to be 90 but could only eat space food and drink water their whole lives? Not everyone shares the utilitarian schema that you seem to advocate.
 
tryp said:
It's true that the changes that have been made seem quite cursory - the food is generally still quite greasy and soggy. Interesting site - I will have a read later.

I will also have to have a scout around to see if any studies have been done investigating barriers to uptake - it just seems that as health professionals there must be SOMETHING we can do, but the socioeconomic barriers are so strong that I feel at a loss.
Click to expand...

The short answer would be someone needs to find a way to make it financially beneficial to sell healthy food in a low income neighborhoods.

In the short term (assuming the above can be done) I would raise insurance premiums for overweight individuals while taxing the manufacture of junk food (this would hopefully be a incentive for companies to reformulate their products to be healthier.)

Long term (if rates of obesity have come down) remove the premium and lower the cost of healthy food.
 
ppfizenm said:
The short answer would be someone needs to find a way to make it financially beneficial to sell healthy food in a low income neighborhoods.

In the short term (assuming the above can be done) I would raise insurance premiums for overweight individuals while taxing the manufacture of junk food (this would hopefully be a incentive for companies to reformulate their products to be healthier.)

Long term (if rates of obesity have come down) remove the premium and lower the cost of healthy food.
Click to expand...

But that tax to the manufacturer will ultimately get passed down to the consumer, and as long as areas exist where there isn't healthy food, the trends will persist. Your solution has the same problems as a tax on consumption of junk food.
 
iceman132 said:
Whatever is for the GREATER GOOD.
Click to expand...

Alright, what if a study said allowing abortions is better than not allowing them, due to the financial constraint unwanted pregnancies cause and later, the civil problems that arise from children who are not raised properly due to unprepared parents, i.e. court fees, jail time, greater police forces, etc. Would you then change your anti-abortion stance because it's for the greater good?

LET'S DO IT FOR THE GREATER GOOD, MR. ANTI-ABORTION!
 
aSagacious said:
Could you define 'the greater good'? What if everyone walked around at 5% body fat and lived to be 90 but could only eat space food and drink water their whole lives? Not everyone shares the utilitarian schema that you seem to advocate.
Click to expand...

I'll get back to you on the precise definition for this situation.

The scenario you have described isn't for the greater good. There has to be some room for free will.


tiedyeddog said:
Alright, what if a study said allowing abortions is better than not allowing them, due to the financial constraint unwanted pregnancies and later, the civil problems that arise from children who are not raised properly due to unprepared parents? Would you then change your anti-abortion stance because it's for the greater good?

LET'S DO IT FOR THE GREATER GOOD, MR. ANTI-ABORTION!
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous argument. Financial constraints aren't the exclusive consideration.

Hitler and the Germans gained vast amounts of wealth when they killed Jews. You're forgetting about the sanctity of human life which is greater than monetary issues. (To an extent)
 
iceman132 said:
What a ridiculous argument. Financial constraints aren't the exclusive consideration.

Hitler and the Germans gained vast amounts of wealth when they killed Jews. You're forgetting about the sanctity of human life.
Click to expand...

But it's for the greater good. We are sacrificing individual freedom's here for the greater good. You said to do whatever needs to be done in the name of it is what we need to do.
 
tantacles said:
But that tax to the manufacturer will ultimately get passed down to the consumer, and as long as areas exist where there isn't healthy food, the trends will persist. Your solution has the same problems as a tax on consumption of junk food.
Click to expand...

The combination of both the increased insurance premiums with the tax is supposed to create a situation where the tax may get passed on to consumers but they will hopefully be trying to make healthier choices at the time (because of increased insurance premiums) so they won't be buying those products.

Again this hurts the low income areas where healthy food isn't available.
 
tiedyeddog said:
But it's for the greater good. We are sacrificing individual freedom's here for the greater good. You said to do whatever needs to be done in the name of it is what we need to do.
Click to expand...

Did you even read my response? It isn't for the greater good. What you're suggesting is for greater financial wealth.

If you are seriously a medical student I am shocked at your lack of logic. (Though there are a lot of evil doctors out there)
 
This thread needs to get back to the original topic.

Go_Be_Fat_Somewhere_Else.ashx.jpg
 
iceman132 said:
Did you even read my response? It isn't for the greater good. What you're suggesting is for greater financial wealth.

If you are seriously a medical student I am shocked at your lack of logic. (Though there are a lot of evil doctors out there)
Click to expand...

Did you read mine? I said

kids raised by parents who aren't ready for kids = those kids later in life commiting more crimes. Murdering more people, stealing more, raping more, stealing hamburgers from fat people.
 
tiedyeddog said:
Did you read mine? I said

kids raised by parents who aren't ready for kids = those kids later in life commiting more crimes. Murdering more people, stealing more, raping more, stealing hamburgers from fat people.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains the hamburglers motivations
 
tiedyeddog said:
Did you read mine? I said

kids raised by parents who aren't ready for kids = those kids later in life commiting more crimes. Murdering more people, stealing more, raping more, stealing hamburgers from fat people.
Click to expand...

Oh, my fault. I should have been more clear.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you grow up to be a stripper doesn't mean you should have had your brains scrambled. They are two separate cases.

Also, you didn't know the kid was going to grow up to be a stripper. They could have become a lawyer.
 
I am not trying to make a statement about abortions. I am just trying to say that there is no one, unified idea of what is good for society. What you think is good for society I might think is bad for society.

P.S., as long as we are going to invoke Burnetts law, I am going to say the worst doctors are those who are positive they know that is the best for their patients and never ask them about their wants and needs. Paternalism FTL.
 
tiedyeddog said:
I am not trying to make a statement about abortions. I am just trying to say that there is no one, unified idea of what is good for society. What you think is good for society I might think is bad for society.

P.S., as long as we are going to invoke Burnetts law, I am going to say the worst doctors are those who are positive they know that is the best for their patients and never ask them about their wants and needs. Paternalism FTL.
Click to expand...

There is one good. I may be wrong or right but there is ONE choice that is more "good" than the other.

Of course, you have to take things on a case by case basis.
 
iceman132 said:
Oh, my fault. I should have been more clear.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you grow up to be a stripper doesn't mean you should have had your brains scrambled. They are two separate cases.

Also, you didn't know the kid was going to grow up to be a stripper. They could have become a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Let me repeat.

What if a study, done in fifty different cities, proved over a fifty year time span, that allowing abortions for unwanted pregnancies helped society fifty times more than not allowing them, would you then advocate for what is the best for society?

My point is that who decides what is best for society? Maybe giving citizens the most amount of personal freedoms is what's really best for society.
 
aSagacious said:
You're going to enlighten us all on the 'best' way to feed a society? Please do, I'll be waiting with bated breath.
Click to expand...

Of course I don't know the best way to feed society. Did I claim that I did?

I just need to study a bit to find the best definition for the greater good is.
 
iceman132 said:
Of course I don't know the best way to feed society. Did I claim that I did?

I just need to study a bit to find the best definition for the greater good is.
Click to expand...

That's precisely my point. Philosophers and politicians have been attempting this for millennia. Stating your position so matter-of-factly as you have been doing comes across as both myopic and condescending.
 
Also, why don't we think about this the other way? Why punish the people who maintain a healthy weight and still enjoy their weekly oreo or two?

How about the government mandate that all overweight people run ten miles a week and they get taxed if they don't. If they have some kind of disability, they have to do ten thousand crunches or just friggin' sit up and down in a chair for an hour or two a day.

Why isn't the onus on making people take responsibility for their own actions, instead of looking for "the man" to take things away?
 
tiedyeddog said:
Let me repeat.

What if a study, done in fifty different cities, proved over a fifty year time span, that allowing abortions for unwanted pregnancies helped society fifty times more than not allowing them, would you then advocate for what is the best for society?

My point is that who decides what is best for society? Maybe giving citizens the most amount of personal freedoms is what's really best for society.
Click to expand...

Should we go into the ghettos with flamethrowers because they cause the most crime? Of course not. What a ridiculous notion. It's not the "best" for society no matter what ridiculous scenarios you put up. Two wrongs dont make a right.
 
tiedyeddog said:
Also, why don't we think about this the other way? Why punish the people who maintain a healthy weight and still enjoy their weekly oreo or two?

How about the government mandate that all overweight people run ten miles a week and they get taxed if they don't. If they have some kind of disability, they have to do ten thousand crunches or just friggin' sit up and down in a chair for an hour or two a day.

Why isn't the onus on making people take responsibility for their own actions, instead of looking for "the man" to take things away?
Click to expand...

*Sigh* this is the problem with messageboards. Things get twisted easily.

I agree with you here. People were giving me random scenarios.


aSagacious said:
That's precisely my point. Philosophers and politicians have been attempting this for millennia. Stating your position so matter-of-factly as you have been doing comes across as both myopic and condescending.
Click to expand...

Give me a precise argument. I'm not really sure what your EXACT problem is. Besides me sounding like an arrogant handsome gentleman.
 
Final post in this thread, and back on topic.

I believe the results of this study is more than likely true and it makes sense. But I think many of the posters in here aren't seeing this from the prospective of most doctors.

Most doctors only have time to do two of these things:

1. Eat right/exercise daily.
2. Be a good physician.
3. Spend time with your family so your kids don't resent you and hopefully grow up well adjusted.

The average physician works 60-65 hours a week, according to the AAMC. Most doctors in surgery work way over that. You have to make sacrifices, and sometimes that includes your body and eating whatever is convient. Will this make your patients less motivated to loss weight? Maybe. But you didn't go into medicine to be a workout coach. You help your patients the most you can with what you have. Doctors are human, too.
 
iceman132 said:
Give me a precise argument. I'm not really sure what your EXACT problem is.
Click to expand...

My argument is that nobody (this includes you) has a firm grasp on how to obtain an ideal society. Further, many people have fundamentally opposing concepts of this ideal society. In matters of how one ought to live, it takes a certain audacity to argue that one's position is better than someone else's. You also repeatedly oversimplify fairly nuanced issues and create straw man arguments:

iceman132 said:
We really need to start making fat camps mandatory. If not that then definitely raise taxes on these fatties.
Click to expand...
Oversimplification and simply not feasible (let alone ideal)

iceman132 said:
Yes, how dare a doctor refuse to not scramble a babies brains.
Click to expand...
Straw man, oversimplification

iceman132 said:
However, the majority of obese people sit around and eat Mickey D's all day.
Click to expand...
Oversimplification

iceman132 said:
I only care in so far as their being absolutely evil.
Click to expand...
Opinion, stated as fact

iceman132 said:
What a stupid justification. It's like saying not making cocaine legal infringes on my right as a parent to give my baby cocaine.
Click to expand...
Straw man

iceman132 said:
Food (in excess) and cocaine can both be abused and destructive. If food becomes too destructive it should be restricted.
Click to expand...
Unreasonable analogy, non-sequitur argument
 
aSagacious said:
My argument is that nobody (this includes you) has a firm grasp on how to obtain an ideal society. Further, many people have fundamentally opposing concepts of this ideal society. In matters of how one ought to live, it takes a certain audacity to argue that one's position is better than someone else's. You also repeatedly oversimplify fairly nuanced issues and create straw man arguments:

Oversimplification and simply not feasible (let alone ideal)

Straw man, oversimplification

Oversimplification

Opinion, stated as fact

Straw man

Unreasonable analogy, non-sequitur argument
Click to expand...

One word answers aren't a real argument. (Can be but not the way you're going about it)

But I can say this. I'm not going to sit here and write a research paper for you. Of course some of these are oversimplifications. Generally right, but oversimplifications.

It's like me saying the MCat is hard.... Well, yes that's generally right but for some it could be very easy.
 
iceman132 said:
One word answers aren't a real argument. (Can be but not the way you're going about it)

But I can say this. I'm not going to sit here and write a research paper for you. Of course some of these are oversimplifications. Generally right, but oversimplifications.

It's like me saying the MCat is hard.... Well, yes that's generally right but for some it could be very easy.
Click to expand...

He isn't arguing. He is pointing out why what you are saying in your arguments makes no sense.
 
ppfizenm said:
He isn't arguing. He is pointing out why what you are saying in your arguments makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Sure they do.


See how easy that is without breaking it down?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

AJS59
  • Question
Is this clinical (likely re-applicant)
Replies
8
Views
760
LizzyM
LizzyM
M
  • Question
Do Osteopathic schools give weight to physician letters?
Replies
4
Views
507
MichiganWolverinesFan
M
T
  • Locked
Doctors leaving medicine
Replies
16
Views
2K
gyngyn
gyngyn
H
Disclosed a misdemeanor after acceptance. How likely is this to get my acceptance rescinded?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Robin-jay
Robin-jay
W
Less obvious reasons for post (zoom) interview rejection rather than waitlist?
Replies
8
Views
1K
IlDestriero
IlDestriero
Top