If you were the World Dictator, how would you solve the Obesity Problem?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Judging by the course of action the USA takes with intruding in your personal life, I can guarantee the next step is hiring discrimination based on weight.

Barring serious health issues, I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against obese people as an employer. If you don't care about your own health and appearance and/or are too lazy to do anything about it, how can any employer expect that you will care about your prospective coworkers, the employer, or the organization?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Barring serious health issues, I think it's perfectly fine to discriminate against obese people as an employer. If you don't care about your own health and appearance and/or are too lazy to do anything about it, how can any employer expect that you will care about your prospective coworkers, the employer, or the organization?

There is no connection between what someone does in their private life and the level of expertise they have in their field. In fact, I saw a post of your recently against hospitals who were denying new hires based on the fact that they had nicotine in their system. Had a change of heart?

Btw, an employer will expect you to do a good job based on the work you have done already, the recommendations you have been given and/or the grades you pulled during your schooling.

If someone gave me the choice between a prude, non-smoking doctor who was worse at what he does and a doctor who smoked and had tattoos who was better, I would 100% pick the more down to earth guy with tattoos.
 
Last edited:
There is no connection between what someone does in their private life and the level of expertise they have in their field. In fact, I saw a post of your recently against hospitals who were denying new hires based on the fact that they had nicotine in their system. Had a change of heart?

Btw, an employer will expect you to do a good job based on the work you have done already, the recommendations you have been given and/or the grades you pulled during your schooling.

If someone gave me the choice between a prude, non-smoking doctor and a doctor who smoked and had tattoos, I would 100% pick the more down to earth guy with tattoos.

Probably so. Show me that post? Many people casually smoke, just like many people casually drink. Having nicotine in your system doesn't mean you are a chronic smoker. Being obese, however, means you have a history of poor habits. Sure you could be in the process of losing weight and therefore be developing better habits, but that's an added complication I don't want to get into.

Also I wouldn't compare tattoos to obesity. Some people think tattoos are a poor life choice. It's subjective. Obesity (again, excluding obesity caused by health problems) is objectively a poor choice.

Edit: Oh, and whether or not there is no correlation between private life and level of expertise is beside the point. I wouldn't hire someone who knows the job well if I thought they wouldn't do the job well.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Probably so. Show me that post? Many people casually smoke, just like many people casually drink. Having nicotine in your system doesn't mean you are a chronic smoker. Being obese, however, means you have a history of poor habits. Sure you could be in the process of losing weight and therefore be developing better habits, but that's an added complication I don't want to get into.

Also I wouldn't compare tattoos to obesity. Some people think tattoos are a poor life choice. It's subjective. Obesity (again, excluding obesity caused by health problems) is objectively a poor choice.

Edit: Oh, and whether or not there is no correlation between private life and level of expertise is beside the point. I wouldn't hire someone who knows the job well if I thought they wouldn't do the job well.

Regardless, letting government and institutions a freedom and right to to hire and fire based on a lifestyle which they deem to be good relative to their view is not a good thing for the future of the USA. If you think it is, I really don't know what to tell you. A person could go for medical school for four years, do very well, love what they would do and then get denied simply because they are fat or use tobacco (let's say the non-smoke variety). That is REALLY not just. People have enough worries in their life, especially going through medical school to have an additional worry about nanny state policies.
 
Regardless, letting government and institutions a freedom and right to to hire and fire based on a lifestyle which they deem to be good relative to their view is not a good thing for the future of the USA. If you think it is, I really don't know what to tell you. A person could go for medical school for four years, do very well, love what they would do and then get denied simply because they are fat or use tobacco (let's say the non-smoke variety). That is REALLY not just. People have enough worries in their life, especially going through medical school to have an additional worry about nanny state policies.

Sure, but too much government regulation on why you can't hire someone will be equally as troublesome. As far as smoking goes, I think healthcare employees should demonstrate responsible choices to patients. In general, people won't take advice that they deem hypocritical. I'm not saying docs need to be health nuts, but if you see your physician on a smoke break as you are walking into your appointment, are you really going to listen when s/he tells you to stop smoking? Probably not.

Leave the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality for parents.
 
Hopefully the dictator's employees are willing to fight to the death with the obese when they get denied a job, no more Mickey D's or having to pay extra for plane tickets. They can pack quite a punch with all the body weight in them :eek:
 
Sure, but too much government regulation on why you can't hire someone will be equally as troublesome. As far as smoking goes, I think healthcare employees should demonstrate responsible choices to patients. In general, people won't take advice that they deem hypocritical. I'm not saying docs need to be health nuts, but if you see your physician on a smoke break as you are walking into your appointment, are you really going to listen when s/he tells you to stop smoking? Probably not.

Leave the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality for parents.

The problem is though, that these new hirings are forcing incoming physicians to be health nuts. Physicians who use tobacco don't have to smoke and don't have to use tobacco when they are working. I agree with you, a doctor who employs health advice and who is blatantly seen smoking would be slightly ridiculous. However, these same people should not be fired from their professions if they don't harm the patients who they see and that is what is slowly occurring. In effect, the USA is taking its black and white approach to these types of things and are forcing people to accept the health nut way of thought.
 
The problem is though, that these new hirings are forcing incoming physicians to be health nuts. Physicians who use tobacco don't have to smoke and don't have to use tobacco when they are working. I agree with you, a doctor who employs health advice and who is blatantly seen smoking would be slightly ridiculous. However, these same people should not be fired from their professions if they don't harm the patients who they see and that is what is slowly occurring. In effect, the USA is taking its black and white approach to these types of things and are forcing people to accept the health nut way of thought.

Yeah definitely agree there. Black and white is just a lot easier when it comes to decision making though.
 
There is no connection between what someone does in their private life and the level of expertise they have in their field. In fact, I saw a post of your recently against hospitals who were denying new hires based on the fact that they had nicotine in their system. Had a change of heart?

Btw, an employer will expect you to do a good job based on the work you have done already, the recommendations you have been given and/or the grades you pulled during your schooling.

If someone gave me the choice between a prude, non-smoking doctor who was worse at what he does and a doctor who smoked and had tattoos who was better, I would 100% pick the more down to earth guy with tattoos.
I raised the issue of a continine test being added to the other things they dip your urine for in another post. Here's the rationale with the legal stuff: they test for alcohol too; if you know you're having a drug test that day and you still have to drink and smoke, you have a serious problem and those people are whom they're trying to weed out (no pun intended but highly encouraged.) If you can go a few days without either, these aren't the droids they're looking for. Other than that, if you come to work smelling of alcohol or smoke, you'd be an idiot not to shower there and change into some clean scrubs first. Wait a minute, if you come to work smelling like you've just come from last call, that usually raises some red flags no matter what, right?
 
I raised the issue of a continine test being added to the other things they dip your urine for in another post. Here's the rationale with the legal stuff: they test for alcohol too; if you know you're having a drug test that day and you still have to drink and smoke, you have a serious problem and those people are whom they're trying to weed out (no pun intended but highly encouraged.) If you can go a few days without either, these aren't the droids they're looking for. Other than that, if you come to work smelling of alcohol or smoke, you'd be an idiot not to shower there and change into some clean scrubs first. Wait a minute, if you come to work smelling like you've just come from last call, that usually raises some red flags no matter what, right?

So they never did tests after for you?
 
Nope. If they do anything after the initial screen without cause, they could be sued for harassment or discrimination and I've heard of one such case of this. No links or anything and this is a third party I got the anecdote from. I've never done cocaine or heroin, was tested before employment started and never was tested for it again. That's the general idea.

If someone had the yellowish tar-stained hands, lips and teeth, they're going to be under continued scrutiny. Not that I've had a perfect record or anything, but errors in management on a borderline case is one thing and happens but errors in judgement caused by impairment due to some chemical are something that falls under a zero-tolerance rule that they will probably run more than the 10 dip you have to have done before you matriculate into med school.
 
Even if that works temporarily, the weight won't stay off (for most people). Different people have different setpoints and hormonal regulation of weight varies from person to person. It might work for you but the physiology of weight management is such that some people can pump out a few curls in front of the mirror and look more fit than 95% of the population, while others exercise, diet, etc and see no real change.

Many studies have shown that the only truly effective way to lose weight and keep it off is through gastric bypass, banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and other similar procedures. Behavior therapy and dietary changes often do absolutely nothing in the long run because people's bodies will not let them maintain a weight that is abnormal for them. I can eat whatever I want, never work out, and still have a BMI of 21 with <6% body fat. Since this is the case, why can't the opposite be a possibility?

Read an endocrine physiology textbook instead of Muscle and Fitness before judging people.

:laugh:
 
Even if that works temporarily, the weight won't stay off (for most people). Different people have different setpoints and hormonal regulation of weight varies from person to person. It might work for you but the physiology of weight management is such that some people can pump out a few curls in front of the mirror and look more fit than 95% of the population, while others exercise, diet, etc and see no real change.

Many studies have shown that the only truly effective way to lose weight and keep it off is through gastric bypass, banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and other similar procedures. Behavior therapy and dietary changes often do absolutely nothing in the long run because people's bodies will not let them maintain a weight that is abnormal for them. I can eat whatever I want, never work out, and still have a BMI of 21 with <6% body fat. Since this is the case, why can't the opposite be a possibility?

Read an endocrine physiology textbook instead of Muscle and Fitness before judging people.

Or they develop severe gastroparesis from getting a botched version of the above surgeries when their vagus nerve gets damaged or severed. Because chronic nausea and vomiting for life sounds great--and also basically being unable to eat, from these surgery-induced cases.

The weight problem is more of a social issue that the US does a poor job of handling, for a variety of reasons. While surgery is a necessity for some, it is not an answer to the problem for a society as a whole.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So what year in medical school do we learn how the endocrine system bypasses the laws of thermodynamics? It sounds like a very interesting subject.
 
So what year in medical school do we learn how the endocrine system bypasses the laws of thermodynamics? It sounds like a very interesting subject.

It's a temporary fix for a lot of people. Period. Believe whatever you want. Just try to tone down the macho bro-ness before med school. Otherwise, you'll close tons of doors before you even realized they existed.
 
Or they develop severe gastroparesis from getting a botched version of the above surgeries when their vagus nerve gets damaged or severed. Because chronic nausea and vomiting for life sounds great--and also basically being unable to eat, from these surgery-induced cases.

The weight problem is more of a social issue that the US does a poor job of handling, for a variety of reasons. While surgery is a necessity for some, it is not an answer to the problem for a society as a whole.


Congratulations, you can perform a google search for complications of bariatric surgery. The issue was not side effects of the surgery, it was effective methods of weight loss.

Also, your argument is pathetic. Botched surgery? Answer to that is find a good surgeon. N/V? I will take those to developing HTN, type II DM, SCFE (if you're a kid), cholelithiasis, NAFLD, pseudotumor cerebri, sleep apnea, LVH, and other complications of being obese.

Lastly, the weight problem is a social problem. You are 100% right about that. But when tools tell someone that they can get in shape by being more like them and hittin' the squat rack, they are flat out wrong. Not in ALL cases, obviously, but a future doctor having that mentality is something that should be corrected ASAP.
 
Energy out > Energy in is a good baseline. Unfortunately, the average American will have a hard time doing this. If we were to give people a calorie test on food items, people will fail that harder than people taking an orgo test. In addition, the discipline to keep track of what you eat, and to count. Hypothetically, if there was a food coach that follows someone along all day and does the work for them, it might lead to some change. The body's metabolism can sometimes shift this around too. I don't think anyone is denying that someone's metabolism has no role in this.
 
It's a temporary fix for a lot of people. Period. Believe whatever you want. Just try to tone down the macho bro-ness before med school. Otherwise, you'll close tons of doors before you even realized they existed.

If it's a temporary fix then it is their fault for not sticking with it lol. To state that the only way to escape your genetic fate is through surgery is just plain stupid. But I guess believe whatever you want, you are the super smart med student after all :rolleyes:
 
Congratulations, you can perform a google search for complications of bariatric surgery. The issue was not side effects of the surgery, it was effective methods of weight loss.

Also, your argument is pathetic. Botched surgery? Answer to that is find a good surgeon. N/V? I will take those to developing HTN, type II DM, SCFE (if you're a kid), cholelithiasis, NAFLD, pseudotumor cerebri, sleep apnea, LVH, and other complications of being obese.

Lastly, the weight problem is a social problem. You are 100% right about that. But when tools tell someone that they can get in shape by being more like them and hittin' the squat rack, they are flat out wrong. Not in ALL cases, obviously, but a future doctor having that mentality is something that should be corrected ASAP.

Thanks :p I didn't even have to search though. I have severe gastroparesis (I have autoimmune autonomic neuropathy, actually more specifically-ganglionopathy) and type 1 diabetes.

I know very well that exercise and diet only work to a certain point. I do not believe that people willingly bring it on themselves. There is also a point where you become so obese for a certain period of time that your metabolism is permanently screwed. Also, there are a whole slew of health problems that can bring on obesity, directly or indirectly.

And no, I do not think individuals should be punished for being obese, like having to pay for a second airplane ticket, whether this is fair or unfair to everyone else.
 
If it's a temporary fix then it is their fault for not sticking with it lol. To state that the only way to escape your genetic fate is through surgery is just plain stupid. But I guess believe whatever you want, you are the super smart med student after all :rolleyes:

I might as well be talking to a wall. Apparently you're just not capable of getting it...which is interesting, because it's not that hard to understand. Surgery IS the most effective way to escape your genetic fate. Studies have proven that. Ever hear of the Stampede Trial? You are the super smart pre-med, so I guess that trumps the "idiots" at MGH...

Also, are you trying to say that if you try really, really hard then you can will your way through genetics? Because I would like blue eyes, if that's the case. Also, genetic predisposition to cancer is something that happens because people are lazy? Wow, I wish more of us could be like sliceofbread, then pretty much every imaginable problem could just be solved by doing some Arnold presses...
 
Even if that works temporarily, the weight won't stay off (for most people). Different people have different setpoints and hormonal regulation of weight varies from person to person. It might work for you but the physiology of weight management is such that some people can pump out a few curls in front of the mirror and look more fit than 95% of the population, while others exercise, diet, etc and see no real change.

Many studies have shown that the only truly effective way to lose weight and keep it off is through gastric bypass, banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and other similar procedures. Behavior therapy and dietary changes often do absolutely nothing in the long run because people's bodies will not let them maintain a weight that is abnormal for them. I can eat whatever I want, never work out, and still have a BMI of 21 with <6% body fat. Since this is the case, why can't the opposite be a possibility?

Read an endocrine physiology textbook instead of Muscle and Fitness before judging people.

I might as well be talking to a wall. Apparently you're just not capable of getting it...which is interesting, because it's not that hard to understand. Surgery IS the most effective way to escape your genetic fate. Studies have proven that. Ever hear of the Stampede Trial? You are the super smart pre-med, so I guess that trumps the "idiots" at MGH...

Also, are you trying to say that if you try really, really hard then you can will your way through genetics? Because I would like blue eyes, if that's the case. Also, genetic predisposition to cancer is something that happens because people are lazy? Wow, I wish more of us could be like sliceofbread, then pretty much every imaginable problem could just be solved by doing some Arnold presses...

You can argue that surgery is more effective than traditional methods of weight lose, but you can't argue that it is the only method. If you eat less calories than your maintenance, you will lose weight. It is that simple. You can insult me all you want but this is a fact. This isn't eye color, it is something you can control.
 
I might as well be talking to a wall. Apparently you're just not capable of getting it...which is interesting, because it's not that hard to understand. Surgery IS the most effective way to escape your genetic fate. Studies have proven that. Ever hear of the Stampede Trial? You are the super smart pre-med, so I guess that trumps the "idiots" at MGH...

Also, are you trying to say that if you try really, really hard then you can will your way through genetics? Because I would like blue eyes, if that's the case. Also, genetic predisposition to cancer is something that happens because people are lazy? Wow, I wish more of us could be like sliceofbread, then pretty much every imaginable problem could just be solved by doing some Arnold presses...

Nobody HAS to be obese because of their genetics.

Unless lack of willpower/knowledge is genetic. Eye color is a horrible comparison, nobody can change it because of genetics. Everybody can change their weight, or so said that law of thermodynamics. And cancer? Really? How is that even relevant
 
Nobody HAS to be obese because of their genetics.

Unless lack of willpower/knowledge is genetic. Eye color is a horrible comparison, nobody can change it because of genetics. Everybody can change their weight, or so said that law of thermodynamics. And cancer? Really? How is that even relevant

Shut up premed, he's a MED STUDENT! :rolleyes:
 
You can argue that surgery is more effective than traditional methods of weight lose, but you can't argue that it is the only method. If you eat less calories than your maintenance, you will lose weight. It is that simple. You can insult me all you want but this is a fact. This isn't eye color, it is something you can control.

It is not that simple.

Why is type 2 diabetes at least double a risk factor among minorities compared to Caucasians?

Once you develop metabolic syndrome, you're probably screwed when it comes to obesity--and at that point, you likely will develop type 2 diabetes. Your metabolism basically gets permanently screwed.
 
And no, I do not think individuals should be punished for being obese, like having to pay for a second airplane ticket, whether this is fair or unfair to everyone else.

It's not a punishment...is it punishment to charge tall people if they want extra legroom seats? Is it punishment to administer a more expensive test to someone who needs it for their healthcare? No. I don't think anyone should be charged more or less as an incentive to behave a certain way, I just don't see why, if they take up 2 seats, they should not be charged for what they are receiving. :confused:
 
And no, I do not think individuals should be punished for being obese, like having to pay for a second airplane ticket, whether this is fair or unfair to everyone else.

If you can't fit in one airplane seat, why shouldn't you have to pay for two seats? It's not a punishment, it's just logistics. You pay for what you use.
 
No, you pay an airFARE.

Here is a credible international standpoint on this issue.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2012/11/obese-flyers

They charge extra if your bag is over 50lbs.
They charge extra if you have two bags.
They charge extra money because transporting extra weight and volume costs them more money. I don't see why that is such a horrifying concept.

Furthermore, your article stated exactly what I said in my first post: right now, we should charge extra because these services are extra. If they become average, or it is more cost-beneficial to a company to provide those services for free and get more business (like JetBlue allowing 1 free checked bag) then perhaps the status quo will change then. But I see no reason to regulate or start off the process by giving extra services for no charge.
 
They charge extra if your bag is over 50lbs.
They charge extra if you have two bags.
They charge extra money because transporting extra weight and volume costs them more money. I don't see why that is such a horrifying concept.

Furthermore, your article stated exactly what I said in my first post: right now, we should charge extra because these services are extra. If they become average, or it is more cost-beneficial to a company to provide those services for free and get more business (like JetBlue allowing 1 free checked bag) then perhaps the status quo will change then. But I see no reason to regulate or start off the process by giving extra services for no charge.

Yeah because I am sure you can just treat humans as the same as a suitcase that goes in the cargo bay.

You can ditch your excess suitcase luggage---you can't ditch obesity.

Its not like we charge obese people on public transportation (buses, subways) for taking up extra seats--they paid a fare.

I guess if you desire to stick to your beliefs (and be black and white and stringent about the technical aspects of the burden of extra weight on an airplane) then be charged by the kilogram for your entire body weight and luggage combined for each airplane boarding as an individual passenger. You cannot tell me this is not discriminatory. I guess parents can forget about child safety seats for toddlers on the airplane to save money. Charge people who use wheelchairs, or have lots of medical equipment (like me-it takes a lot of space and weight) more money.
 
It's a temporary fix for a lot of people. Period. Believe whatever you want. Just try to tone down the macho bro-ness before med school. Otherwise, you'll close tons of doors before you even realized they existed.

U beta? U jelly of his alpha-ness?

I might as well be talking to a wall. Apparently you're just not capable of getting it...which is interesting, because it's not that hard to understand. Surgery IS the most effective way to escape your genetic fate. Studies have proven that. Ever hear of the Stampede Trial? You are the super smart pre-med, so I guess that trumps the "idiots" at MGH...

Also, are you trying to say that if you try really, really hard then you can will your way through genetics? Because I would like blue eyes, if that's the case. Also, genetic predisposition to cancer is something that happens because people are lazy? Wow, I wish more of us could be like sliceofbread, then pretty much every imaginable problem could just be solved by doing some Arnold presses...

I think it's hilarious when academics try to argue about weight loss and nutrition from behind their desks especially when they have never experienced bulk/cut cycles that we powerlifters/bodybuilders/etc. have to go through, and don't understand the level of discipline and motivation it takes to get through it. Their experience consists largely of reading textbooks, while ours consists of actual knowledge gained through trial-an-error "experiments" that have more real world practicality. And this is exactly the case in your post, Mr. So Smart Med Student since you think that surgery is the best option for dealing with "genetics". Yes, it may produce some highly meaningful results, but it's nothing more than a weak cop out for these individuals who brought on obesity and diabetes upon themselves (And yes, I do recognize that there is a complex web of lifestyle and socioeconomic and environmental factors than do result in people with diabetes and obesity). I mean, it's tiring seeing people chug a gallon of soda day and refuse to drink water because they hate the taste of it. It's tiring to see people refuse to eat veggies since they hate the taste of that also. It's tiring to see people think that walking on the elliptical on the gym for 30 mins entails them getting to eat a giant slice of pumpkin pie with whipped cream on the top as a reward. And people can overcome their genetics. They just need to keep their mouth shut and stop eating more than their body can burn off.

The reason for why sliceofbread and I argue for strong exercise and even weightlifting is not to get ripped, but to develop discipline while losing weight, which is what many people lack. Just giving them the option to cop out by doing surgery is just going to reinforce their poor decision making. I mean, what incentive are they going to have then to stop drinking gallons of soda and wearing out their teeth? What incentive are they going to have to stop making poor decisions in the rest of their lives? It's the rigor and challenge of actual exercise that forces you to confront yourself, and fix yourself.


And seriously, what is an "Arnold press"? Can you even lift up a 45lb bar without herniating yourself?

In the spirit of Hamlet, I beseech you to "Get thee to a gym" and to learn how to be a man for once.


You can argue that surgery is more effective than traditional methods of weight lose, but you can't argue that it is the only method. If you eat less calories than your maintenance, you will lose weight. It is that simple. You can insult me all you want but this is a fact. This isn't eye color, it is something you can control.

This.
 
They charge extra if your bag is over 50lbs.
They charge extra if you have two bags.
They charge extra money because transporting extra weight and volume costs them more money. I don't see why that is such a horrifying concept.

Furthermore, your article stated exactly what I said in my first post: right now, we should charge extra because these services are extra. If they become average, or it is more cost-beneficial to a company to provide those services for free and get more business (like JetBlue allowing 1 free checked bag) then perhaps the status quo will change then. But I see no reason to regulate or start off the process by giving extra services for no charge.
OK guys, I'll compromise. If the person trying to fly has a huge gut, let's count that as both their carry-on and their personal item and see how that works out. I still say they should travel freight if they take up two seats and don't want to pay for the extra one.

I've first assisted in well over 20 lap band surgeries in an entire month of bariatrics and can tell you that very few of them come out with no complications by the next morning. The patients are already up and in deep pain even when I see them at 5AM and the "adjustments" are usually made with little to no pain killers. I would never recommend any bariatric surgery to anyone, but that's just my n=1. If anyone else has had different experience on one of their rotations, please feel free to share.

I'm a dictator, so I would just have them take out the stomach entirely if my people get too fat. No other surgeries necessary.
 
U beta? U jelly of his alpha-ness?



I think it's hilarious when academics try to argue about weight loss and nutrition from behind their desks especially when they have never experienced bulk/cut cycles that we powerlifters/bodybuilders/etc. have to go through, and don't understand the level of discipline and motivation it takes to get through it. Their experience consists largely of reading textbooks, while ours consists of actual knowledge gained through trial-an-error "experiments" that have more real world practicality. And this is exactly the case in your post, Mr. So Smart Med Student since you think that surgery is the best option for dealing with "genetics". Yes, it may produce some highly meaningful results, but it's nothing more than a weak cop out for these individuals who brought on obesity and diabetes upon themselves (And yes, I do recognize that there is a complex web of lifestyle and socioeconomic and environmental factors than do result in people with diabetes and obesity). I mean, it's tiring seeing people chug a gallon of soda day and refuse to drink water because they hate the taste of it. It's tiring to see people refuse to eat veggies since they hate the taste of that also. It's tiring to see people think that walking on the elliptical on the gym for 30 mins entails them getting to eat a giant slice of pumpkin pie with whipped cream on the top as a reward. And people can overcome their genetics. They just need to keep their mouth shut and stop eating more than their body can burn off.

The reason for why sliceofbread and I argue for strong exercise and even weightlifting is not to get ripped, but to develop discipline while losing weight, which is what many people lack. Just giving them the option to cop out by doing surgery is just going to reinforce their poor decision making. I mean, what incentive are they going to have then to stop drinking gallons of soda and wearing out their teeth? What incentive are they going to have to stop making poor decisions in the rest of their lives? It's the rigor and challenge of actual exercise that forces you to confront yourself, and fix yourself.

Just look at Pima Indians. They have the highest diabetes rate in the world. They DO have genetic issues that make them unable to handle the kind of diet we eat today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016074958.htm

Seriously guys, a lot of you are naive about this stuff. There is no way that people with this high of a diabetes rate brought it upon themselves, or were able to prevent it just through diet and exercise.
 
Just look at Pima Indians. They have the highest diabetes rate in the world. They DO have genetic issues that make them unable to handle the kind of diet we eat today.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016074958.htm

Seriously guys, a lot of you are naive about this stuff. There is no way that people with this high of a diabetes rate brought it upon themselves, or were able to prevent it just through diet and exercise.

Not all of America is composed of the Pima Indians.
 
Yeah because I am sure you can just treat humans as the same as a suitcase that goes in the cargo bay.

You can ditch your excess suitcase luggage---you can't ditch obesity.

Its not like we charge obese people on public transportation (buses, subways) for taking up extra seats--they paid a fare.

I guess if you desire to stick to your beliefs (and be black and white and stringent about the technical aspects of the burden of extra weight on an airplane) then be charged by the kilogram for your entire body weight and luggage combined for each airplane boarding as an individual passenger. You cannot tell me this is not discriminatory. I guess parents can forget about child safety seats for toddlers on the airplane to save money. Charge people who use wheelchairs, or have lots of medical equipment (like me-it takes a lot of space and weight) more money.

There is natural human variation, and we don't charge per kilogram because of that. We have a compromise in place: we charge per seat. If you want to hold your infant in your lap, you are allowed to do so for free, but if you want the extra space, you are charged for it. The natural way to fit obesity into this existing compromise is to set a threshold where if you require 2 seats, you pay for 2 seats.

An airplane is different than a bus or a subway; fuel is more expensive and the trip is longer, so comfortable passenger space is a commodity.

A wheelchair (or stroller) doesn't really cost the airline much in terms of space or weight, as it is stowed in a non-passenger space and therefore doesn't prevent the airline from accomodating a full load. Someone taking up 2 seats does, because it is illegal for them to fly without everyone in a seat. It would certainly be the airline's prerogative to charge for the weight of the stroller, wheelchair, medical equipment, etc, but most do not because the lost business would hurt them more than the small weight gain. Likewise, in the future, it may be to the airlines' benefit to not charge for double-wide seats (though I doubt it, because extra space, unlike a wheelchair or a stroller, is something which everyone wants and would push to be able to use even when not strictly necessary for them).

I'm just saying that I see no reason to charge less than the service (in our current system, number of seats) rendered.
 
Sad...that's all I have to say. ElCapone and sliceofbread, you two are simply misguided. Ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, whatever it may be, you're both so misinformed. I may not be an expert, but I can guarantee that I know more than the both of you combined regarding this topic. I don't say this because I am a medical student and you are not (which both of you seem to assume...what high self-esteem you both must have...), rather, because your arguments are so ridiculous. You think that by telling a person to put down a bucket of fried chicken and get on a treadmill, they will end up being perfectly healthy? Do you really think that if it were that easy, there would be over 1.5 million US adults with a BMI>50? I am TELLING you, not to win some stupid internet argument, but so you don't sound like complete *****s when you get to med school, that you are wrong. Look it up. Go on PubMed. Something other than your own sheltered existence has to be used in order to drill this point into your Cro-Magnon-esque skulls. That's your homework assignment. K GO.
 
There is natural human variation, and we don't charge per kilogram because of that. We have a compromise in place: we charge per seat. If you want to hold your infant in your lap, you are allowed to do so for free, but if you want the extra space, you are charged for it. The natural way to fit obesity into this existing compromise is to set a threshold where if you require 2 seats, you pay for 2 seats.

An airplane is different than a bus or a subway; fuel is more expensive and the trip is longer, so comfortable passenger space is a commodity.

A wheelchair (or stroller) doesn't really cost the airline much in terms of space or weight, as it is stowed in a non-passenger space and therefore doesn't prevent the airline from accomodating a full load. Someone taking up 2 seats does, because it is illegal for them to fly without everyone in a seat. It would certainly be the airline's prerogative to charge for the weight of the stroller, wheelchair, medical equipment, etc, but most do not because the lost business would hurt them more than the small weight gain. Likewise, in the future, it may be to the airlines' benefit to not charge for double-wide seats (though I doubt it, because extra space, unlike a wheelchair or a stroller, is something which everyone wants and would push to be able to use even when not strictly necessary for them).

I'm just saying that I see no reason to charge less than the service (in our current system, number of seats) rendered.

Your definition of service is incorrect:

(From Wikipedia)

In economics, a service is an intangible commodity. More specifically, services are an intangible equivalent of economic goods.

____________________

If a person needs an additional seat in order for their "service flight" to destination X, it is not an additional service. If you take the time to understand the definition of "service", this is apparent.


There are motorized wheelchairs that weigh well over 300 lbs for people with physical disabilities---and no, these are not bariatric chairs. If the airliner destroys the chair or something like a ventilator, they have to, by FEDERAL law, pay the individual who uses the equipment the purchase cost of the equipment--not the current value of the equipment. You think it is fair to the healthy customer if the baggage people don't stow away equipment properly and then they have to help pay for a $20,000 chair and a $30,000 ventilator because the airliner was not careful enough? Should the airliner defy the ADA and not let people with physical disabilities on the planes because of this?
 
U beta? U jelly of his alpha-ness?



I think it's hilarious when academics try to argue about weight loss and nutrition from behind their desks especially when they have never experienced bulk/cut cycles that we powerlifters/bodybuilders/etc. have to go through, and don't understand the level of discipline and motivation it takes to get through it. Their experience consists largely of reading textbooks, while ours consists of actual knowledge gained through trial-an-error "experiments" that have more real world practicality. And this is exactly the case in your post, Mr. So Smart Med Student since you think that surgery is the best option for dealing with "genetics". Yes, it may produce some highly meaningful results, but it's nothing more than a weak cop out for these individuals who brought on obesity and diabetes upon themselves (And yes, I do recognize that there is a complex web of lifestyle and socioeconomic and environmental factors than do result in people with diabetes and obesity). I mean, it's tiring seeing people chug a gallon of soda day and refuse to drink water because they hate the taste of it. It's tiring to see people refuse to eat veggies since they hate the taste of that also. It's tiring to see people think that walking on the elliptical on the gym for 30 mins entails them getting to eat a giant slice of pumpkin pie with whipped cream on the top as a reward. And people can overcome their genetics. They just need to keep their mouth shut and stop eating more than their body can burn off.

The reason for why sliceofbread and I argue for strong exercise and even weightlifting is not to get ripped, but to develop discipline while losing weight, which is what many people lack. Just giving them the option to cop out by doing surgery is just going to reinforce their poor decision making. I mean, what incentive are they going to have then to stop drinking gallons of soda and wearing out their teeth? What incentive are they going to have to stop making poor decisions in the rest of their lives? It's the rigor and challenge of actual exercise that forces you to confront yourself, and fix yourself.


And seriously, what is an "Arnold press"? Can you even lift up a 45lb bar without herniating yourself?

In the spirit of Hamlet, I beseech you to "Get thee to a gym" and to learn how to be a man for once.




This.

FWIW, I wrestled for seventeen years (in addition to playing football), including college, so I had to bulk up and cut down more than you could possibly imagine. So yes, I know exactly what it takes. Nice try though ;)
 
Sad...that's all I have to say. ElCapone and sliceofbread, you two are simply misguided. Ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, whatever it may be, you're both so misinformed. I may not be an expert, but I can guarantee that I know more than the both of you combined regarding this topic. I don't say this because I am a medical student and you are not (which both of you seem to assume...what high self-esteem you both must have...), rather, because your arguments are so ridiculous. You think that by telling a person to put down a bucket of fried chicken and get on a treadmill, they will end up being perfectly healthy? Do you really think that if it were that easy, there would be over 1.5 million US adults with a BMI>50? I am TELLING you, not to win some stupid internet argument, but so you don't sound like complete *****s when you get to med school, that you are wrong. Look it up. Go on PubMed. Something other than your own sheltered existence has to be used in order to drill this point into your Cro-Magnon-esque skulls. That's your homework assignment. K GO.

Your insults are working great to convince me that the human body doesn't follow thermodynamics. Keep up the good work.
 
I don't understand the argument for the genetic factor. Having genes being identified means that there's a correlation, not a causation. You take in a certain amount of calories and you use up a certain amount of calories. If you consume more than you expend, you expand. Also, genetic variance in a population changes relatively slowly while the rate of obesity has been increasing quickly in the last thirty years.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Check out the fat map at the bottom of the page and then come back and tell us with a straight face that it's your genes that make you overweight.
 
Your definition of service is incorrect:

(From Wikipedia)

In economics, a service is an intangible commodity. More specifically, services are an intangible equivalent of economic goods.

____________________

If a person needs an additional seat in order for their "service flight" to destination X, it is not an additional service. If you take the time to understand the definition of "service", this is apparent.


There are motorized wheelchairs that weigh well over 300 lbs for people with physical disabilities---and no, these are not bariatric chairs. If the airliner destroys the chair or something like a ventilator, they have to, by FEDERAL law, pay the individual who uses the equipment the purchase cost of the equipment--not the current value of the equipment. You think it is fair to the healthy customer if the baggage people don't stow away equipment properly and then they have to help pay for a $20,000 chair and a $30,000 ventilator because the airliner was not careful enough? Should the airliner defy the ADA and not let people with physical disabilities on the planes because of this?

Fine, don't call it a service. Call it whatever you like, but airlines currently charge by seat.

Frankly, I don't really care about the equipment/stowage issue, because the discussion we are currently having pertains to how many seats someone takes up on the plane, which you don't seem to find important. I think that the current system of charging for checked bags is terrible, and I try to fly airlines which don't have that policy as often as I can. And yes, I think it is perfectly fair to everyone if the airline has to pay for the **** they break through incompetence, medical or not. I don't really see the relevance of this at all to the issue which we first started discussing (charging for extra seats), and I'm sorry I indulged in your tangent by addressing your comments in my last post.

I will again point you to the infant example: that particular policy illustrates that it is neither the weight (as an infant weighs little) nor the number of persons (as an infant in its mothers lap is still a person) which the airline is using to calculate its fares, but simply the number of freaking seats the person wishes to reserve. Medical equipment, wheelchairs, strollers, etc. are all separate issues which affect storage space and overall weight (which the airlines have more leeway with), but at the end of the day, being obese enough to require 2 seats costs the airline a fare unless it is reflected in the price of the double seat.
 
I don't understand the argument for the genetic factor. Having genes being identified means that there's a correlation, not a causation. You take in a certain amount of calories and you use up a certain amount of calories. If you consume more than you expend, you expand. Also, genetic variance in a population changes relatively slowly while the rate of obesity has been increasing quickly in the last thirty years.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Check out the fat map at the bottom of the page and then come back and tell us with a straight face that it's your genes that make you overweight.

Correct. It's not genes that make you overweight. It's the EAST COAST and the SOUTH!
 
Fine, don't call it a service. Call it whatever you like, but airlines currently charge by seat.

Frankly, I don't really care about the equipment/stowage issue, because the discussion we are currently having pertains to how many seats someone takes up on the plane, which you don't seem to find important. I think that the current system of charging for checked bags is terrible, and I try to fly airlines which don't have that policy as often as I can. And yes, I think it is perfectly fair to everyone if the airline has to pay for the **** they break through incompetence, medical or not. I don't really see the relevance of this at all to the issue which we first started discussing (charging for extra seats), and I'm sorry I indulged in your tangent by addressing your comments in my last post.

I will again point you to the infant example: that particular policy illustrates that it is neither the weight (as an infant weighs little) nor the number of persons (as an infant in its mothers lap is still a person) which the airline is using to calculate its fares, but simply the number of freaking seats the person wishes to reserve. Medical equipment, wheelchairs, strollers, etc. are all separate issues which affect storage space and overall weight (which the airlines have more leeway with), but at the end of the day, being obese enough to require 2 seats costs the airline a fare unless it is reflected in the price of the double seat.

Well, jet fuel from excess weight on a plane (from the passengers or the cargo) is more of an expense and a problem than excess volume overall from the airplane. Jet fuel is a significant cost.

Good luck being a doctor. Obesity is a social and public health problem. This is not the fault of the individual who is obese. If you cannot understand this concept, you are going to have problems with dealing with health problems your patients have.
 
I don't understand the argument for the genetic factor. Having genes being identified means that there's a correlation, not a causation. You take in a certain amount of calories and you use up a certain amount of calories. If you consume more than you expend, you expand. Also, genetic variance in a population changes relatively slowly while the rate of obesity has been increasing quickly in the last thirty years.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Check out the fat map at the bottom of the page and then come back and tell us with a straight face that it's your genes that make you overweight.

That was a waste of a hyperlink. It shows nothing. I applaud your effort.
 
Fat people eat too much and don't exercise enough. That's really all there is to it. Sorry that hard evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't impress you.
 
Fat people eat too much and don't exercise enough. That's really all there is to it. Sorry that hard evidence from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't impress you.

Chicken and the egg...that's all I will say. While you contemplate that and whip up some pseudo witty, rhetorical non-sequitur, I will be digressing from this thread and returning back to a normal life surrounded by non-misanthropic, non-judgmental people.
 
I wonder how many morbidly obese cave men there were. Maybe they all got lap band surgery.
 
Sad...that's all I have to say. ElCapone and sliceofbread, you two are simply misguided. Ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, whatever it may be, you're both so misinformed. I may not be an expert, but I can guarantee that I know more than the both of you combined regarding this topic. I don't say this because I am a medical student and you are not (which both of you seem to assume...what high self-esteem you both must have...), rather, because your arguments are so ridiculous. You think that by telling a person to put down a bucket of fried chicken and get on a treadmill, they will end up being perfectly healthy? Do you really think that if it were that easy, there would be over 1.5 million US adults with a BMI>50? I am TELLING you, not to win some stupid internet argument, but so you don't sound like complete *****s when you get to med school, that you are wrong. Look it up. Go on PubMed. Something other than your own sheltered existence has to be used in order to drill this point into your Cro-Magnon-esque skulls. That's your homework assignment. K GO.

Dude, how'd you get into med school with such a low MCAT score? Because I'm pretty sure that based on the lack of reading comprehension you demonstrated in not understanding any of my post, your Verbal score must have been a -15.

Chicken and the egg...that's all I will say. While you contemplate that and whip up some pseudo witty, rhetorical non-sequitur, I will be digressing from this thread and returning back to a normal life surrounded by non-misanthropic, non-judgmental people.

By the way, why do you have a toilet plunger stuck up your gluteus maximus today? Everything ok brah?


EDIT: Forgot to include something
 
Last edited:
Well, jet fuel from excess weight on a plane (from the passengers or the cargo) is more of an expense and a problem than excess volume overall from the airplane. Jet fuel is a significant cost.

Good luck being a doctor. Obesity is a social and public health problem. This is not the fault of the individual who is obese. If you cannot understand this concept, you are going to have problems with dealing with health problems your patients have.

Yes, jet fuel is a serious cost. I already specifically said this. However, the only method the airline has for offsetting this cost is to sell seats.

If a jet can hold a maximum of ~600 ppl due to seating restrictions, then taking up an extra seat cuts 1/600th out of the profit.
That same jet would weigh almost 500,000lbs empty, so at least 650,000lbs just with the extra weight of the people. Adding 100lbs of medical equipment would cost them far less than 1/600th proportionally in fuel. So yeah, I think that taking up an extra seat is a much bigger problem for airlines than having more mass onboard. They clearly also think it is important, because they charge by the seat as well...as per my earlier example with the infant, or if you want to make it simply about cargo, in the case of a cellist who opts to pay for an extra seat rather than risk their instrument in the cargo bay. If it were simply a matter of weight, that cellist would not be charged any more to bring the instrument onboard than to check it.

I am not stating that obesity is the patients' fault. In fact, I have specifically avoided making this in any way about punishing them, rewarding them, modifying their behavior in anyway, etc...their behavior is their choice. Their health is their concern. Their weight is either a problem for them or not - entirely dependent on their priorities in life and whether they find it is bothering them. It has certain downsides, and can lead to increased costs in some areas of life, as can any other medical condition. I am simply stating that I think they should pay for the seat space they occupy.

Celiac patients have to pay for gluten-free options. Tall people have to pay for extra legroom. Parents have to pay for accommodations for their kids. The requirements you have for your lifestyle, health, body type, etc. will always be a deciding factor in what you decide to purchase, and I don't see why that shouldn't be true for obese people as much as anyone else. Airlines may or may not choose to charge for these things, based on what is most profitable for them...but I don't see any reason that they shouldn't be able to charge for an extra seat.
 
Top