Too fat to fly?

Wibbs

Infront makes some very good points(as usual in such matters. Bless):D The most obvious of which is; where were all these clinically obese people 50 or even 20 years ago? The numbers of fatties has gone up massively in the last few decades. Regardless of one's view of the matter that fact is inescapable.

I would suggest that there is a drive to over medicalise the "condition"* on the part of some of the drug companies and others out to make a buck. Look at the average persons spam emails. A large bulk of which would be lose weight fast quackery. There is huge money to be made. Look at viagra and it's associated drugs.

Some of the types pushing the food "addiction" route I observe with a sceptical eye as well. It smacks of the abdicating of personal responsibility all too common in many quarters nowadays. It's always someone's fault, rarely one's own. Genetics, your parents, the food companies etc etc. Too many "conditions" have that get out clause. But sure isn't there money to be made in that course too?

Eat less. move more. There's your cure for the vast majority of overweight people. If they need to feel they're addicted to doughnuts to achieve that then well and good, but it doesn't make it so.


* Some people of course have a medical problem in this area, but like infront I believe this to be squarely in the minority.

Sam Vimes

RainyDay wrote:

So just to be absolutely clear, you see nothing offensive about terms like 'tubbies' and 'lardass likes his cream pies' to describe a condition which in some cases is caused by medical or genetic conditions?

what causes obesity is ingesting more calories than are used by the body. no medical condition causes this. there are some conditions which make it more likely and more difficult to avoid but they don't cause it. someone could have every "obesity causing" condition known to man but if that person is locked in a room and not fed for a month he'll still die a very skinny man


if i had diabetes, i wouldn't eat sugar. if i had a genetic condition that predisposed me to obesity, i'd eat twice as healthily as normal people and exercise three times as much. these people have a medical condition and shouldn't be exacerbating it by eating any unhealthy food

RainyDay wrote:

I'm not an expert on obesity. You know much more about obesity than I do. Your claim of 'very very very very very few' is a matter of your opinion, no more, no less. I don't know enough to prove this wrong, but I think it is important that we all recognise that you have no sound basis for this claim in research. If indeed the prevelance of medical causes of obesity was so tiny, one would wonder why there isn't easily accessible research to confirm this.

i don't know of any studies done but if a significant portion of obesity is medical (however still avoidable), why is it that obesity has increased 97% in china in ten years? how many of these thousands of people are medically fat do you think? and of the ones that are, why do you think they weren't they fat before their lifestyles changed ten years ago?

Capt'n Midnight

perhaps the Federal Air Transportation Airport Security Service could have handled it better ?

InFront

RainyDay wrote:

So food is not an addiction? Interesting comment - to use your own phrase, you're not doing yourself any favours here. See

http://www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=10320

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm

and even a personal story from boards.ie. Why would reputable operations like the Rutland Centre be offering residential treatments for food addiction, if no such addictions exist. Your overly-simplistic solutions of diet/exercise are just that - overly simplistic.

Despite your links, which to be fair were published in New Scientist, I still believe that most of the scientific evidence, and that the credible scientific evidence, points that food, as we know it, bread, pasta, meat, carbohydrates and fats, are not actually "addictive" substances to the population.

There is a broad base of scientific and psychiatric (not utterly different things:) ) opinion seems to suggest that food should not be seen as a source of addiciton. Rather they form the basis of a psychological "craving". Craving is very different ot addiction, overcoming a craving is a matter of willpower: conscious choice, a "want". An addiction, on the other hand, is a phsyiological and or a biochemical requirement, which the body perceives as a "need".

Journal of Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behaviour

In fairness to your points, there is not enough neurofunctional evidence to prove that obesity is never characterised by compulsion to eat, particularly given the role of dopamine in modulating eating behaviour.
Anyway, lets ignore the fact that food addiction is not proven, and lets pretend that there's scientific concensus on the issue: carbohydrates are addictive.
That still does not make obesity excusable... just the same as alcoholism and heroin addictions are wrong and inexcusable, and indeed, can certainly be overcome, and they do not warrant an easy ticket to blamelessness, innocence for the individual, nor can responsibility ever be shifted away from the individual.
You mention the Rutland centre (by the way, i don't think they refer to food addiction in the same context as we are talking about it, I think they are actually referring to a bad psychological attitude to food somewhat similar to an obsessive-compulsive behaviour, as opposed to clinical biochemical addiction). Just look at how they tackle obesity, they identify:

Routine regular eating of large amounts of food
Obsession with food to the exclusion of other dimensions of life
Overeats and comfort eats to the point of obesity

Those three points do not refer to a physical addiction, more a psychological dependence or transferance of emotions. There is a very discreet yet a very important difference between the two. Addiction, unlike obesity, cannot be overcome simply by counselling, dieting and exercising. If hormones and drug interactions are to blame, these can be (quite easily) overcome.
I still think there is absolutely no excuse for the case of obesity.

ressem

According to
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Obesity+In+Children+And+Teens&section=Facts+for+Families

Although certain medical disorders can cause obesity, less than 1 percent of all obesity is caused by physical problems.

Sam Vimes

well that's pretty definitive

Froot

I would have thought the winner for this guy is that he was treated differently on separate occasions and the guy at the desk probably did say he was too fat as opposed to saying it in as politically correct (and non libelous) a way as he could have.

Of course this 300 pound man should have to pay for two seats. Im 215lb's and 6'2" and I find it hard enough to sit in the seats, granted this is 100% the legroom as opposed to the actual seat size but imagine applying that level of discomfort in all directions including into other peoples space and you have a problem.

I would however have to say that paying for two seats while being made to sit in one seat does seem stupid. I'm not saying the airlines should just make biger seats ina section of the plane for fat people but I think the two seat payment rule is mainly to compensate the airline for dealing with unhappy customers as opposed to ensuring the comfort of the overweight individual.

Anyone who gets up on their high horse about being treated "unfairly" for being overweight regards air travel hasnt got a leg to stand on in my eyes. If I was 300 pounds (and I used to be) and I was told I was too big then grand but the guy behind the desk may have laughed in the guys face while he dangled a bunch of sausages at him while asking him to pay for a second ticket.

Both sides have grounds but I would have thought the displaced passenger will most likely be the winner simply because the airline should either enforce the rule or discard it as opposed to a case by case basis. Then there are no excuses and they avoid situations like this.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In relation to the discussion about obesity and the causes I found that the major problem I had when I was obese (23 stone) was that I was unable to separate necessary, bodily function eating from habitual eating. which is a longer way of saying I ate too much.

RainyDay

ressem wrote:

According to
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Obesity+In+Children+And+Teens&section=Facts+for+Families

Thanks Ressem - It's great to throw some light on this important issue. Given that 13% of the Irish population is obese (see http://www.healthpromotion.ie/topics/obesity/ ), I reckon that this would mean there is about 6,500 people out there with obesity caused by medical conditions. I would be very uncomfortable with any airline policy that would penalise these 6,500 people anytime they travel by air, and I'd also reckon that any such rule would breach current equality legislation.

Given that it seems that airlines like Aer Lingus operate with a load factor up to 85% (see http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p133.htm today only), I can't see any good reason why the airline can't be expected to manage this issue.

Lafortezza

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

perhaps the Federal Air Transportation Airport Security Service could have handled it better ?

rep++

InFront

RainyDay wrote:

It's great to throw some light on this important issue. Given that 13% of the Irish population is obese (see http://www.healthpromotion.ie/topics/obesity/ ), I reckon that this would mean there is about 6,500 people out there with obesity caused by medical conditions. I would be very uncomfortable with any airline policy that would penalise these 6,500 people anytime they travel by air, and I'd also reckon that any such rule would breach current equality legislation.

No...

Although certain medical disorders can cause obesity, less than 1 percent of all obesity is caused by physical problems. Obesity in childhood and adolescence can be related to:

"Less than 1%" is quite a non-specific number when you're dealing with a population of about 4.2 million people, though, isn't it.

0.9% = 5, 405 cases of obesity
0.09% = 541 cases of obesity
0.009% = 54 cases, etc.

Anyway, what does it mean to say "physical cause of obesity", we can only presume they mean obesity that can be associated with an illness the patient simultaneously is suffering from that will aggravate the condition. Still, none of us on this forum can think of one single illness that, while the individual may always be somewhat overweight, prevents him or her from escaping actual obesity, which is much more serious.

Stroke victims with PWS would perhaps be clinically obese beyond their control, I agree. But anyone who can walk onto an airplane, presumable also has the ability to walk the dog around the block a few times.

cast_iron

InFront wrote:

"Less than 1%" is quite a non-specific number when you're dealing with a population of about 4.2 million people, though, isn't it.

0.9% = 5, 405 cases of obesity

Correct, and that also equates to <0.117% of the entire population.

RainyDayt wrote:

...I would be very uncomfortable with any airline policy that would penalise these 6,500 people anytime they travel by air, and I'd also reckon that any such rule would breach current equality legislation.

That is assuming that all those who have a genuine condition are too big for the seat. Most "obese" people aren't that fat, so that figure is misrepresentative.

Sam Vimes

RainyDay wrote:

Thanks Ressem - It's great to throw some light on this important issue. Given that 13% of the Irish population is obese (see http://www.healthpromotion.ie/topics/obesity/ ), I reckon that this would mean there is about 6,500 people out there with obesity caused by medical conditions. I would be very uncomfortable with any airline policy that would penalise these 6,500 people anytime they travel by air, and I'd also reckon that any such rule would breach current equality legislation.

what about if a diabetic was going to the amazon jungle for six months and needed to bring an extra case of insulin which put him over the weight limit. should be be allowed bring that for free?

ruprect

Gummy Panda wrote:

I agree that person in the article should have to pay for the two seats. I just believe its the airlines responsibility to accommodate disabled people.

I don't think they should, thats why I think this medical point is a misnomer. As I mentioned if I had 2 broken legs I would not expect to fit in the usual seat, and be charged more.

They are a company trying to make a profit, I am not sure if there are any laws in place saying must make their planes "disability friendly", like how some buildings must be. Should a blind man who happens to have 6 guide-ponies be allowed to take them all on board for free? (i.e. split the cost with the other passengers)

Sangre

This whole arguement is a straw man anyway, as I have asked him already, would he have a problem with the other 99% of the obese population paying for 2 seats if they needed it?

Anyway, who is to the say the airline won't allow certs for the medically caused obese, it would probably affect only a few hunderd people (less than 1% and actually big enough to need two seats). Sure, they probably won't fly anyway.

cast_iron

ruprect wrote:

They are a company trying to make a profit, I am not sure if there are any laws in place saying must make their planes "disability friendly", like how some buildings must be.

I think EU law does have something about equality in there.....
Though, in fairness, not to extent of modern building regulations.

ruprect wrote:

Should a blind man who happens to have 6 guide-ponies be allowed to take them all on board for free? (i.e. split the cost with the other passengers)

Find me a blind man that has 6 guided ponies.
If you have to resort to such farcical analogies to make your point, then it's not much of an argument.

Sam Vimes

cast_iron wrote:

Find me a blind man that has 6 guided ponies.
If you have to resort to such farcical analogies to make your point, then it's not much of an argument.

its difficult to find a similar situation although i think my analogy of the diabetic who has to bring a case of insulin because he's going somewhere he can't get it for a while is close enough. do you think his extra bag should be free?

cast_iron

Commander Vimes wrote:

the diabetic who has to bring a case of insulin because he's going somewhere he can't get it for a while is close enough. do you think his extra bag should be free?

You're blurring the line between disabilities and medical conditions. I don't think disabilities should be penalised. If they start making exceptions for every single medical condition, then I would disagree with that.

InFront

cast_iron wrote:

You're blurring the line between disabilities and medical conditions. I don't think disabilities should be penalised. If they start making exceptions for every single medical condition, then I would disagree with that.

And you're blurring what it means to suffer froma disability.

Getting run over by a bus and losing the control of your legs, that's a disability.

Consuming more energy than you oxidise, leading to your obesity, is not somebody else's, or nature's, fault.

mloc

I don't know where equality comes into this. Obesity is not itself a disease but simply a sign of bad eating habits. Everyones metabolism is different and therefore everybody needs different calorific and nutritional needs to sustain a healthy weight. Disease states can affect metabolism in such a way that obesity occurs through consumption of less food than normal.

However, despite all this, obesity is not in itself a medical condition. Obesity caused by all but the most extreme medical conditions is plainly a manifestation of an individuals lack of handling a disease state effectively.

Weight gain and bloating can occur in people who would have otherwise normal weight, but not to the extent that they would become hugely obese. Mostly this is caused by water retention.

In plain english, whilst 1% of obesity may be exacerbated by medical conditions, very few of these people are unavoidably obese. If people can not adhere to medical treatment regimens and simply use their disease as an excuse to become obese, that is indeed their problem.

If your talking about equality, if an obese person gets an extra seat for free, why can't I get one too?