Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

Forest Master

techdiver wrote: »

Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

Maybe because people have the right to do as they please as long as they're not harming other people?

And you obviously believe smugness & conceitedness to be superior traits than obesity... Some people would probably disagree with that pecking order.

And I'm not even fat, BTW. I just find smug people with superiority complexes to be less socially acceptable than someone overweight.

PeakOutput

Forest Master wrote: »

Maybe because people have the right to do as they please as long as they're not harming other people?

And you obviously believe smugness & conceitedness to be superior traits than obesity... Some people would probably disagree with that pecking order.

And I'm not even fat, BTW. I just find smug people with superiority complexes to be less socially acceptable than someone overweight.

do you see yourself as superior / better however you want to put it then a drug addict? do you look down on junkies or drunks or gambling addicts?

even if you dont i imagine there are quite a few people here who are defending fat lazy food addicted people who would look down their noses at a junky begging on the street or at a gambler betting away the last of his money or even look down on an adult having a joint. these people are not harming anyone else but yet it is illegal for them to do as they please(not gambling obviously)?

so which is it we either have personal freedom or we control it for the 'greater good' you dont get to have it both ways and be all pious and high and mighty

my arguments are consistent anyone who partakes in dangerous / unhealthy / risky activities should be allowed to but they must face the consequences if they do

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Why does society suddenly need to educate people about food and put resources into this area? We all go to school and learn about the cause and effect of diseases there, at least I did. Its too too easy to blame the government or State for all the ills of the world. Each person has a responsibility to themselves to care for the body they were given. We all know stories of some 90 year old man who smoked 80 a day and drank for years who was as fit as fiddle and a super healthy lean 40 year old man who jogged every day who dropped dead of a heart attck. There are exceptions to every rule but such exceptions are few and far between.

What about kids who are being raised by totally clueless parents? Don't they deserve to be taught through the education system using state resources? I don't know where you went to school but I wasn't taught a thing about healthy living or drug awareness. We had one class of sex ed in first year. Your attitude seems to be well I know better and I'm not fat so screw the rest it's they're own fault for not being as wise as I am.

Hugo Drax

PeakOutput wrote: »

do you see yourself as superior / better however you want to put it then a drug addict? do you look down on junkies or drunks or gambling addicts?

even if you dont i imagine there are quite a few people here who are defending fat lazy food addicted people who would look down their noses at a junky begging on the street or at a gambler betting away the last of his money or even look down on an adult having a joint. these people are not harming anyone else but yet it is illegal for them to do as they please(not gambling obviously)?

so which is it we either have personal freedom or we control it for the 'greater good' you dont get to have it both ways and be all pious and high and mighty

my arguments are consistent anyone who partakes in dangerous / unhealthy / risky activities should be allowed to but they must face the consequences if they do

True, as someone who is overweight, I know it's all my own fault and is purely attributable to laziness.

However I would never look down my nose at junkys or beggars, if I think they're not really on hard times and are just begging for the sake of it, it pisses me off but real down and outs just make me thank God that I've had the opportunities I've had....

Hugo Drax

khrystyna100 wrote: »

What about kids who are being raised by totally clueless parents? Don't they deserve to be taught through the education system using state resources? I don't know where you went to school but I wasn't taught a thing about healthy living or drug awareness. We had one class of sex ed in first year. Your attitude seems to be well I know better and I'm not fat so screw the rest it's they're own fault for not being as wise as I am.

You have to get a licene to have a dog but anyone can have a child!

Doesn't make sense.

There should be a childrens inspectorate that goes out and checks on the living conditions of all children throughout their childhood periodically and if they're being kept in inhuman conditions they should be put into care.

Forest Master

PeakOutput wrote: »

do you see yourself as superior / better however you want to put it then a drug addict? do you look down on junkies or drunks or gambling addicts?

No - I don't consider myself "better" than anyone, as long as said person isn't someone who harms other people (e.g. junkies may mug people for cash, gambling addicts & drunks may lose their family home, destroy their family, etc).
But to humour your flawed analogy anyway, I believe I have certain traits & qualities that may be better than other people, and vice versa. I may have better will-power than a fat person - but they may be better than me at playing World of Warcraft - it's all subjective.
But I wouldn't look down on someone just because they like to sit on their arse & eat all day - it's their life & their body - it doesn't affect me, and it's none of my business as long as they don't harm anyone in the process. If a junkie wants to claim the welfare & do heroin, as long as they don't mug or hurt people in the process, I don't care: it's their life to live. I don't consider myself "better" than them - it's far to subjective & small-minded to say you're "better" than someone just because they make different life-choices than you. Why should you have a say in how they "should" live?

My original point to the OP though, was that I consider smug & conceited people to be less "socially acceptable" than obese people. Sure, some fat people are a bit gross, but talking to some smug douche who can't stop talking about themselves & can't stop looking down on other people is far worse, IMO.

PeakOutput wrote: »

so which is it we either have personal freedom or we control it for the 'greater good' you dont get to have it both ways

What do you mean "which is it"? I never contradicted myself or even implied it should be both ways. I believe people should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't harm other people, but should suffer the consequences of their own actions. Nothing in either of my posts even hints otherwise.

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I was referring to chronic illnesses, those affected by lifestyle, environmental and dietary factors, as far as I know leukemia is primarily genetically determined but I'm open to being proven wrong on that one it may only be the case in childhood leukemia. My point was that cancer or osteoperosis by the same logic should also be viewed as self imposed conditions due to the large role dietary and lifestyle factors play in their etiology, an idea which I personally find abhorrent and cold beyond belief.

In females osteoporosis is linked with ageing (which despite the best efforts of some is unavoidable) and childbirth. You may follow the best diet ever to avoid osteoporosis but still develop the disease at a later stage in life regardless.
Many cancers have been proven to be genetically linked and there are some people who despite going to extraordinary lengths (e.g. women who carry the Braca 1 or 2 gene having a prophylactic double mastectomy and ovairy removal) to prevent said cancer occuring still develop cancer.

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

What about kids who are being raised by totally clueless parents? Don't they deserve to be taught through the education system using state resources? I don't know where you went to school but I wasn't taught a thing about healthy living or drug awareness. We had one class of sex ed in first year. Your attitude seems to be well I know better and I'm not fat so screw the rest it's they're own fault for not being as wise as I am.

I have no attitude like that at all. I do however believe that many people have absolved themselves of any responsiblity for health, education and awareness and take the easy option of blaming the government/ State for anything bad that happens to them.
It appears that I was very lucky with the school I went to and the fact that my parents took the time to teach us about food, what was good for us and what was bad for us. I am very aware that many people have parents that don't have such an interest in their children and in some cases parents are so bad that the State has a moral obligation to step in and take over. However, that said, the vast majority of people grew up just as I did and so only a small minority of people need State provided food education but yet a large percentage of people claim ingorance of what is good to eat, how to cook their food, how to exercise etc and I find that strange.

quad_red

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Why does society suddenly need to educate people about food and put resources into this area? We all go to school and learn about the cause and effect of diseases there, at least I did. Its too too easy to blame the government or State for all the ills of the world. Each person has a responsibility to themselves to care for the body they were given.

I'm not blaming the state.

But it is self evident that education and social circumstances have a large bearing on ones approach to things.

ie. Theoretically an average male from the middle class background in leafy foxrock has the same chance of going to University as an equivalent male from Donaghmede. They both *can* go to University.

But the reality is different.

So to, if one comes from a family where healthy eating was common, where children were taught the know-how and value of eating healthily, they are at an incalculable advantage to someone who was brought up on waffles and canned beans.

I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent and well educated male.

I could barely boil a bloody egg when I got to college! I shudder when I think about my diet.

But I have the ladies in my life to thank for opening up a whole world of healthy good foods. It was a long and gradual process to turn healthy eating into my default.

On one hand you're spitting bile at the fatties and on the other hand you're refusing to countenance any state intervention that might improve the situation.

The state isn't to blame for the situation. But it could and should do more to education people, particularly young people.

PeakOutput

Forest Master wrote: »

I believe people should be allowed to do as they wish as long as they don't harm other people, but should suffer the consequences of their own actions. Nothing in either of my posts even hints otherwise.

thats fine we agree so

quad_red

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

However, that said, the vast majority of people grew up just as I did and so only a small minority of people need State provided food education but yet a large percentage of people claim ingorance of what is good to eat, how to cook their food, how to exercise etc and I find that strange.

I think the problem is now that quite allot of people aren't growing up in an atmosphere where a healthy balanced approach to food and nutrition prevails.

I would imagine that a child who grows up with two heavily overweight parents inherits bad habits and attitudes. Ones that may not fully express themselves til their thirties.

Hence, the more overweight people, the greater the indication that something is seriously wrong and dysfunctional. The more chance the next generation will have a worse problem etc.

Something has to change. We are surrounded by a cacophony of ****ty messages enticing us to eat crap that will make us fat. There is probably traction in the argument that people have become soft (no pun intended) but to just point at them and label them fat lazy heaps without offering any realistic suggestions how this epidemic might be addressed is neither constructive nor worthy of praise.

It's just bullying.

tigs2010

Tricky subject. Honestly, I used to be a bit on the heavy side and used to blame it on my genes. In reality, I ate a lot of chocolate and rubbish and take aways. Eventually I just copped on one day and realised - no one can make this better but you. So I did I stuck rigidly to a diet for six months and then relaxed my eating a little - most healthy but treats too. Besides, healthy food is nice too!! So now when I see an overweight person i think, I know how you feel but I also know how little effort you really make. Its all about will power, I believe.

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

In females osteoporosis is linked with ageing (which despite the best efforts of some is unavoidable) and childbirth. You may follow the best diet ever to avoid osteoporosis but still develop the disease at a later stage in life regardless.
Many cancers have been proven to be genetically linked and there are some people who despite going to extraordinary lengths (e.g. women who carry the Braca 1 or 2 gene having a prophylactic double mastectomy and ovairy removal) to prevent said cancer occuring still develop cancer.

I wasn't referring to osteoperosis as a result of the menopuase plenty of young and middle aged men get it too. Also the lack of estrogen results in an increase in bone resorption but if peak bone mass was attained in childhood and adolescence and then preserved in adulthood with a healthy diet and lifestyle the bone mass and density would be well enough preserved to largely withstand the effects of estrogen deficiency for the last 20 odd years of life.

You're getting into this very deep, they're aren't 'proven' without a doubt to be caused by certain genotypes but there are undeniable strong associations between different polymorphisms and rates of various cancers. There isn't a strong enough understanding of the genetic components of cancer and chronic disease yet to say that genetics is the only (or most important) causative factor in their development.

But anyway just because someone has a certain polymorphism doesn't mean it is expressed often exposure to external modifiers is required for the genotype to be expressed phenotypically. Furthermore with regards to genetically linked cancers a massive area of research in nutritional science at the moment is nutrigenomics, which refers to the ability of dietary components to actually modify the expression of certain genes turning them on and off and so modifying disease risk. And depending on your genotype you may respond to certain dietary modifications more favourably or less compared to people with a different one. So even for genetic cancers and osteoperosis the diet is still intrinsically linked as to whether any physiological outcome presents itself on a person with a certain polymorphism.

Penny Dreadful

quad_red wrote: »

I'm not blaming the state.

But it is self evident that education and social circumstances have a large bearing on ones approach to things.

ie. Theoretically an average male from the middle class background in leafy foxrock has the same chance of going to University as an equivalent male from Donaghmede. They both *can* go to University.

But the reality is different.

So to, if one comes from a family where healthy eating was common, where children were taught the know-how and value of eating healthily, they are at an incalculable advantage to someone who was brought up on waffles and canned beans.

I would consider myself a reasonably intelligent and well educated male.

I could barely boil a bloody egg when I got to college! I shudder when I think about my diet.

But I have the ladies in my life to thank for opening up a whole world of healthy good foods. It was a long and gradual process to turn healthy eating into my default.

On one hand you're spitting bile at the fatties and on the other hand you're refusing to countenance any state intervention that might improve the situation.

The state isn't to blame for the situation. But it could and should do more to education people, particularly young people.

Be fair, I have never once derided anyone for being obese. I have been scathing of many of the excuses that have been put forth but I have not insulted a single person for their weight.
Of course the lifestyle you are born into has a huge impact on your life and its outcome I'm not so naieve as to think otherwise. I learned about food, cooking, etc from my parents, mostly my mother. Almost all of my friends had a simliar upbringing to me and it is well known that we tend to replicate our upbringing (for the most part) with our children. So if we were brought up with a proper breakfast, proper lunch for school and a homecooked dinner how and where did this message get so lost to have given us a generation that is overflowing with obesity related health concerns?
I think State intervention in the form of education around this can be a good thing however it irks me no end when people see it as their due when they have chosen to ignore basic common sense.

quad_red wrote: »

I think the problem is now that quite allot of people aren't growing up in an atmosphere where a healthy balanced approach to food and nutrition prevails.

I would imagine that a child who grows up with two heavily overweight parents inherits bad habits and attitudes. Ones that may not fully express themselves til their thirties.

Hence, the more overweight people, the greater the indication that something is seriously wrong and dysfunctional. The more chance the next generation will have a worse problem etc.

Something has to change. We are surrounded by a cacophony of ****ty messages enticing us to eat crap that will make us fat. There is probably traction in the argument that people have become soft (no pun intended) but to just point at them and label them fat lazy heaps without offering any realistic suggestions how this epidemic might be addressed is neither constructive nor worthy of praise.

It's just bullying.[/QUOTE]

I haven't done that. Laziness comes in many forms. There is a guy here where I work who is the fattest man I have ever met in real life, he is however an amazingly hard worker. Balance that against another guy who runs to work, goes to the gym nightly, runs road races, etc, but is a lazy fecker and gets others to carry his share of the workload. Laziness in any guise is bad IMO but mostly when it affects other people as the second situation I mentioned there does.

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I wasn't referring to osteoperosis as a result of the menopuase plenty of young and middle aged men get it too. Also the lack of estrogen results in an increase in bone resorption but if peak bone mass was attained in childhood and adolescence and then preserved in adulthood with a healthy diet and lifestyle the bone mass and density would be well enough preserved to largely withstand the effects of estrogen deficiency for the last 20 odd years of life.

You're getting into this very deep, they're aren't 'proven' without a doubt to be caused by certain genotypes but there are undeniable strong associations between different polymorphisms and rates of various cancers. There isn't a strong enough understanding of the genetic components of cancer and chronic disease yet to say that genetics is the only (or most important) causative factor in their development.

But anyway just because someone has a certain polymorphism doesn't mean it is expressed often exposure to external modifiers is required for the genotype to be expressed phenotypically. Furthermore with regards to genetically linked cancers a massive area of research in nutritional science at the moment is nutrigenomics, which refers to the ability of dietary components to actually modify the expression of certain genes turning them on and off and so modifying disease risk. And depending on your genotype you may respond to certain dietary modifications more favourably or less compared to people with a different one. So even for genetic cancers and osteoperosis the diet is still intrinsically linked as to whether any physiological outcome presents itself on a person with a certain polymorphism.

Of course it is, to quote that horrible hateful woman Gillian McKeith, you are what you eat.
Its also interesting that there are many studies that have proven that obesity gives both women and men a marked increase in the chance that they will develop breast cancer.

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Its also interesting that there are many studies that have proven that obesity gives both women and men a marked increase in the chance that they will develop breast cancer.

Nope not proven, theres a strong association thats different, those types of studies aren't capable of proving cause and effects (only intervention trials can do that)they can only be used for forming hypothesis based on associations observed. Obesity may be linked in a small few types of cancers namely breast cancer (very very likely) but also maybe prostate but the relationship isn't well understood. Personally I feel its likely related to endocrine changes associated with an increase in adipose tissue which is now recognised as a key organ in endocrine function. Excess fat also seems to be protective for other diseases when you look at mortality and morbidity data from cross sectional studies and other observational studies and graph it against BMI, it's a complicated situation.

EDIT: sorry misread your post, yes there is an increased risk thats been proven like you said but like I said its still only an association and isn't absolute or necessarily consistent across population groups.

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Nope not proven, theres a strong association thats different, those types of studies aren't capable of proving cause and effects (only intervention trials can do that)they can only be used for forming hypothesis based on associations observed. Obesity may be linked in a small few types of cancers namely breast cancer (very very likely) but also maybe prostate but the relationship isn't well understood. Personally I feel its likely related to endocrine changes associated with an increase in adipose tissue which is now recognised as a key organ in endocrine function. Excess fat also seems to be protective for other diseases when you look at mortality and morbidity data from cross sectional studies and other observational studies and graph it against BMI, it's a complicated situation.

Some cancers have been proven. How on earth can be an identifable Braca 1 and Braca 2 gene exist and be tested for if its only an association rather than an absolute certainty? Its there, just as the gene that can cause colon cancer is there just as the gene that causes Huntingtons is there.
Granted serious work is underway and in many cases close to conclusion, that link certain cancers (especially breast cancer) to obesity and so has not yet been 100% beyond any doubt proven but its certainly close enough for people to take note.
Of course obesity is a complicated situation. I accept that there are many many factors that link into it but for someone to become obese they have to have been fat in the first place and before than they were carrying just a few pounds extra. You don't just become obese over night, its a long process and there are many stages along they way when something can be done about it no matter what the root cause is. Anti depression meds don't make you obese, arthritis does not make your obese, the Pill does not make you obese, giving up smoking (again a killer) does not make you obese. These things may cause you to put on weight but before it gets to a chronic stage the individual should take steps to correct this in so far as this is possible.

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Some cancers have been proven. How on earth can be an identifable Braca 1 and Braca 2 gene exist and be tested for if its only an association rather than an absolute certainty? Its there, just as the gene that can cause colon cancer is there just as the gene that causes Huntingtons is there.
Granted serious work is underway and in many cases close to conclusion, that link certain cancers (especially breast cancer) to obesity and so has not yet been 100% beyond any doubt proven but its certainly close enough for people to take note.
Of course obesity is a complicated situation. I accept that there are many many factors that link into it but for someone to become obese they have to have been fat in the first place and before than they were carrying just a few pounds extra. You don't just become obese over night, its a long process and there are many stages along they way when something can be done about it no matter what the root cause is. Anti depression meds don't make you obese, arthritis does not make your obese, the Pill does not make you obese, giving up smoking (again a killer) does not make you obese. These things may cause you to put on weight but before it gets to a chronic stage the individual should take steps to correct this in so far as this is possible.

Sorry I had actually misread you previous post when I replied, I edited my response. I agree but just because a variant of a gene exists and is associated statistically with a specific outcome doesn't prove a causative relationship and intervention trials relating to obesity aren't really possible because how do you intervene to make one group fat while another stay lean and at the same time control for all variables? Also like I said not all people with a variation will develop the cancer and not all people with the cancer will have the same variation and this fact undermines the strength of the association. Thats not to say the gene variant doens't matter but the relationship just isn't absolute. It's going to be a long time before the relationships can be elucidated for this very reason. Cohort studies and observational studies backed up with animal and in vitro studies is all we've got to work with and all of those designs are flawed and hard to extrapolate to the population. Sorry I'm probably not expressing my thoughts very clearly, I'm a bit wired from caffeine and studying! :rolleyes:

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Sorry I had actually misread you previous post when I replied, I edited my response. I agree but just because a variant of a gene exists and is associated statistically with a specific outcome doesn't prove a causative relationship and intervention trials relating to obesity aren't really possible because how do you intervene to make one group fat while another stay lean and at the same time control for all variables? Also like I said not all people with a variation will develop the cancer and not all people with the cancer will have the same variation and this fact undermines the strength of the association. Thats not to say the gene variant doens't matter but the relationship just isn't absolute. It's going to be a long time before the relationships can be elucidated for this very reason. Cohort studies and observational studies backed up with animal and in vitro studies is all we've got to work with and all of those designs are flawed and hard to extrapolate to the population. Sorry I'm probably not expressing my thoughts very clearly, I'm a bit wired from caffeine and studying! :rolleyes:

Studying sucks, you have my sympathies especially when the weather is so nice.
Genes mutate, develop, may forever lie dormant.......the human body never fails to surprise and adapt. It really is an amazing thing........thats partly why I find it so perplexing that people (again not all, I realise it is a broad statement) will all too often not take the best possible care they can of what they have.

Sapsorrow

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Studying sucks, you have my sympathies especially when the weather is so nice.
Genes mutate, develop, may forever lie dormant.......the human body never fails to surprise and adapt. It really is an amazing thing........thats partly why I find it so perplexing that people (again not all, I realise it is a broad statement) will all too often not take the best possible care they can of what they have.

Thanks! Yes I agree completely when I see my friends smoke I always feel saddened by it knowing what damage they're doing, its especially hard to see people you care about take their good health for granted. I have a very very good friend who got cancer in their mid 20s (now in their mid 30s), luckily they were saved by surgery but that person drinks like a fish (like way way more than the average irish person), smokes like a chimney and barely eats at all and when they do they eat white bread with jam etc it breaks my heart and I can't understand how after having a close death experience they haven't been inspired to change. Thats one thing about studying a health science it's in your face 24/7 just how volatile ones state of health is and how easy it is to lose it.

I don't know if it interested you particularly but this is a good review I read lately that goes into the genetics and diet link:

http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/16/2/166

Its a very exciting area if your interested in genetcis in general. There are several american companies offering personalised nutrition plans now tailor made to suit your genome!! Bizarre!

Penny Dreadful

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Thanks! Yes I agree completely when I see my friends smoke I always feel saddened by it knowing what damage they're doing, its especially hard to see people you care about take their good health for granted. I have a very very good friend who got cancer in their mid 20s (now in their mid 30s), luckily they were saved by surgery but that person drinks like a fish (like way way more than the average irish person), smokes like a chimney and barely eats at all and when they do they eat white bread with jam etc it breaks my heart and I can't understand how after having a close death experience they haven't been inspired to change. Thats one thing about studying a health science it's in your face 24/7 just how volatile ones state of health is and how easy it is to lose it.

I don't know if it interested you particularly but this is a good review I read lately that goes into the genetics and diet link:

http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/16/2/166

Its a very exciting area if your interested in genetcis in general. There are several american companies offering personalised nutrition plans now tailor made to suit your genome!! Bizarre!

It is infuriating in the extreme when people are reckless with their health.
I work in medical research in a major hospital in Dublin and on Tuesday a 3 year old girl who was in visiting her sick dad had a heart attack and died, just like that. She was a normal healthy 3 year old with no (apparent) at the time underlying condition or defect and she just died, gone in the blink of an eye. Then when you are walking around the corridors and the grounds of the hospital and see so many people who have a cavalier (at best) attitude to their health it makes me want to shake sense into them. I also hate the attitude of "ah sure the doctors will fix it", there is only so much they can do it you won't help yourself.
Thanks for the link, it seems interesting, I'll have a good read of it later.
Best of luck with studying, hope you get to enjoy the weather at some stage.

veryangryman

HA! Fat!

Wibbs

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I don't know if it interested you particularly but this is a good review I read lately that goes into the genetics and diet link:

http://physiolgenomics.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/16/2/166

Chhers for that. Will have a read of that.:)

Its a very exciting area if your interested in genetcis in general. There are several american companies offering personalised nutrition plans now tailor made to suit your genome!! Bizarre!

Stands to reason in a lot of ways though. A lot of genetic change in modern humans happened in the last 10,000 years and the majority were connected with adaptations to novel foods(with some interesting changes in gamete production in men for some reason, possibly down to larger groups require different reproductive strategies).

If your genetic legacy was native australian, avoiding gluten, lactose and alcohol would be indicated as you've only been exposed to those foods for less than 200 years. Like I said before IMHO europeans might do well to avoid soya like the plague. There's likely to be some low level protien intolerance (if I even sniff soya products I'm doing the liquid sit down in pretty short order). Never mind the oestrogen mimicking effect. I'd love to see a study looking at women with PCOS which seems massively more common today than 30 years ago. A study that charts the amount of carbs in the diet of sufferers and if they include soya in that diet. Fats have been villified for so long in favour of carbs. Its only recently it was all "Lo fat" usually with loads of sugar to make up the diff and added soya/MSG to bring back flavour. I know a woman who suffers from it. Terrible bloody thing, yet she has replaced milk with soya milk and eats tufu as they're "healthier" and eats a lot of carbs too. Yet the same woman is on insulin regulation type meds and bigger and bigger she gets. Irish people may be better easing off the gluten too. Newly introduced processed veggie oils would be a pretty much universally avoided thing. 20 years ago it was "veggie oils are the best" , now we see trans fats present in many of these oils are a bloody disaster and its a hung jury with regard to animal fats anyway.

I'd also be looking at individuals bacterial colonies in their gut. This varies a lot across cultures. Helicobacter pylori the bug that was found to cause many stomach ulcers a good example. A great discovery and now a course of meds and bye bye ulcers that plagued a lot of people in the past. remove the bug, ulcer goes away. Thing is though, Helicobacter pylori is endemic in Africans(and many Indians), yet doesnt cause problems like it does in Europeans and even people of african descent in the west. Its very complex stuff, but I can see how profiling an individuals genetic heritage may prove to be a good plan.

Sapsorrow

Thats so sad about the little girl it's hard to get your head around the gross injustice that gets dished out in life.

Your line of work sounds very interesting Wibbs, what area of micro are you working in? I'm very interested in the prebiotic-probiotic relationship. Yes I agre nutrigenomics is going to be huge, its going to be a serious new cash cow in the nutrition world too. I think the VDR receptor and associated genes is the one to keep and eye on, it's incredible how many functions its involved with.

Here are 2 more good articles one on the vitamin D receptor and another on gene interactions in osteoperosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16563362

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15811432

Sorry I couldn't get free copies but ye should be able to access them free in work.

Ok I gonna stop now before I get into trouble for going off topic

Wibbs

Naw Im just an amateur that reads Actually Vit D is an interesting one. The usual healthy nut hippies are all about Vit C and anti oxidants yet rarely mention D and it's well known to have huge effects in the body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Health_effects the % reduction in some cancers is remarkably high, yet Ive never know anyone to have their vit D levels measured. One of the earliest adaptations human's made when we left africa and went north was to ease off on melanin production in the skin as D was so important. Now Id say few of us are very low in the vitamin, but with more indoor living and avoidance of sun being preached to prevent skin cancer I reckon a load of us are probably deficient enough to have long term effects. The Mediterranean diet is healthy, but that health benefit is increased by the amount of UV going on? Scandanavians etc eat way more fish than Irish people so maybe make up the shortfall that way?

PS I knew I had heard of a "fat gene" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTO_gene

dark crystal

Elessar wrote: »

Oh here we go.


But yes, I do think I am better than obese people. Do you know why? Because I eat healthily and exercise regularly at the gym. I respect myself enough to look good, and not put my body under the multitude of stresses and problems that come with being inactive and overweight. It's not the extra flab that make obese people unappealing, it's their carelessness and lack of decency and respect to themselves.

Hang on....you think you're better simply because you're thinner???

The true measure of a person is how they treat others, not how they look on the outside.

You may feel you're better than someone because of how you look, but I can guarantee you're no better than them on the inside. You mention a lack of decency and respect and yet you display none of those attributes in your views towards others.

A certain Fascist leader had the same views about those he considered physically unappealling in Germany during the 1930's. It wasn't acceptable then and it's not acceptable now.

Being thinner does not make you better than anyone else. Shallowness and vanity should never be considered as a substitute for compassion and acceptance. Arrogance is a far uglier trait than obesity, in my opinion.

PeakOutput

dark crystal wrote: »

Hang on....you think you're better simply because you're thinner???

thats actually not what he said at all

and as for bringing hitler into the argument :rolleyes:

dark crystal

PeakOutput wrote: »

thats actually not what he said at all

and as for bringing hitler into the argument :rolleyes:

That's exactly what he said. I quoted his statement.

My second point stands, too. You may not agree with me, which is fine, however someone claiming superiority over another simply because of an outward appearance is on a very slippery slope morally.

drkpower

dark crystal wrote: »

That's exactly what he said. I quoted his statement.

My second point stands, too. You may not agree with me, which is fine, however someone claiming superiority over another simply because of an outward appearance is on a very slippery slope morally.

While I dont agree with him, you have either not read or you have read, but misunderstood his post. The core of his point is that obesity is the outward manifestation of inner failings, so he was not claiming superiority over another simply because of an outward appearance. Read his post again, especially the bit in bold.

elessar wrote:

But yes, I do think I am better than obese people. Do you know why? Because I eat healthily and exercise regularly at the gym. I respect myself enough to look good, and not put my body under the multitude of stresses and problems that come with being inactive and overweight. It's not the extra flab that make obese people unappealing, it's their carelessness and lack of decency and respect to themselves..

quad_red

I don't think anyone on here would defend obesity for a second. It's not a 'lifestyle' choice. It's a deviation from the healthy optimal.

*But*, speaking of overweight people as lacking 'decency', judging their personalities or their worth is crass, shallow and says allot about the person doing the judging.

Many of the most generous, decent people I know are overweight. Who give enormously to their families and society. And I would wager they give far more to society than the spiteful, smug, self satisfied people who are throwing into this thread.

The pathetic attempt to deflect your spite and disgust as a reaction to their lack of concern for *themselves* is as unconvincing as it instructive as to where ye are coming from.

Anyway, I've had enough of this thread. It's going around in circles now. I just hope everyone on here receives a bit less spite and intolerance to their imperfections.