Health pt. 2

In the case of clinics, emergency rooms, etc, of course you take what you get--not only male, female, etc, but competent or incompetent.

That is my point. The piece I linked in above was about an intern at a clinic where everyone was treated by a pool of doctors, nurses, and students. The patient rejected a male student where she wouldn't have rejected a female student.

2510. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 6:43:39 AM

arky,
If your comfortableness with a doctor doesn't have its basis in your knowledge, not prejudices, of his or her competence, then your racism or sexism is almost certainly at play. This is not, as far as I know, some legally priviledged area where personal bigotry is allowed to trump fairness to the provider. Do you get to demand a white postal worker at the counter when you buy stamps?

2511. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 6:47:43 AM

Autodaffy - Arky is right. This isn't about stereotypes or judging people's competence. It is about having the right to decide who will have intimate contact with one's body. I have had both male and female doctors and it isn't an issue for me. I respect the fact that it is an issue for others.

2512. arkymalarky - 3/16/2001 6:51:16 AM

A postal worker is a government employee, and postal delivery a government service--you get what they offer. I have a right to choose from whatever doctors are available for my personal physician, as a private service. At a clinic I don't have that choice. If my prejudices or prudishness or whatever cause me to stupidly or emotionally choose gender or anything else over competence, then that's my choice and my cost.

2513. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 6:51:31 AM

Auto - If your comfortableness with a doctor doesn't have its basis in your knowledge, not prejudices, of his or her competence, then your racism or sexism is almost certainly at play.

This is nonsense. We are talking about intimate contact. There is most certainly something else at play beyond competence or sexism. Why can't you see that?

2514. CalGal - 3/16/2001 6:53:26 AM

I respect the fact that it is an issue for others.


Then they can go to their own private physician instead of a hospital or clinic.

2515. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 6:54:04 AM

I don't see why a woman suddenly gives up her right to control who has contact with her body just because she goes to a clinic or an emergency room. If there is no doctor of the desired gender, I agree she is out of luck. But if there is a doctor there of the desired gender, why would you deny her that choice?

2516. CalGal - 3/16/2001 6:54:54 AM

I don't see why a woman suddenly gives up her right to control who has contact with her body just because she goes to a clinic or an emergency room.

Because she has opted for an environment in which doctors aren't assigned by preference, but on an as available basis.

2517. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 6:55:02 AM

CalGal - Then they can go to their own private physician instead of a hospital or clinic.

Why should they have to? Why can't they be accomodated? What harm does it do?

2518. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 6:55:50 AM

Cal - Because she has opted for an environment in which doctors aren't assigned by preference, but on an as available basis.

If she is willing to wait, what difference does it make?

2519. Shannon - 3/16/2001 7:03:10 AM

Well, wasn't the whole point of the article linked above that it was harming the interns by denying them sufficient experience? In the case of full-fledged doctors, a large number of patients who refused to see the ones they were assigned could have the effect of over-burdening the ones who were chosen.

2520. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 7:04:17 AM

You know, Biener, that calling something nonsense is not a rational argument.

2521. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 7:11:10 AM

Autodaffy - That was an editorial comment. Read the rest of the post and the posts that follow it.

2522. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 7:15:27 AM

Shannon - Well, wasn't the whole point of the article linked above that it was harming the interns by denying them sufficient experience?

I have trouble swallowing this argument. Even if true I don't see that this trumps the rights of the patients.

In the case of full-fledged doctors, a large number of patients who refused to see the ones they were assigned could have the effect of over-burdening the ones who were chosen.

This may be true. No one should be able to force a doctor to see more patients than they are willing to handle. Until this becomes a problem, I don't see a reason to deny a patient's rights.

2523. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 7:22:26 AM

When a patient presents for treatment a business situation exists: payment for services. In the civil rights era I think this was called a public accommodation, and if it existed you could not express your private prejudices within it. Turn the tables. Would we tolerate a doctor turning down a black patient solely on the basis of her color? So, what priviledges what no one here has tried to present as other than personal prejudice in a patient's choice of physician?

2524. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 7:36:02 AM

Autodaffy - We are not talking about personal prejudice. I have now posted this three times. This is not about judging the competence of a physician based on gender. It is about the right of an individual to control who has intimate contact with his/her body.

No matter how you try to explain this away, you aren't going to make the case that a person's body is a public accomodation.

And please stop trying to equate race with gender. I have asked this before. This is not about prejudice or racism or sexism. Address the arguments being presented.

2525. Autodaffy - 3/16/2001 7:42:30 AM

"It is about the right of an individual
to control who has intimate contact with his/her
body."

Please cite to me the basis in law or in the constitution for this phony right you assert. You sound like a liberal in this manufacture of "rights" that do not exist.

Does it extend to ambulance attendants? Pharmacy workers? Food hanldlers? Hair cutters? How is it delimited?

2526. SnowOwl - 3/16/2001 7:46:01 AM

JJ,

If the argument is about the right of an individual to control who has intimate contact with his/her body what is the difference between declining to see a physician based on his/her race and declining to see a physician based on his/her gender? Why can't we equate race with gender in this instance? It's still a question of an individual's preference.

2527. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:11:21 AM

Snowowl - I have no problem with someone declining to see a physician based on the doctor's race, but it is fundamentally a different issue. Gender relates to sex. Race doesn't. A woman may feel sexually violated by being examined by a male doctor where she wouldn't if examined by a female. I see no reason to deny a woman treatment for making that choice.

So far no one has presented a reason why a woman should be denied this choice. It seems bizarre in the extreme to say that a woman can control her body to the extent that she can have her fetus aborted, but if she goes to a clinic to have it done she doesn't have the right to choose the gender of the doctor who will perform the procedure.

2528. mgleason - 3/16/2001 8:16:47 AM

It is about the right of an individual to control who has intimate contact with his/her body.

If this is your standard, JJ, then the patient should be able to discriminate based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, political persuasion, or any other identifying characteristic.

You present no compelling argument as to why a person should be able to refuse treatment from a physician solely on the basis of gender.

2529. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:18:22 AM

Auto - Please cite to me the basis in law or in the constitution for this phony right you assert.

Amendment IX, Roe v Wade, rape laws, sexual haraasment laws, et al. This isn't a phony right. It is a very real right.

You sound like a liberal in this manufacture of "rights" that do not exist.

If you don't believe this right exists, please cite a law or judicial decision which states this or even implies this.

Does it extend to ambulance attendants? Pharmacy workers? Food hanldlers? Hair cutters?

When was the last time you had intimate contact with your pharmacist?

2530. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:20:44 AM

mgleason - SEX!

2531. mgleason - 3/16/2001 8:25:11 AM

JJ, a female Klan member may feel violated by having a black female physician examine her intimately, for example. The point is that you cannot reduce this to gender only.

2532. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:35:08 AM

mgleason - That may be so. Considering the intimate nature of medicine, why shouldn't the patient's wishes be honored if at all possible? A woman may feel more comfortable with a man. She may feel more comfortable with a woman. Why should the choice be taken away from her? What can be gained by denying her this right?

2533. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 8:38:49 AM

So in JJ's world I can demand a young hottie as my doctor?

Cool.

2534. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 8:40:23 AM

Because, ya know, we can't have some guy or old hag messing with the crown jewels.

2535. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:43:35 AM

Jon - In your case, I am sure they are thinking, "Thank God for rubber gloves!"

2536. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 8:44:23 AM

And while we're at it, I guess I can demand that she get half-naked too, because I have a real hang-up about clothed chicks gawking at my stunning physique.

2537. mgleason - 3/16/2001 8:46:28 AM

JJ, try to imagine the real-life implications of what you're saying. You cannot justify accommodation based on gender without opening the door to any other preference as well. What you propose is unworkable; there is no unique justification for discrimination based on gender.

2538. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:46:41 AM

Jon - Don't all doctors do that?

2539. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 8:47:25 AM

I think you are wrong here, JJ.

there are two different issues:

1) Is the priviledge of choosing a doctor of one's liking a *good* thing, which health insurance companies *should* offer; and

2) Is it a "right"?

The answer to 1) is a no-brainer. Yes, it's a good thing. I think a company would have to be pretty dumb not to offer it.

But is it a "right"? Now, when we say "right," let us define it strictly: If you have a "legal right" to something, that means that you can sue for it in court, even if you signed a contract which did not give you the *contractual* right to this something, even if you bartered your ability to request this thing away.


Now, I have a "right" to have my prescription glasses covered by my health care plan. But if I do not barter for it, or if I accept a plan without such coverage, can I then turn around and sue for my "right" to eyeglass insurance?

2540. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 8:47:55 AM

Do what, gawk at my stunning physique? Now that you mention it ...

2541. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 8:51:00 AM

"Constitutional, legal rights" are what's in the bloody constitution.

If it's not in there, you don't have a "legal right" to it.

You may have a moral right, but that is not the same thing.

This is the sort of problem that can be resolved, and must be resolved, through contract. Not through assertion of yet another "constitutional right," created and enforced by the courts, contracts and free-will and self-help be damned.

2542. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 8:53:43 AM

Okay, let me step back:

There are things called "contracts of adhesion," which are contracts which are not, and can never be, negotiated. Health care contracts are contracts of adhesion. You don't negotiate any terms; you either accept the contract as is or you don't.

I *think* courts are more willing to read in "rights" into contracts of adhesion because they are, by their nature, never really negotiated or "agreed to" in a real sense.

But still...

2543. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 8:57:51 AM

mgleason - Yes, there is a unique justification for discrimination based on gender. Sex! Sex is not an issue with race, religion, or anything else, but it is an issue with gender.

To clarify I believe a patient should be able to discriminate based on anything they want. Their body is not a public accomodation and they are not hiring an employee. They are purchasing services and they should be able to make that decision on any basis they feel comfortable with.

With that said, there is an additional issue with gender since medicine involves intimate contact unlike that of any other profession. When intimate contact is involved, gender becomes major issue for some people. It isn't about competence. It isn't about prejudice. It is about sex, and it does no good to pretend it doesn't exist.

2544. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:02:07 AM

Well, you're right about all of that.

2545. SnowOwl - 3/16/2001 9:03:28 AM

So, a female comes into a hospital ER with a serious problem which is likely to kill her if she doesn't get immediate treatment. She demands a female doctor. No female doctor is available. Does the patient's "right" to choose her own physician override the physicians' duty to save lives wherever possible?

2546. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:04:01 AM

Horse twaddle.

Some prude's sexual hangups are his/her problem.

Can I insist on a heterosexual doctor too?

2547. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:04:34 AM

If it's "invidious discrimination" for people to prefer a doctor of the same sex (or opposite sex, if they like) touching them intimately, seeing them naked, etc., then I want to start a class-action lawsuit against the nation's gynecologists, who are disproportionately female.

It's not right that women prefer female gynecologists. Men should have just as much a right to practice gynecology as women. Ergo, the current overrepresentation of women in gynecology is flagrantly unconstitutional.

2548. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:09:28 AM

In what sense of the word is it invidious?

2549. mgleason - 3/16/2001 9:10:24 AM

No, JJ. As I pointed out, a person may feel violated for a host of reasons which are totally unrelated to gender. Again, if your standard is that [i]t is about the right of an individual to control who has intimate contact with his/her body, you cannot determine which discriminatory preferences are suitable for protection, to your way of thinking. The bright line you're attempting to draw does not exist.

It isn't about prejudice. It is about sex, and it does no good to pretend it doesn't exist.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

2550. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:11:20 AM

"Invidious" meaning illegal.

There is lots of discrimination in the world. Most of it is good.

Only some of it is "invidious."

If you are claiming it's "bad" discrimination for a patient to prefer a doctor of one's own sex, then I presume you favor a class-action against the nation's disprorportionately-female gynecologists...?

2551. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:11:38 AM

Ace - I believe Amendment IX says that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights which the people retain. There are plenty of laws on the books based on the premise that a person has the right to control who can engage intimate contact. Since the practice of medicine involves intimate contact, the patient has the right to choose a doctor on any basis she chooses. If a woman goes to an emergency room and asks for a female doctor, there is no reason to deny this request as long as a female doctor is available. I believe that if the emergency room management takes the attitude that she gets the next doctor in line, take it or leave it, her rights are being violated. So far no one has presented a reason why her choice should not be honored.

2552. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:12:27 AM

Not on the list.

The girls get the points.

2553. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:13:46 AM

"you cannot determine which discriminatory preferences are suitable for protection, to your way of thinking."

Legally, you can. The law is not an ass. The law has always recognized, and continues to recognize, the fact that much discrimination based on sex is perfectly legitimate.

Discrimination based on sex is scrutinized less strictly than, say, discrimination based on race.

If I own a strip club, for example, I am perfectly within my rights to insist on only FEMALE strippers. I am not required to hire a male stripper, "if he's qualified."

2554. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:17:05 AM

Snowowl - Does the patient's "right" to choose her own physician override the physicians' duty to save lives wherever possible?

A patient has the right to refuse treatment. I don't believe a physician has a duty to save a patient's life against the patient's expressed wishes. If the woman demands an female doctor and there is one available, why would you not grant her request? Why is it even an issue?

2555. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:21:38 AM

"Ace - I believe Amendment IX says that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not mean that those are the only rights which the people retain."

This is nonsense. You are making liberal arguments. The liberals have claimed for years that Article IX gives them justification for claiming whatever silly "rights du jour" they favor. Even they have abandoned it. It's a dry well.

If you want to rely on Article IX, then I defy you to explain why Liberals can't rely on Article IX in support of Roe v. Wade.

"There are plenty of laws on the books based on the premise that a person has the right to control who can engage intimate contact."

Uhhhhmmm... I guess. I'm not sure what you're saying.

"Since the practice of medicine involves intimate contact, the patient has the right to choose a doctor on any basis she chooses."

I actually agree with your point vis-a-vis Mgleason-- that I have the "right" to select whatever damn doctor I wish.

My disagreement came vis-a-vis what I THOUGHT was your disagreement with Cal, i.e., that if I have a health contract which does NOT grant me the right to choose whatever doctor I like, but rather I can only choose who is available, that I have a "right" to sue and get the doctor I want.

I agree you have the "right" to choose whatever doctor you like. I don't agree you have the "right" to file suit in order to force someone to grant you this particular "right" in the context of a health-care contract that does not grant it-- since you did not contract for it.

"If a woman goes to an emergency room and asks for a female doctor, there is no reason to deny this request as long as a female doctor is available."

Agree.

2556. AceofSpades - 3/16/2001 9:21:45 AM

"I believe that if the emergency room management takes the attitude that she gets the next doctor in line, take it or leave it, her rights are being violated."

Ummmmm... Maybe. I don't know. I would say that the doctors are violating their oaths in doing so, definitely.

"So far no one has presented a reason why her choice should not be honored."

Agreed. You know what you do when a mentally disturbed man comes in, screaming "I only want a white doctor touching me! I don't want no blackies touching me!" ?

You know what you do in that situation?

You give him a WHITE DOCTOR. His health -- and emotional health is a component of health -- is what matters. Not some bullshit PC agenda about "educating people."

2557. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:23:26 AM

It's an issue because if you make it a right, rather than a courtesy, then hospitals everywhere will have to staff their hospitals with many doctors of both genders, all different ages, and all the colors of the rainbow, both gay and straight simply in order to satisfy their patients' right to choose a doctor to their own idiosyncratic specifications.

As I said before, horse-twaddle.

2558. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:24:48 AM

mgleason - As I pointed out, a person may feel violated for a host of reasons which are totally unrelated to gender.

As I said, I have no problem with a person using any of those reasons when determining if a physician will adminster treatment.

The bright line you're attempting to draw does not exist.

There is a line. The line is about sex. It makes discrimination on gender in matters of medicine unique. You and I have seen enough doctors and hospitals to become immune to this. Not everyone has our experience (thank God). There is no reason not respect a person's gender choice when assigning a doctor.

BTW, How are you feeling? I assume you are having trouble sleeping which is why you are up at this ungodly hour.

2559. mgleason - 3/16/2001 9:27:01 AM

I was speaking of JJ making a determination about which preferences a patient should be able to act upon, and making a distinction in favor of gender. The entire statement is:

Again, if your standard is that [i]t is about the right of an individual to control who has intimate contact with his/her body, you cannot determine which discriminatory preferences are suitable for protection, to your way of thinking.

It makes no sense when truncated.

2560. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:31:30 AM

Ace - The original context was about a woman at clinic who refused to be treated by a male intern when she would not have refused a female. Cal was claiming that she has no right to demand a female doctor even if one is available.

2561. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:34:40 AM

Okay, for starters, define 'available'. Is a doctor finishing her shift on the way out the door 'available'?

2562. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:36:28 AM

Jon - Okay, for starters, define 'available'.

Define 'is'.

2563. Jon Ferguson - 3/16/2001 9:40:50 AM

You don't see my point, JJ? Is a doctor sitting at home on call 'available' for some ninny who insists on a doctor of that gender to have a look at her yeast infection?

2564. JJBiener - 3/16/2001 9:55:24 AM

Jon - I do see your point. It is irrelevant to this discussion.

2565. CalGal - 3/16/2001 4:44:41 PM

Cal was claiming that she has no right to demand a female doctor even if one is available.


Actually, my position was that if a hospital or a clinic should be legally obligated not to provide her a doctor of her choice. I am quite sure that at the present time a woman will be humored in her preference for a female gynecologist but not for a male one, a black person would be humored in a preference for a black doctor but not a white one, and a white male is, for the most part, shit out of luck. (A screaming looney might be humored long enough to get them under control).

I find it repellent that any person who walks into a hospital or clinic and refuse the first available doctor, given that those are the expectations.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if right now this goes on all the time, in the situations I mentioned. But if it is a legal right for the patient to refuse a doctor of a particular gender, race, or age in that sort of setting, then it no doubt hurts minority and female doctors more than white male doctors.

I have a feeling that it's not a legal right, and that the hospital and clinics could refuse and just choose not to make an issue of it. And that's just wrongheaded.

2566. JudithAtHome - 3/16/2001 4:56:38 PM

against the nation's gynecologists, who are disproportionately female.

Is there some cite for this? How do you know there are more females?

2567. msgreer - 3/18/2001 12:43:24 PM

I suggest "Wit", showing on HBO, Saturday, March 24th. This is a story about a woman suffering from ovarian cancer. It not only shows her struggle but the treatment she receives from the medical profession. It is based on a true story.
Emma Thompson stars.

Since there has been discussion on picking one's own doctor for various reasons this may be a 90 minute view worth the watch.

2568. Jon Ferguson - 3/18/2001 5:54:24 PM

2566. JudithAtHome - 3/17/01 2:56:38 PM

against the nation's gynecologists, who are disproportionately female.

Is there some cite for this? How do you know there are more females?

I did a little research and indeed, it seems highly unlikely that even a bare majority of gynecologists is female given the following:

In 2000 63.7% of the ACOG membership was/is male. From ACOG membership data March 2001.

Mary A Hyde MSLS (mhyde@acog.org)
Public Services Librarian
Resource Center
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists
409 12th St SW
Washington DC 20024
202-863-2518 (ref desk) 202-484-1595 (fax)

2569. anomieme - 3/19/2001 5:39:13 AM

Forgive my jumping in off-topic, but I post so infrequently it may seem as if I've been unappreciative of some of your earlier comments and good wishes. This to JJ, Thoughtful, PsychProf, CalGal, and MsGreer. I've very much had your comments in mind. Some of what I post risks seeming a bit too self aware when others have more real and immediate problems. But it has been a learning experience for me to observe how the depression or apathy, or whatever this is runs its course.

I didn't get out the guitar, JJ, but I did pick up the camera and got out this weekend. It was fairly easy to push aside the blahs and I had a really good time. Occasionally that "what's the point?" attitude began to creep in, but I pressed ahead and it was really very easy.

Anyway, thanks to all and I'll return you now to the topic at hand.

2570. JJBiener - 3/19/2001 6:17:10 AM

anomieme - Posts like #2569 are never off-topic in this thread. They are the reason this thread exists. We may go off on a tangent from time to time, but this thread exists as a place where people can come and discuss their problems and receive support. Our host, MsGreer, is very clear on this point.

I am glad you picked up the camera. I hope you will post some of your pictures. I would like to see what you do. I love photography and would engage in it if I had the time and money. Right now music takes up all my spare time and any money I can squeeze from the budget.

2571. anomieme - 3/19/2001 6:27:27 AM

JJ,

Thanks. BTW, that link didn't work so I didn't hear your tracks. Now that you're back, can you repost that web page in Arts?

I'd like to post some pics. I'll have to get the html technique down soon. As with guitar, I'm a hack with the camera, and highly derivitive. But we all get a gem now and then.

2572. JJBiener - 3/19/2001 6:42:01 AM

anomieme - I don't know why that link didn't work for you. It works fine for me. I don't know what the problem is.

As far as being a hack photographer, perhaps you just need some perspective. Not even Mappelthorpe had a winner on every shot. Most photographers would be happy if they had one usable shot per role. I have written dozens of songs. Most of them suck. A few are pretty good. A couple are very good. It is a numbers game. Keep working at it and from time to time you will strike gold.

2573. anomieme - 3/19/2001 6:47:56 AM

It's those gems keeps us going....

I wish I had a dollar for every top ten song that sucked. Don't give away any copywrites. We're our own worst critics sometimes.

2574. JJBiener - 3/19/2001 6:53:38 AM

Anomieme - I know what you mean. I wrote a song in 10 minutes one morning in the shower. I wrote it down after I got out of the shower and played it for my band at the next practice. I didn't take the song too seriously, but they went nuts over it. It has been in our song list ever since. We have even started getting requests for it at shows. The song is Cold Woman Blues. It is on that web site if you can get it to play. You may need an mp3 player if you don't have one.

2575. christipeters - 3/20/2001 11:41:34 PM

Interesting discussion.

AFAIC, a doctor is an employee whom I am paying to provide a service. I feel I should have an absolute right to chose who to employ. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have that right.

Now I may not have the right to make my insurance pay for anyone I choose, but I can always dig the money out of my own pocket, change insurance plans, or go without medical care if I belong to an insurance plan that restricts my choice to a certain pool of doctors and I don't like any of them.

I may not have the right to force a hospital or clinic to bring in another doctor if I don't like the one available to treat me when I go in for treatment, but I can go to another clinic.

I realize I am taking this to extremes and in a rel situation where I need imediate care and my preferred doctor isn't around, I'll no doubt take who's available rather than continue to suffer.

It's just this talk of "rights" that gets me.

2576. ChristinO - 3/20/2001 11:44:15 PM

My co-worker just informed me that she's on a diet. I looked her over and asked her why. She said "My doctor told me I ought to lose 12 pounds."

"How's your blood pressure?"

"Great."

"Well what about your cholesterol?"

"Stellar. Even the Doctor says so. I told him I was amazed since I eat hamburgers three or four times a week."

"How tall are you, honey? 5'5? You wear a size 6, right? Where exactly are you supposed to lose this 12 pounds from?"

"He says I'm overweight for the BMI."

"Yeah, you've also got more muscle tone than most folks and any extra weight you carry is tits and black-girl butt. Tell your doctor he's full of shit and find somebody new to treat you."


This is the kind of crap pisses me off. K isn't "well-endowed" or "voluptuous" even. She's slender with tits and ass. She's got a body like Jennifer Lopez with better arms and abs. What the fuck is in this doctor's head with the "you need to lose 12 pounds" bit?

Need to? For what purpose. She's extremely healthy. She's in great shape and she looks fantastic. She needs to lose weight so that she matches a generic Body Mass Index churned out by non-medical professionals for the purposes of fixing insurance rates and selling diet products?

The man should lose his license since he obviously isn't paying attention to the actual health of his patient.

2577. christipeters - 3/20/2001 11:46:02 PM

ChristinO- I agree. She needs a new doctor.

2578. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 12:26:28 AM

I can somewhat understand the average layperson buying into the BMI, but not a healthcare professional. They get paid lots of money to know better. No wonder malpractice insurance is so high.

I'm significantly overweight "morbidly obese" they like to call it, however my blood pressure is excellent and my cholesterol is only high-normal even though high cholesterol and blood pressure both run in my family none of whom have ever rivaled my size. My cholesterol is more than 100 points less than that of my friend's bean-pole husband.

They keep insisting that fat is the main if not sole issue, but looking at all the skinny people who have cholesterol problems and heart disease and the fat folk who don't I think it's time to toss out the hard and fast rule that seems to obsess so many people.

There is healthy and there is unhealthy and fat or thin it varies from person to person. I'm not claiming that it is healthy to be fat, but it is not always un-healthy. It's past time for health-care professionals to look at their patients as individuals.

2579. christipeters - 3/21/2001 1:28:41 AM

Christin - I agree.

I have gone from morbidly obese to merely very fat. However, my blood pressure was high (marginally) when I was skinny, remained at about the same (non-medicated) levels when I was morbidly obese, and is still the same.

At the same time, my cholesterol levels have consistently run from the 140s to the 160s. Again, regardless of my weight.

I am working on losing weight because I have back and hip and knee injuries that would probably bother me less if I had a lighter load on them and because I like the way I look better when I am thinner.

Still, even at my present weight, I had no problems walking through Carlsbad Caverns for 5 hours last Friday and through Living Desert park for 2 1/2 hours on Saturday. My calf muscles were a little sore from the descent into the Caverns (my friend said we "burned ot our brakes" &:oD), but had fully recovered by Monday evening.

I also think the individual should be looked at more than the charts, which are just useful, limited tools.

2580. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 2:03:28 AM

Christin - I have seen pictures of you. How can you possibly be obese?

2581. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 2:16:31 AM

JJ,

That's very sweet, but my size isn't really a debatable thing. It varies from photo to photo depending on clothing and attitude.

Actually, I think most of it is attitude. Compared to many, my weight gain is relatively recent. I was never a fat child nor did I have any weight problems until after I graduated from highschool so my essential character wasn't shaped by being fat.

I even sometimes forget but luckily for me there are plenty of people willing to step up and remind me. Strangely enough many of them are men trying to get in my pants. I think their strategy is to make me believe I should be grateful for their attentions. I like to remind them that they're the ones apparently hard up enough to proposition someone they consider beneath them. It would be funnier if it weren't so tedious. Sometimes it's even painful but generally only when I get broadsided with such an attitude from someone I expected better of.

I don't consider myself a militant fat person or fat activist per se, but I won't deny that I can get worked up over stupidity and cruelty. There's some doctor whose name I can't remember that teaches a seminar to other doctors on how to not to be an asshole to fat patients. He actually makes them wear a fat suit out in public for a whole day so that they get some idea of what it's like for their patients on a day to day basis.

2582. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 2:23:43 AM

Christin - If I were trying to get into your pants the last thing I would do is insult you. That seems incredibly counterproductive. I would tell you how good you look. I am not not even trying to get into your pants I think you look good. That's my opinion for what it's worth.

2583. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 4:29:41 AM

I'd rather be overweight than an idiotic asshole any day. Christin, I truly think you look great. I have a friend/colleague who's very heavy, but she always looks a lot better than I do on the job (I'm a natural slob). She dresses and carries herself beautifully, and is really a very pretty woman. Her main problem with weight is her back. She has severe problems that weight loss wouldn't fix, but would certainly make easier.

2584. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 4:44:43 AM

JJ

Have you seen the same pictures I've seen?

I'd rather be honest than an idiotic (even well-meaning) prevaricator (a kind term for liar) any day.

And arky, the choice isn't between being fat and being an idiotic asshole. The choice is between being fat and not being fat. Between controlling your consumption of junk food and letting it control you. Between taking responsibility for your health and appearance and surrendering to your low self esteem. Between being alive and vital and being a sedentary slug. I at least have SOME sympathy for UGLY fat people. It's not like they'd look a whole lot better if they DID lose the weight. It's the pretty/handsome fat people that are truly pathetic.

And before MsGreer shoos me away, I bid you all adieu. You may return to your well-meaning, albeit dysfunctional (in that it merely serves to enable and reinforce destructive behavior,) group hug.

2585. anomieme - 3/21/2001 4:54:38 AM

It's been my experience that some people can improve themselves by just being nicer to fellow human beings.

We're people, not fitness machines.

2586. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 4:58:34 AM

anomieme

It's one thing to refrain from criticizing others. As the old saying goes, we all have faults, why not start with yourself? It's quite another to lie to them so that they will feel better about themselves (or even worse, so you can 'improve' or feel better about yourself). I find JJ and arky's well-meaning pep talk to be patronizing and condescending. 'There, there honey, you're not fat. You're big boned. All 250 lbs of you.'

2587. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 5:19:02 AM

You're putting words in my mouth, Jon. I truly do think Christin looks good. There are overweight people who don't and weight loss would help their looks much more than it would other overweight people. Also, from my good friend's experience and to a degree my own, I know that some people who are heavy don't have bad eating habits. They're moderate in their eating, and have more energy than I do and are more active.

I didn't weigh 100 pounds until after I graduated college. I've never carried excess weight (even a little) well, so if I am even ten pounds more than I should be I start to look lumpy/dumpy. Not so with some much heavier people who are proportioned well, dress well, carry themselves well, and are fit. And yes, you can be fit, active, eat right and still be overweight.

2588. anomieme - 3/21/2001 5:27:09 AM

Jon,

We're much too critical of our fellow man. We don't understand human nature and human motivations enough to think everyone can or even should refrain from certain behavior. Everyone has a differnt set of abilities and propensanties and it's not fair to project ours on another - and vice-verca.

And I'm sorry if I was rude to you.

2589. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 5:29:06 AM

Jon - I am afraid you have a very limited vision. I feel sorry for you. I have seen two pictures of Christin and it never occurred to me looking at them that she was terribly overweight. That is why her statement took me by surprise. I happen to think she is attractive, so I have to assume I am seeing something you are not.

I am also amused by your assertion that if a person is overweight it is because they gourge themselves on junk food and have low self-esteem. It shows such a profound lack of understanding on your part of why people are overweight. I have a little task for you. Go to a bookstore and page through a copy of the Physician's Desk Reference. Make a mental note on how many medications cause significant weight gain. Next pick up a book on genetics and read up on how much a person's physical makeup is determined by heredity.

Maybe once you have a little knowledge on the subject you can post something without looking like a complete idiot. One can hope anyway.

2590. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 5:46:52 AM

anomieme

I didn't notice if you were. Sorry if I seemed like I thought you were being rude to me. (g)

I am a very critical person. It's been my biggest fault my whole life. If it's any consolation, I turn that critical eye inward more than outward.

arky

I have only seen one picture of Christin, so I wouldn't know. But we're not talking 20 or 30 lbs. overweight, we're talking morbidly obese. Sorry, that NEVER looks good. Some people carry their weight better than others, but when you're morbidly obese, you have a serious problem, both appearancewise and healthwise.

JJ

People are obese because throughout their lives they have consumed far more calories than they have burned. Christin stated that she didn't get fat until after high school. That rules out heredity. If she's on some kind of psychoactive drug that makes her fat, that's still a cop-out in my book, just a different kind of cop-out. It's a popular myth that fat people don't consume vast quantities of calories. And that's all it is, a myth.

2591. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 6:01:13 AM

I have one colleague whom I'd define as morbidly obese (not the woman I was referring to) and one acquaintance who had surgery that has so far really been successful, and I agree with you wrt to health and appearance, though it's a terrible battle to fight and it's not like these two people are eating machines who never leave their couches. They're both active and moderate people. Christin looks nothing like either of them.

As far as weight gain from medicines, it does happen and very quickly. I was on one for migraines and gained ten pounds before I could turn around. A friend on the same medicine gained 25 in a very short time. I threw that shit away like it was something out of Alice in Wonderland.

2592. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 6:07:23 AM

Jon - People are obese because throughout their lives they have consumed far more calories than they have burned.

Nice theory. It just isn't true.

Christin stated that she didn't get fat until after high school. That rules out heredity.

No, it doesn't doesn't rule out heredity. I know of several families where the onset of obesity comes after childhood.

If she's on some kind of psychoactive drug that makes her fat, that's still a cop-out in my book, just a different kind of cop-out.

It is not just psychoactive drugs. Many kinds of drugs cause weight gain including prednisone and many diabetic medications.

It's a popular myth that fat people don't consume vast quantities of calories. And that's all it is, a myth.

Some people who are overweight are that way because they simply eat to much. The myth is that all or even most are overweight for that reason. If that were true diets would have a much greater success rate than they do.

You have just demonstrated what I said in my previous post. You know next to nothing about this subject. I suggest you learn something before you continue to post. I am sure if you went to yahoo you could find some useful information.

2593. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 6:09:19 AM

Newsflash!

Americans take too many prescription drugs.

For every 1 fat person who has an unavoidable weight problem, I would be shocked if you find less than 9 others (probably closer to 90) whose weight problem is controllable through diet (not starvation, sensible eating) and exercise.

You show me any fat person who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink alcohol, keeps calories from fat below 15% of total calories consumed (I don't care how much they eat,) and does a moderate amount of exercise for half an hour 3 times a week, and I will share in your sympathy for their plight.

2594. Shannon - 3/21/2001 6:12:14 AM

Americans take too many prescription drugs.

Yeah, too damn many people taking prednisone for fun. That's a real problem.

Smoking makes people fat? I thought quitting was more likely to do that.

2595. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 6:15:04 AM

JJ

In the interests of maintaining a civil thread tone, why don't you and I agree to ignore each other on this issue? Rest assured that my belief in your ignorance on this issue is just as profound as your belief in mine.

2596. arkymalarky - 3/21/2001 6:15:17 AM

I don't disagree with that post at all. The first disagreement, and my opinion is from meeting Christin, was about her specifically and her appearance. I would certainly hope no one judged my appearance on one picture, especially since I'm not often photogenic (And don't pipe in that it's because I'm ugly and cameras don't lie!).

2597. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 6:16:41 AM

Smoking makes people less active (lower lung capacity, lower oxygen content in the blood). Inactivity leads to obesity.

Yes, in the short term, smoking tends to lead to weight gain.

2598. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 6:17:59 AM

That should obviously be quitting smoking tends ...

2599. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 6:24:30 AM

Jon - You show me any fat person who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink alcohol, keeps calories from fat below 15% of total calories consumed (I don't care how much they eat,) and does a moderate amount of exercise for half an hour 3 times a week, and I will share in your sympathy for their plight.

I can show you dozens with just a couple of phone calls.

In the interests of maintaining a civil thread tone, why don't you and I agree to ignore each other on this issue?

When you agree to stop posting false and ignorant statements, I will be glad to ignore you. Until then I intend to correct you when ever you post nonsense. Since I have been civil through out this discussion, I believe the onus is on you.

2600. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 6:30:25 AM

JJ

Okay Chief, make the calls.

arky

If you say that Christin is a hottie, that's good enough for me.

2601. pogie - 3/21/2001 6:51:07 AM

There are a fair number of fat people who have the problem of super efficient metabolisms, such that their bodies suck as many nutrients up out of small portions as someone with a less efficient metabolism who eats bigger meals. Sometimes it is their natural metabolism, sometimes it is a yo-yo diet side effect.

2602. JJBiener - 3/21/2001 6:54:04 AM

Jon - When can I tell them you will be in town?

2603. wonkers2 - 3/21/2001 2:31:22 PM

Supreme Court justices Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas ended up on the wrong end of a 6-3 decision yesterday which ruled that a South Carolina hospital violated the rights of pregnant women by testing them for drugs without their knowledge and turning the results over to the police.

The majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens was a strong statement that the facts of the women's pregnancy and of possible danger to their fetuses through illegal drug use did not change the basic constitutional analysis: in the abscence of either a warrant or consent, the drug tests amounted to unconstitutional searches.

2604. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 7:39:10 PM

Wow, what a can of worms I opened. JJ, Arky, thanks for the compliments. It really wasn't my intent to go on a fishing expedition for praise but I appreciate your kind words.

Jon,

It's more than likely pointless to address you but you're playing into exactly the kind of ignorance and prejudice that I was describing. You state that I'm unhealthy and make assumptions about what my lifestyle and psychologizal hangups must be with no knowledge other than what you saw in a single photograph.

Had you read my post you would have noted that my blood pressure and cholesterol are not unhealthy---are in fact better than many people half my weight. Additionally, it's difficult in this forum to escape the knowledge that I own a dog. A dog which I excercise with more than six hours a week.

As for my psyche, judging by your seeming constant need to belittle others I'd bet that my self esteem is considerably higher than your own.

So, the only thing that you can claim with any authority about me is that I am very fat and you personally find me physically repulsive.

I just can't tell you how devastated I am.

2605. ChristinO - 3/21/2001 7:41:59 PM

BTW, smoking decreases appetite and speeds up the metabolism it's why so many supermodels smoke like chimneys----it helps keep them thin.

2606. PsychProf - 3/21/2001 8:26:49 PM

Jon...nicotine is an appetite supressant, independent of motor activity. Good to see you back here.

2607. CalGal - 3/21/2001 10:22:25 PM

I agree with Arky--some fat people really look fat and unhealthy. Christin is not one of them. She looks healthy, holds her weight extremely well, and gets a great deal of attention from men, which is evidence not only of a "good personality" but of the fact that Arky and I aren't the only two who think she's attractive. She also doesn't overeat--we've dined together on several occasions, and I am very alert to that squicky feeling I get when I see an extremely overweight person eating too much. It's one of the few things that can cause me to lose my appetite.

The one reason I hope Christin can lose weight eventually is for the same reason I focus on keeping my weight down, even though I can hold quite a bit before I look "fat"--it's hard on the body. Not blood pressure, heart, or lungs--that can all be offset by exercise. But over time, small frames just aren't suited to carry that much extra poundage. It starts with the skeletal structure and the problems move off in various directions from that point--or so my doctor told me, and he had no reason to scare me. I was there to lose weight.

I think that many people are overweight not because they eat more than others, but because they eat more--in response to simple hunger--than their body requires. Their set point is lower than someone else. Lots of thin people can eat like horses and aren't depriving themselves at all. Likewise, lots of heavy people eat reasonably in response to hunger, don't overeat in comparison to others, but eat too much for their body. It's the hunger that's off. That's why appetite suppressants can work for some people--at least that's why they've worked for me for four years now.

2608. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 11:19:15 PM

Christin

It's more than likely pointless to address you, but you're playing into exactly the kind of ignorance that JJ was exemplifying.

Your weight problem WILL lead to serious health problems in the long run. Guaranteed. I don't give a fuck how great your blood pressure and cholesterol are. As CalGal notes, carrying an extra 100+ pounds around for 40+ years takes its toll.

I make assumptions about your lifestyle and/or psychological hang-ups? If I have done so, please show me where. I said something like 'if she's taking psychoactive medication ...' that is not an assumption of facts, that is a hypothetical. If you are not taking any such medication, that's fine. It just rules out one of JJ's 'excuses' for fat people (prescription medication.)

I really don't care how strong your psyche is or why you perceive that I have a 'constant need to belittle others.' Neither is relevant, whether true or not. I don't suffer fools gladly. So what?

The only things I can state with authority about you is that you are very fat, and you have trouble carrying on a rational discussion. So you improvise by creating straw men and tearing them down. Nowhere do I state that I find you physically repulsive, in fact, I state just the opposite: If you say that Christin is a hottie, that's good enough for me. The much used 'I just can't tell you how devastated I am' retort only works if somebody is insulting you, which I wasn't. I was questioning JJ and arky's decision to empower you to continue your self-destructive behavior. That's all. It really wasn't about you.

Many fat people make a show of eating little in public settings and gorge themselves in private. I suspect you are one of those people. But again, if you are one of the elite few who eat responsibly, exercise, don't smoke, and don't drink (or drink in moderation,) and still weigh way too much, I sympathize with your plight.

2609. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 11:27:28 PM

PP

It's good to be back. For however long it lasts.

Whether or not smoking/nicotine acts as an appetite suppressant or stimulant, I still find myself very susceptible to the 'squicky' feeling that CalGal describes when I see a fat smoker.

Particularly here in Canada, where we have to pay for these people's health care, it absolutely disgusts me that these people can completely let themselves go like that and impose the consequential financial burden of their health care onto others.

But smoking is a tangential issue and for the sake of argument, I withdraw it from my earlier comments.

2610. Jon Ferguson - 3/21/2001 11:41:40 PM

JJ

Jon - When can I tell them you will be in town?

You can tell them I'll be in town when you call them. (I think that was the point of calling them, wasn't it?)

2611. Shannon - 3/22/2001 12:14:56 AM

'if she's taking psychoactive medication ...' that is not an assumption of facts, that is a hypothetical. If you are not taking any such medication, that's fine. It just rules out one of JJ's 'excuses' for fat people (prescription medication.)

Newsflash: There are prescription medications which are not psychoactive medications. I'd venture to guess most of them, in fact.

2612. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 1:16:53 AM

Shannon - I already pointed that fact out to Jon as well as several other facts which contradict his position. He is choosing to ignore them so he can continue to proclaim his discredited position. It is sad, really.

2613. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 1:18:03 AM

Jon - You can tell them I'll be in town when you call them.

I called them. They are ready to go. Have you made you plane reservations yet?

2614. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 1:20:46 AM

Jon - It just rules out one of JJ's 'excuses' for fat people (prescription medication.)

Let's do an experiment. Spend a year taking 40 mg of Prednisone a day, then we will discuss your weight. We will see if you have had a change of heart.

2615. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 1:32:59 AM

Irrelevant quibble noted.

I should have said 'if she's taking prescription medication that tends to cause weight gain ...'

You might note, however, that she has made reference to her stellar physical health. It is not unlikely, given her self-reported physical health, and her demographic profile, that whatever medication she might be on (other than the pill) would be of the psychoactive variety.

And NO prescription drug has MORBID obesity as a common unavoidable side effect, so it's rather a moot point in this particular case, regardless.

2616. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 1:38:02 AM

2615 was for 2611

Prednisone is for what, arthritis and to avoid transplant rejection?

You can always find horror stories where someone has suffered through so much pain or whatever that the fact that they are fat is almost trivial. That doesn't refute my argument that these people constitute a tiny fraction of the obese population.

2617. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 1:46:26 AM

I think it's funny how much compassion JJ has for fat people. How unaccountable he lets them be. How many excuses and 'unavoidable reasons' he lets them dream up for their condition.

But if a criminal tries the same tactic (with far more validity in most cases, I might add) to explain his criminal behavior, let's see how far JJ lets him get.

And no, I'm not equating being fat with being a criminal. But I've got a lot more sympathy for some poor black kid with no father, no education, and no money who robs a convenience store than I do for some middle class fat prick who sits at home scarfing Doritos and Oreos and blames 'genetics' for his disgusting appearance.

2618. CalGal - 3/22/2001 1:50:56 AM

Prednisone is for what, arthritis and to avoid transplant rejection?


It is an anti-inflammatory medication that is ruthless in its impact on the body.

Weight is almost entirely determined by genetics. Relatively few people are morbidly obese because they stuff themselves in the manner you describe. Some are, but it's the exception.

2619. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 1:54:36 AM

Jon - That doesn't refute my argument that these people constitute a tiny fraction of the obese population.

This isn't an argument, it is a statement. No matter how much you may want to believe it, it simply isn't true. Prednisone is a common drug used to treat a vast array of illnesses and conditions. Large doses result in a condition called Cushing's disease "which results in obesity, a moon-shaped face, and muscle wasting." (From WebMD)

Also from WebMD, "Genetic factors influence fat metabolism and regulate certain hormones and proteins that affect appetite and may play some part in 70% of obesity cases." In other words eating properly and excercising may not be enough for 70% of the obese people to maintain a normal weight.

Also, "Genetic factors may also play a direct role in some cases of very severe obesity."

Your simplistic attitude about obesity is based on ignorance. As I said earlier, if you are going to present an opinion, at least present an informed opinion.

2620. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 2:01:28 AM

Jon - But I've got a lot more sympathy . . .

No, I don't think you have any sympathy for anyone but yourself. Your ignorance on this subject is only exceeded by your arrogance. If you are so sure of yourself, take up either of the challenges I have laid out for you. I would love to see you take 40 mg of Prednisone for a year. It would be a riot seeing you try deal with an 80 lbs weight gain.

2621. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 2:04:04 AM

So the fact that Americans have the most unhealthy eating habits in the industrialized world as well as the highest incidence of obesity is just a coincidence?

You really think that couch potatoes who are addicted to junk food would be just as fat if they ate healthy and exercised?

Or you don't think that couch potatoes are all that common?

Anyway, nobody has produced any hard, non-anecdotal evidence, so this is almost completely unproductive. I firmly believe that the vast majority of fat people are fat because of their poor eating habits and lack of exercise. You don't. Fair enough. I do not dispute that genetics certainly play a role. But that role need not be decisive, nor does it play nearly as large a role as choices people make every day about what to eat, how much to eat, and how much to exercise.

You might as well argue that some people are predisposed to be couch potatoes because of their genetics, which I'd also agree with. Genetics predisposes us to many traits, but it is seldom seen as a valid excuse. No reason it should be seen as one in this case.

2622. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 2:08:44 AM

JJ

Your 'challenges' are retarded. Please stop making them.

I challenge you to bring all your fat friends to Ottawa and show them to me as you said you would.

I challenge you to sniff glue for a year so that you can experience what it feels like for others to make sense of your arguments.

I challenge you to refrain from taking a dump for a month. It would be a riot to see you realize that you really ARE full of shit.

Enough childish challenges, Chief.

2623. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 2:10:28 AM

Jon - Anyway, nobody has produced any hard, non-anecdotal evidence, so this is almost completely unproductive.

I posted relevant quotes from WebMD which (as usual) you choose to ignore.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of fat people are fat because of their poor eating habits and lack of exercise.

God forbid you let any facts passed your defenses.

One thing that is instructive is that the only one talking about excuses is you. We have been talking about causes. Apparently you are more interested in blaming people than in understanding the issue. This is your standard MO, so I am really not surprised. When you get passed your need to place blame and are interested in understanding, then maybe this discussion can be completed.

2624. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 2:14:11 AM

Jon - Your 'challenges' are retarded. Please stop making them.

You are the one who made the first challenge. I just called you on it.

I challenge you to bring all your fat friends to Ottawa and show them to me as you said you would.

It is your challenge. You come here. You won't because your challenge was bullshit from the beginning.

I challenge you to refrain from taking a dump for a month.

This is actually very funny, but you wouldn't have a clue as to why.

2625. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 2:17:30 AM

Cushing's disease sufferers.

Exempt (part of the 1 in 10 I mentioned).

Please find me a % of the population who suffer from Cushing disease. If it's more than one hundredth of one percent of the population, I'll be shocked. If it's more than one tenth of one percent of the population, I will concede this argument entirely.

Genetic factors may play a role ...

Do you know what 'may' means, JJ?

2626. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:19:42 AM

Jon,

Do you just not pay attention to what you say? I haven’t contradicted myself nor have I denied any facts and yet you continue to do both.

From 2608

Your weight problem WILL lead to serious health problems in the long run. Guaranteed. I don't give a fuck how great your blood pressure and cholesterol are.

This makes no sense, Jon. If a person’s blood pressure and cholesterol levels are healthy then it’s pretty damn difficult to have a heart attack unless he suffers from a congenital heart defect. Dave Letterman, on the other hand is neither overweight, nor inactive nor does he suffer from a congenital heart defect and yet he required a quadruple bypass last year.

I make assumptions about your lifestyle and/or psychological hang-ups? If I have done so, please show me where.

Let's start with Message # 2584

Between controlling your consumption of junk food and letting it control you

Translation = Fat people are compulsive over-eaters of highly caloric food with no nutritional value.

Between taking responsibility for your health and appearance and surrendering to your low self esteem

Translation = Fat people are fat because they have low self-esteem

Between being alive and vital and being a sedentary slug

Translation = Fat people are stuporous layabouts who don’t exercise.

As a fat person I could only assume that you meant me as well. Since none of your “facts” describes my life-style or me I felt it was important to point that out to you. Had you said “some” or “many” fat people then I wouldn’t argue with you, but you didn’t say that. This is the very thing I was ranting about earlier on the part of health-care professionals who don’t treat “people” they treat “fat”.

cont.

2627. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:20:09 AM

cont.

It just rules out one of JJ's 'excuses' for fat people

Why in the world would fat people need to be excused? It’s not a crime or a character flaw.

and you have trouble carrying on a rational discussion

What’s irrational about requiring health professionals to look at actual facts and deal in patient specifics rather than trying to give out a single diagnosis to a hundred million people? Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone else’s?

Nowhere do I state that I find you physically repulsive, in fact, I state just the opposite

My apologies if I over-stated your position but this statement:

I at least have SOME sympathy for UGLY fat people. It's not like they'd look a whole lot better if they DID lose the weight. It's the pretty/handsome fat people that are truly pathetic.

and this one

I have only seen one picture of Christin, so I wouldn't know. But we're not talking 20 or 30 lbs. overweight, we're talking morbidly obese. Sorry, that NEVER looks good. Some people carry their weight better than others, but when you're morbidly obese, you have a serious problem, both appearance-wise and health-wise.

don’t really jibe with your assertion. Neither do many of your past comments to me. If your comment to Arky was sincere then I apologize for having misunderstood you, but you can hardly blame me for the confusion in light of your vehemence on the disgusting nature of fat people.

cont. to end

2628. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:20:20 AM

cont.

Many fat people make a show of eating little in public settings and gorge themselves in private.

So do many thin people.

I suspect you are one of those people.

Why? Because it just isn’t possible for me to be fat unless I’m a closet binger? Sorry to disappoint, but I’m far more likely to binge when out to dinner in the company of friends.

If you are one of the elite few who eat responsibly, exercise, don't smoke, and don't drink (or drink in moderation,) and still weigh way too much, I sympathize with your plight.

Spend your sympathy on the people who need it. People who lose their organs to quack medical advice and their health and often lives to bad diet-gurus and ignorant health professionals. People so demoralized by the cruelty of casual strangers that they can’t even leave their houses much less go to the gym. People whose doctors insult them and humiliate them because it’s easier to buy into the idea that fat people are just lazy and pathetic than it is to treat individuals.

2629. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:20:49 AM

Prednisone is also used in the treatment of severe asthma.

2630. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 2:21:09 AM

Here is my statement that JJ interpreted as a 'challenge.'

You show me any fat person who doesn't smoke, doesn't drink alcohol, keeps calories from fat below 15% of total calories consumed (I don't care how much they eat,) and does a moderate amount of exercise for half an hour 3 times a week, and I will share in your sympathy for their plight.

This was not intended as an offer to fly off into the wild blue yonder to visit JJ and his fat farm.

Does anybody else share JJ's interpretation?

2631. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 2:22:49 AM

Ciao for now.

2632. CalGal - 3/22/2001 2:24:33 AM

So the fact that Americans have the most unhealthy eating habits in the industrialized world as well as the highest incidence of obesity is just a coincidence?


Actually, I think the French eat quite unhealthily in comparison? Can't remember.

In any event, it is quite possible that Americans eat unhealthily and have a high incidence of obesity for entirely unrelated reasons. Which would indeed make it coincidental. Not only possible, but likely, actually, given that far more people in America are eating unhealthily than are obese.

2633. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:24:58 AM

Morbid Obesity defined

Definition

The point reached where the degree of obesity begins to interfere with normal physiologic functions such as breathing.

Common Causes
- excessive caloric intake
- Cushing's syndrome
- Prader-Willi syndrome
- Laurence-Moon-Biedl syndrome

Note: There may be other causes of morbid obesity. This list is not all inclusive, and the causes are not presented in order of likelihood. The causes of this symptom can include unlikely diseases and medications. Furthermore, the causes may vary based on age and gender of the affected person, as well as on the specific characteristics of the symptom such as quality, time course, and associated complaints. Use the Symptom Analysis option to explore the possible explanations for morbid obesity, occurring alone or in combination with other problems.

2634. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:29:44 AM

CG,

I'm convinced that Americans are unfit because we have to drive so much and spend so much time sitting on our asses at white-collar jobs.

The French eat incredibly fatty foods---land of cheese and cream sauces let's not forget---however they drink mass quantities of red wine which combats cholesterol and they--like most European countries---WALK.

They also tend to eat less pre-packaged food so their fat calories aren't quite so worthless as much of what makes up the staple American diet.

2635. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 2:30:12 AM

Oh, and let's not forget how much the French SMOKE.

2636. msgreer - 3/22/2001 2:48:07 AM

Jon

Please feel free to post anything you want in this thread. However, the word "retard" or "retarded" are not allowed in this thread. Got me?

2637. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 3:10:44 AM

Re 2626

From 2608

Your weight problem WILL lead to serious health problems in the long run. Guaranteed. I don't give a fuck how great your blood pressure and cholesterol are.

This makes no sense, Jon. If a person’s blood pressure and cholesterol levels are healthy then it’s pretty damn difficult to have a heart attack unless he suffers from a congenital heart defect. Dave Letterman, on the other hand is neither overweight, nor inactive nor does he suffer from a congenital heart defect and yet he required a quadruple bypass last year.

If heart attacks were the only serious health problem attributable to being morbidly obese, this counterargument would make a certain amount of sense. But they aren't. So it doesn't.

As far as whether I meant 'some' or 'many' or 'most' when I made generalizations about fat people, I have stated repeatedly that I am talking about a (vast) majority, for the sake of argument, 90%. I have also stated repeatedly that maybe you, ChrisO, are that 1 fat person in 10 (approx.) who has absolutely no say in how fat you are. So if you wish to take those generalizations personally, fine. But like most generalizations, they were meant to convey an opinion about a specific group, while allowing for certain exceptions within that group.

2638. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 3:12:35 AM

Re 2636

Sure thing, tardo. (g)

Was that a warning or did I inadvertently use that word? (probably in reference to JJ)

2639. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 3:33:42 AM

Why do fat people need excuses?

So they don't have to be accountable for being so goddamn fat, that's why.

Repulsiveness

If I find all fat people physically repulsive, why do I refer to pretty/handsome fat people?

I stated that being 100 lbs overweight NEVER looks good. That's quite a stretch to 'physically repulsive.'

I don't recall making any statements to you to the effect that you are physically repulsive. I have referred to you as 'Tubby.' That, to me, is synonymous with 'Fat.'

Thin people who gorge themselves in private? You mean bulimics (glad I checked, thought it was bulemics)? If you would consider someone who is morbidly obese to have a problem/disorder similar in degree to your average bulimic, then we don't really disagree.

As far as when you binge, I don't really care. The fact that you do binge is all I needed to support my argument, thanks.

This is really going nowhere, but I'm happy to continue as long as need be.

2640. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 3:39:21 AM

Re 2633

Could somebody please translate 'Excessive caloric intake' for JJ?

And while you're at it, get the stats on what percentage of the population suffers from those 3, rather obscure, 'syndromes.' If it's more than 1 tenth of 1 percent of the population (for all 3 combined) I'll be shocked. If it's more than 1 percent of the population, I'll concede the argument entirely.

2641. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 3:53:46 AM

Well, I turn 30 in 3 hours (well, really 10+ hours, but legally 3 hours) so I'm outta here.

2642. msgreer - 3/22/2001 8:06:44 AM

Jon

This has nothing with JJ. Find another word, got it? You don't like my rules, take it to higher authorities.

2643. msgreer - 3/22/2001 3:30:22 PM

My apology to all other Moties posting on weight issues. It is a very important discussion. However, I find myself unable to NOT to say something when the word "retard" or "retarded" is used. I do not apologize for these feelings. So, please, don't let what I said to Jon Fergeson get in the way of the discussion. I'm at work and do not have the time to get into the dialogue. I hope to this weekend. I will say one thing. If Jon or anyone else thinks the majority of people are overweight because they sit home eating pon-pons and watching soap operas they are misguided and judgemental.

2644. PsychProf - 3/22/2001 4:27:55 PM

OBESITY

click on image

2645. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 4:37:06 PM

It's the pretty/handsome fat people that are truly pathetic.

Not nearly as pathetic as someone who makes a remark like this one.

2646. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 4:37:33 PM

Bravo, JF.

An outsanding series of posts. You are to be commended.

2647. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 4:48:07 PM

Yes, JF...you ARE quite nimble with words. I'm sure it's a talent you've developed over time.

How do you feel about people with those disgusting hairy backs or those noses which curve down a little too much? Or how about bald people? Do they offend your eyes so much you must turn away?

2648. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 4:49:59 PM

But I do appreciate your looking up the stats on female gynecologists...thanks!

2649. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 4:52:07 PM

Judith:

I believe you must read what JF has written. Most obesity not genetic. It is a result of poor eating and exercise habits.

2650. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 5:27:39 PM

Jade:

I did read what Jon wrote. I read back to the beginning of the discussion. I find Jons opinions to be very rigid and his manner to be rude; he used the word "disgusting" in connection with fat people so many times I lost count...and mostly because they offended his sight.

I don't care how people become overweight...for someone to act as though a fat persons very existance is an affrount to his sensibilities shows an extreme attitude and a lack of tolerance I find unhealthy.

Jon brags about being introspective...I don't see it bringing about positive results.

And for what it's worth, I happen to know for a fact that many medications add weight...contraceptives can do it, as can pain meds and numerous others.

2651. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 5:36:01 PM

Thanks JG

Sorry I hit too close to home, JAH

Thanks for the statistics on Cushing's syndrome, PP. Ten people per million. Or 1 thousandth of one percent of the population.

I think we can safely eliminate that red herring.

2652. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 5:36:54 PM

Judith:

Obesity is unsightly. It also drives up healthcare costs for everyone. It is also, in most cases, preventable.

We're not talking about a problem somebody is born with. We're speaking about a problem a person develops through their actions or inactions.

I'd suggest the effects of medications and drugs are not as prevalent as you suggest. Be aware we're talking about obesity, not someone who is carrying around an extra 10 pounds.

2653. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 5:38:54 PM

Sorry I hit too close to home, JAH

Look, sweetheart, you aren't even in the same neighborhood much less near "home".

2654. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 5:43:47 PM

Be aware we're talking about obesity

I think seeing the term "morbid obesity" was the clue that we were talking about obesity.

2655. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 5:43:59 PM

I would add parents who have obesity problems, due to poor diet and exercise habits, are quite likely passing these same problems on to their children.

2656. christipeters - 3/22/2001 5:51:53 PM

Jade - my doctor disagrees with that. I have posted this before in other places. He told me that there are several studies showing done using adopted kids showing that kids raised in an adopted family of healthy eating exercise-nuts whose biological parents were overweight end up as overweight adults. Conversely kids raised in adopted families that are sedentary junk-food junkies, but whose biological parents were thin, end up as thin adults. He said when the studies were started, they expected the opposite result. He also said that there have been quite a few studies to indicate that genetics has way more to do with the adult weight of the vast majority of people than is commonly accepted. He doubted that these studies will ever get much media attention because no one can make much money over the fact that you are fat because your parents and grandparents are fat.

Of course, he added that it doesn't mean that there is nothing that can be done about being overweight. It does mean that it is much more difficult than is commonly thought, that it is unreasonable for the person with overweight ancestors to expect to maintain a weight "according to the charts", and that doctors need to look at the individual and their specific weight and health in context.

So, for example, someone whose parents and grandparents are all overweight may have to work very hard to maintain a weight of, say 20 lbs "too much" (re:the charts), may easily maintain a weight of, say 30-40 lbs "too much", and may only be able to reach their "ideal" (chart) weight through drastic measure which are themselves damaging to their health.

BTW, JF, I do not smoke or drink, I eat 1500 calories or less each day, and I walk for 30 minutes 5 or more days a week. However, I am 90 lbs over what that chart says I should weigh and 70 lbs over what my doctor and my past experience say is a good weight for me.

2657. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 5:53:17 PM

Judith, try not to be so emotional.

Here's what you wrote:

My opinions are rigid.

So what? Are JJ's and Chris' any less so? Is having rigid opinions either a bad thing or particularly uncommon around here?

My manner is rude.

It can be at times, but it hasn't been particularly so in this conversation. Both JJ and particularly MsGreer have been far ruder. So what? It's a subject that animates people. If others wish to be rude, good for them.

I am not particularly disgusted with how fat people look, I am disgusted with anybody who actively seeks to avoid responsibility for the choices they make by blaming factors beyond their control. I'm sorry you can't seem to see the distinction.

You say you don't care how fat people become overweight. Well, honey, maybe you missed it, but that's exactly what we've been arguing about. If you don't know or don't care, perhaps you don't have a lot to contribute to the discussion.

Nowhere do I brag about being introspective. I say I'm my own worst critic. Why would I brag about that?

Where has anyone disputed that certain medications tend to stimulate appetite or lower metabolism? As JG says, we're not talking about 10 or 15 extra pounds. And I've repeatedly said that there is a very small group of obese people who have a valid 'excuse'. Most don't.

2658. christipeters - 3/22/2001 5:56:54 PM

JF - I do not think MsGreer was rude to you. She merely asked that you not use certain terms when posting on this thread. She is the moderator for this thread and has the right to make decisions on what is and is not allowed.

2659. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 6:22:16 PM

Christi

Please stop tearing down arguments I haven't made.

As the moderator, she can indeed make decision on what is and is not allowed. Nowhere do I say otherwise.

Her tone was rude. She has an irrational hang-up about a certain word. I had forgotten that and wasn't even aware that I had, in fact, posted the word. She should adopt a more pleasant demeanor when enforcing her hang-up. But she has every right to be rude.

It would be like if I said:

Christi you are a fucking liar. No human adult non-amputee on earth can consistently consume only 1500 calories a day over an extended period of time, while staying active and exercising regularly, and maintain a body weight that is considered 70-90 pounds in excess of ideal.

But see, unlike some people around here, I have way too much class to do that.

2660. christipeters - 3/22/2001 6:33:08 PM

Well, saying "it would be like if I said.... and then saying it and adding you have "too much class to do that" isn't very classy at all. You just did say it. Your bracketing comments don't change that.

See, that's your problem, JF. If someone states something that doesn't match your predjudices, they must be a "fucking liar". I am not a liar and your calling me one does not make it so.

2661. christipeters - 3/22/2001 6:36:02 PM

BTW, how on earth is:

"Please feel free to post anything you want in this thread. However, the word "retard" or "retarded" are not allowed in this thread."

Was it just the "Got me?" at the end?

Would it have not seemed rude if she had left that off or said "Understand me?" instead?

(just wondering)

2662. pogie - 3/22/2001 6:41:09 PM

There are people who cannot lose weight eating 1000 calories per day, which just goes back the theory that their bodies are just too darn efficient at using calories.

Random inquiry: about what size is a chick five six and 130ish?

2663. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 7:08:54 PM

JF is correct, though he might have emphasized his point more tactfully.

If you are eating 1500 calories per day (less than 30% of which are fat calories) and you're exercising a half hour three times a week or more, you will lose weight.

I've heard similar tales from people, only to discover their exercise is non-existent and their 1500 calorie/day diet only extends to 2 or 3 days per week.

2664. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 7:12:23 PM

That sounds like a good weight for a female that height...maybe a little underweight.

But I suppose there are those who would consider anything but 100lbs soaking wet in heavy wool clothes to be morbibly obese.

Naturally, those people are probably thin.

2665. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 7:12:24 PM

A fitness trainer friend told me of a similar story involving one of is clients.

The client was exercising 4 times a week under the peurview of the trainer and claimed to be eating fewer than 2000 calories each day. He wasn't losing weight.

Turns out, the client neglected to mention the sixpack he was drinking every night.

2666. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 7:49:50 PM

Most people are woefully uneducated about diet.

Probably the biggest mistake I see in people trying to watch their weight is the trip to the salad bar. They think they're health-conscious because they're eating salad and a few veggies. But they're also loading up fat calories when they add the bacon, cheese, croutons, crunchies, and a couple of ladles of dressing.

2667. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 7:53:34 PM

Jade:

People who are serious about their calorie counts know this...they also know alchohol has to be counted.

If they are serious about weight maintainence or loss, they will also count carbohydrates and fat grams.

2668. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 7:54:20 PM

alcohol...see, I get careless just thinking about it!

2669. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:04:57 PM

Judith

You can't spell. We all know that. It's not the typos 'morbibly' and 'alchohol' that you need to worry about any more than I worry about leaving the 's' off decisions in 2659.

Concentrate on words like 'maintenance'.

2670. Fielding - 3/22/2001 8:06:39 PM

Looks like Mr. "self-evident" has a pedantic streak.

2671. christipeters - 3/22/2001 8:07:10 PM

riiiiight

JF and JG know more about my life and lifestyle than I do.

Uh huh.

While what you say may be true of most people, it is not true of all people. It is not true of more people than what those who make money off the diet and fitness industry would like us to believe.

However, a conversation with people who assert that what I post about myself must be lies is less than futile.

Bye.

2672. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:11:16 PM

Judith:

You'd be surprised. I've seen people, supposedly dieting and using the little food scales, who drink 4-5 cokes a day. Or think all condiments are calorie-free.

Personally, I think calorie-counting is detrimental to the successful diet; it just focuses people on what they cannot have.

My advice is to use the plans suggested by Dr. Gabe Mirkin or Bill Phillips.

2673. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:11:39 PM

And Christi, if you're a dwarf (an exception I overlooked,) sorry for what I might have said if I didn't have so much class. (g)

Just out of curiosity, how tall are you?

2674. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:14:35 PM

CP:

If you have some kind of thyroid or medical problem, maybe you can't lose the weight.

Otherwise, based on what you've said, you have to be losing weight.

2675. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:16:07 PM

Fielding

I don't know you and I don't know why you enjoy embarrassing yourself by your constant refrain that self-evident has no meaning or that my usage of it was improper. It's in the dictionary (click on the Merriam-Webster link on the home page):

One entry found for self-evident.


Main Entry: self-ev·i·dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt, -"dent
Function: adjective
Date: 1671
: evident without proof or reasoning
- self-ev·i·dent·ly adverb

Now run along.

2676. Fielding - 3/22/2001 8:20:19 PM

Now that you know what it means, you can try to use it properly. At the very least, you might reconsider your posts correcting others.

2677. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 8:21:31 PM

Jon:

I think possibly everyone knows I can't spell...it is evident in my posts, just as some things about you are evident in yours.

2678. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:24:03 PM

Now that you know what it means, go back and read the post in which I used it.

Attempting to prove that your stupidity might be exceeded by your stubbornness is an interesting tactic, but I don't think it will succeed.

2679. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:26:48 PM

Judith

Isn't that what I just said? Perhaps you missed my point, in which case I'll spell it out for you a little more explicitly.

You needn't feel obligated to correct every typo that you make, particularly when such typos are greatly outnumbered by legitimate spelling errors that you consistently overlook.

2680. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 8:27:41 PM

Jade & Jon - Did either of you happen to read the link PP provided in 2644? If you have I don't see how you can persist in your positions. You may believe that diet and lack of exercise are the primary causes of obesity, but the scientific studies say otherwise. If you would like to refute the facts offered by that link, then by all means do so. If you can provide a source of information that supports your beliefs, then please provide one. Simply restating your misguided beliefs does nothing for this conversation. You have been show scientific evidence that refutes your position. Are either of you going to provide a shred of scientific evidence or are you going to continue to stamp your feet and insist you are right.

2681. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 8:27:56 PM

Thank you so very much. I appreciate your concern.

2682. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 8:29:37 PM

That last post was to Jon...I won't attempt to spell his full name as I don't want to butcher it.

2683. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:35:22 PM

Wiener:

I read PP's link. I don't believe you did.

It very clearly points up the fact that taking in more calories than you expend leads to weight gain. It also mentions that small fractions of people may suffer medical disorders where they gain weight despite sticking to rigid diet and exercise regimens.

In virtually all cases, however, obesity is caused by poor diet combined with a lack of exercise. It's amazing you cannot grasp this very elementary idea.

2684. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:39:14 PM

Further, you claim to need "scientific evidence" to see this elementary idea. Yet, you blithely accept CP's and CO's claims as to their diet and exercise regimens and base most of your findings upon whether or not a man would want "to get into her pants."

Excuse me, Doctor Salk.

2685. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:39:28 PM

JAH

Interestingly enough, you have butchered it in the past. You've called me Jonathon. (shudder)

JJ

Here's a great piece from PP's link (emphasis mine):

Q: How common is PWS?

A: It is estimated that one in 12,000 to 15,000 people has PWS. Although considered a "rare" disorder, Prader-Willi syndrome is one of the most common conditions seen in genetics clinics and is the most common genetic cause of obesity that has been identified. PWS is found in people of both sexes and all races.

So the most common genetic cause of obesity that has been identified (rather than imagined) affects less than 1 hundredth of one percent of the population and yet JJ claims that obesity is invariably and unavoidably caused by bad genes.

How interesting.

2686. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 8:40:25 PM

JG

2684 was priceless, thank-you. (g)

2687. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:43:05 PM

No, thank you, JF.

2688. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 8:52:48 PM

Jade - In virtually all cases, however, obesity is caused by poor diet combined with a lack of exercise. It's amazing you cannot grasp this very elementary idea.

Maybe if you read past the first paragraph you won't look like such an idiot. You obviously missed this paragraph:

Twin and adoptee studies indicate that there is a strong genetic basis for obesity. Studies on large populations of adopted children show that there is no relationship between body weight and adoptive parents, but a close correlation with biological parents. Studies on monozygotic (identical) twins show a much stronger correlation in body weight than between other siblings or dizygotic (fraternal) twins. Researchers vary in their opinion on the weight genetics plays in energy regulation, but genetic factors can account for as much as 80 percent.

If you had bothered to click on the link for genetics you would have read this:

The size and shape of the human body, like hair color and eye color, is greatly influenced by heredity. The proportion and amount of fat on the body is part of evolutionary adaptation to the environment. Being fat is not, as some would have us think, a "disease," but is instead caused by a combination of hereditary traits and the body's natural response to the environment.

And this:

Many studies have shown a consistent correlation between heredity and fat. These studies show that where both parents were fat, 80% of their children, even if not raised by their genetic parents, were also fat. Only 9% were fat when both parents were lean. When only one parent was heavy, 40% of the children were heavy too (Roberts 1988, Stunkard et al. 1986). Another study found that twins, regardless of whether they were reared apart of in the same home environment, were about 70% likely to weigh the same (Stunkard et al. 1990).

2689. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 8:53:25 PM

And this:

The myth that a person who is fat eats more or differently has not been proven by studies. In fact, at least twenty studies have tried to show fat people eat more, or less nutritionally. Nineteen found that fat people eat the same or less than thinner people. Only one study found a higher consumption by fat participants (Dyrenforth et al. 1980:45). Although over-eating does exist, there are thin and fat people who overeat or binge and there are many fat people who eat less than thin people (Bennet & Gurin 1982; Dryenforth et al. 1980, Polivy & Herman, 1985).

And this:

Given what we know about the genetic nature of the natural weight range and its positive role in helping humans adapt to harsh climates, dieting is at best unproductive and often dangerous. It is not that a person is necessarily "born to be fat" but that the metabolism of some persons is more efficient. It is this mechanism that we believe causes the eventual weight gain in yo-yo dieting. In this context, being fat is not a "disease" or malfunction, but is, instead an adaptive response to the environment with some positive side-effects.

None of this supports your claim. Do you want to persist or are you willing to admit you have been mistaken?

2690. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 8:56:08 PM

Jon - You have an amazing ability to see only what you want to see. Please read 2688-9 and explain how that supports your claims.

2691. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 8:58:22 PM

Wiener:

I read the link. Posting it in its entirety does not support your erroneous position.

A genetic predisposition does not necessarily guarantee a person will become obese. Some say alcoholism is gentically-based; I guarantee one will become alcoholic if they don't drink alcohol.


Similarly, if you pay attention to a diet and exercise regimen, you will not become obese barring any medical problem.

2692. Fielding - 3/22/2001 9:00:53 PM

JF:

Now that you know what it means, go back and read the post in which I used it."

You're too lazy to get it yourself, so I'll post it here.

"It is self-evident that less than 1% of the U.S. population would be African American if not for slavery." (Note this is from yesterday's Current events thread.)

The definition that you quoted is

"evident without proof or reasoning"

Thus, self-evident does not mean "a fact which JF is too lazy to prove".

"Self-evident" means a fact that is evident from the statement itself (something like "WASPs are white") or something that is taken as a philosophical given ("We hold these truths as self-evident") or something that is taken on faith ("I'll take Fielding's distaste for pedantics like JF as self-evident"). It does not mean a hypothesis that you could probably prove if you were reasonably intelligent.

Face it, you are dead wrong.

Now stop correcting other people's spelling you lazy hypocrite!

2693. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 9:03:56 PM

Jade - The information above says otherwise. Gee, who am I going to believe, the researchers who have studied this problem for years, or you?

There is far more than genetic predisposition. This has been documented in numerous studies. If you want to stick your head in the sand you are welcome to do so.

2694. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:04:16 PM

There should be a 'not' between 'will' and 'become' in my last.

2695. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:05:57 PM

Wiener:

You may continue to eat Ho-Ho's until they extrude from your ears and you can blame your weight problem on genetics.

2696. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 9:06:10 PM

Excuse me, but I have made no claims whatsoever about my diet not making me fat. What I said was that the deadly blood-pressure and high cholesterol bogeymen are not a hard and fast rule of being fat and that the moronic insistance of people in a position to know better has seriously jeopardized the health of countless people.


I never claimed that I don't consume more calories than my body needs. What I said was that I don't sit around bingeing day in and day out and sitting on the couch. My blood pressure is excellent, my cholesterol is fine and yet it's my skinny friend who's on the fast track to a heart attack.


I think less people would be defensive about being fat if it weren't such a priority on the part of others to attack them for being fat.

Skinny un-fit folks don't get accosted on street corners and the subway and told that they're disgusting because they have no muscle tone. They aren't called losers for not going to the gym. They can be as un-fit as fat people and yet it's the fat folk who get the epithets.

There's no rationality to such behavior. It's plain old prejudice and ignorant cruelty. Such idiocy is irritating in laypeople but completely unacceptable in health-care professionals.

2697. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 9:08:51 PM

Fielding

Why do you think I used 'self-evident' in that context?

Because the assertion I was making is unprovable, you shmuck. We can only speculate about what might have happened if slavery had not existed. I can't prove the assertion. It has nothing to do with laziness. It has to do with my unfortunate inability to create alternate universes in which I can test my theories.

My usage was perfectly proper. Your criticism is almost incoherent. Your insults are laughable.

Now please, run along, or take this to the Inferno. You've embarrassed yourself enough for one day.

2698. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:09:12 PM

I find it amusing that flaming Repugs like Wiener will disparage minorities and the poor for being lazy and unwilling to pursue success.

Yet, when Wiener looks down and can't tell what color his shoes are, it's 'genetic.'

2699. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 9:15:45 PM

Some say alcoholism is gentically-based; I guarantee one will not become alcoholic if they don't drink alcohol


Alchoholism isn't determined by whether one drinks or doesn't drink. It's a disease determined by the effect of alcohol on the individual. An abstaining alcoholic is still an alcoholic. It's why you don't get to ever say you're "cured" but rather a "recovering alcoholic" even 30 years after you get your first chip.

2700. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:20:10 PM

A different point altogether, CO. I suspect you understand that.

2701. mgleason - 3/22/2001 9:20:51 PM

From the OED:

self-evident a. requiring no proof or further explanation; obvious; axiomatic.

2702. ChristinO - 3/22/2001 9:23:04 PM

Sorry, jade, was 2700 in response to 2696 or 2699?

2703. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:36:21 PM

2699, CO.

Naturally, I take issue with 2696 as well. Health problems caused by excessive weight are not always immediate or apparent through common benchmarks as blood pressure or cholesterol readings.

2704. Fielding - 3/22/2001 9:52:56 PM

"Why do you think I used 'self-evident' in that context?

Because the assertion I was making is unprovable, you shmuck. We can only speculate about what might have happened if slavery had not existed.

You keep getting this wrong. Before I thought you were being boneheaded, but now I see that you're just stupid.

Self-evident does not mean "unprovable". The following facts are unprovable, but are not self-evident: The 2001 year end Dow Jones Industrial average; The name of the first person to use fire; The number of black holes in the universe; The menu for the second-to-last meal; The number of brain cells left in your head.

Moreover, the fact that you stated as "self-evident" is open to analysis. An intelligent person could make a very compelling argument based on immigration patterns and demographics that if not for slavery, the population of African Americans would be less than 1%. Self-evident doesn't mean "something I'm too lazy to try to prove".

In any case, you used it wrong. Which would be no big deal if you weren't at the same time a pedantic and an irritant.

2705. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 9:58:13 PM

Is this really appropriate for this thread, Fielding?

Doesn't Jenerator require your fawning obsequiousness somewhere?

2706. Fielding - 3/22/2001 10:00:28 PM

I wish.

2707. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 10:46:18 PM

Jade - You may continue to eat Ho-Ho's until they extrude from your ears and you can blame your weight problem on genetics.

I haven't even mentioned my weight, and I am not even sure what a Ho-Ho is.

I find it amusing that flaming Repugs like Wiener will disparage minorities and the poor for being lazy and unwilling to pursue success.

I have disparaged no one.

Yet, when Wiener looks down and can't tell what color his shoes are, it's 'genetic.'

I have never claimed anything about my weight. Genetics has a great deal to with my weight just as it does with yours. My weight was caused my Cushing's syndrome. Since I have been off prednisone I have lost 70 lbs without changing my lifestyle or eating habits.

It is nice to see that you are still true to form. When it becomes obvious that you can't support your claims you resort to lies and insults. You are a truly pathetic individual.

2708. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 10:54:08 PM

I have a syndrome.

Don't you love it when Repugs engage in victimology?

2709. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 10:55:45 PM

Fielding

An intelligent person could make a very compelling argument based on immigration patterns and demographics that if not for slavery, the population of African Americans would be less than 1%.

That's exactly why it's self-evident (at least, to me), you imbecile. It is still unprovable. And nowhere do I say that 'unprovable' is synonymous with 'self-evident', so please stop arguing against something I have never asserted.

MsGreer

Sorry to continue this off-topic demolition of Fielding. I have asked him to take it elsewhere and yet he persists. Feel free to move this discussion to Language or the Inferno. Thanks.

2710. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 10:56:08 PM

Jade - Victimology? From a medication? What an absurd person you are.

2711. jadegold1 - 3/22/2001 10:57:17 PM

I may be absurd, Wiener.

But I'll never be obese.

2712. JJBiener - 3/22/2001 11:03:52 PM

Jade - I may be absurd, Wiener. But I'll never be obese.

Take 40 mg of Prednisone for a year and get back to me on that.

2713. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 11:10:31 PM

Why is it assumed that anyone engaged in this discussion is obese? Can't people talk about the subject without being overweight? Or does that only apply to Jade and Jon...the rest of us are fat because we disagree with them?

2714. arkymalarky - 3/22/2001 11:22:28 PM

I am a slug. I eat lots of junk food. I consider it exercise to trek up the stairs to the computer. I'm not obese, though.

2715. Fielding - 3/22/2001 11:22:30 PM

JF:

"That's exactly why it's self-evident (at least, to me)"

Words have meanings, dipshit. You can't just make them up as you go along.

2716. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 11:27:29 PM

Hi arky.

Could you please explain what self-evident means to Fielding?

I think you have more experience (given your state of residence) communicating with delusional inbred hillbillies than I do.

Thanks.

2717. JudithAtHome - 3/22/2001 11:30:42 PM

Why don't you read mgleasons defination from the OED, Jon? It makes the meaning self-evident.

2718. Jon Ferguson - 3/22/2001 11:32:25 PM

I obviously know what it means, Judith. I explained it to Fielding. I then explained why it makes perfect sense in the context I used it. He still doesn't get it.

I need to bring out the experts in the clean white coats now.

2719. arkymalarky - 3/22/2001 11:33:32 PM

Hey Jon.

No way am I getting dragged into that one. Besides, the delusional inbred hillbillies in AR are quite a bit north of here.

2720. seadate - 3/22/2001 11:33:49 PM

Arky,

Maybe you should explain who the great people of New York voted as a new resident.

2721. JJBiener - 3/23/2001 1:01:27 AM

I think Jade and Jon suffer from pocrescophobia. It would explain their irrational response to the subject of obesity.

2722. Fielding - 3/23/2001 3:17:48 AM

JJ:

"I think Jade and Jon suffer from pocrescophobia. It would explain their irrational response to the subject of obesity."

Its self-evident!

2723. JJBiener - 3/23/2001 5:35:59 AM

Fielding - Indeed!

2724. JadeGold1 - 3/23/2001 11:35:35 PM

I think Jade and Jon suffer from pocrescophobia.

No. I have a syndrome. It causes me to retch involuntarily at the sight of fat boys who get Xmas cards from Hostess and haven't broken a sweat in 20 years.

2725. JJBiener - 3/24/2001 5:44:01 AM

Jade - Most people would be ashamed to admit they are as petty and shallow as you are. You seem to wear it as a badge of honor. How truly sad for you.

2726. msgreer - 3/24/2001 8:16:08 PM

In our Sunday paper, the article above the fold reads "Arrests are rare in abuse of elderly. "The arrest of an Englewood assisted living adminsitrator on elder abuse charges was a rare
case of an employee, especially one in such a high position, being charged with a crime. Officials charged with regulating elderly care home in Florida say they can't recall a similar case. A spokesman with the Association of Florida Trial Lawyers agreed. Elderly victims usually can't say who hurt them or how and nursing home employees rarely turn on one another.

2727. msgreer - 3/24/2001 8:24:12 PM

If abused or neglect is charged, employees who administer care, such as nurses aides, usually are blamed. Providing their actions are criminal is rarely pursued. The matter usually is settled with a fine, a citations or an order that prohibits the employee from working in health-care facilities. But prosecutors say Torchwood Assisted Living Home administrator Lynda Cox is responsible for what happen to Donald Holden on Dec. 10. They arrested her last week, charging her with neglecting the 89 year old Alzheimer' patient. Prosecutors say when Holden fell and broke his hip, aides left him on the floor for five hours before moving him into a bed, where they left him for another five hours before calling his son, who lived nearby. Holden died four days later of surgical complications. The nurses aides - the main witnesses against Cox - said their boss repeatedly told them to leave Holden on the floor instead of calling 911."

And it goes on. The lawyer for Cox says the aides should have known to call 911 without an okay from her. However, Cox eventually made it to Torchwood to see Holden, then had 911 called.

2728. thoughtful - 3/27/2001 5:40:28 PM

jj, thought of you yesterday as I was reading the health section in the Washington post which noted a study on the use of infliximab (Remicade) and the treatment of Crohn's disease. Full study available at http://www.east.elsevier.com/ajg/frames/thismnth.htm

2729. bloodnfire - 3/29/2001 3:13:39 AM

MsGreer. "Wit", the T.V. Movie with Emma Thompson concerning the terminal cancer patient, started fifteen minutes ago as I type. It looks outstanding. It's on H.B.O.(P). Thanks so much for the recommendation.

2730. wonkers2 - 3/29/2001 4:25:09 AM

Wish we had HBO. Emma Thompson's great.

2731. bloodnfire - 3/29/2001 4:56:11 AM

That was as magnificent performance as I have ever seen. Great direction by Mike Nichols as well. It so clearly illustrated the callous indifference of the clinical doctors, which was MsGreer's point in her original recommendation, as I remember.

2732. msgreer - 3/29/2001 5:38:49 AM

blood

Emma wrote the screenplay with Nichols. I thought it was brilliant. I wanted to give Jason a hit in the head.

2733. msgreer - 3/29/2001 5:40:53 AM

Emma was brilliant. It is on HBO tonight. wonkers, if you know someone with HBO have them tape it for you. I think you would like it.

2734. JJBiener - 3/29/2001 5:46:04 AM

MsGreer - I still haven't decided if I can watch it. It sounds like it's heavier than I want to deal with right now. I will probably watch it eventually. I am just not sure when.

2735. msgreer - 3/29/2001 5:49:36 AM

JJ - It will be around for awhile. It is "heavy".
It takes one on quite an emotional ride. The healthcare professionals she has to deal with should all be hung up by their b****.

2736. JJBiener - 3/29/2001 5:57:29 AM

Having had more than my share of experience with healthcare "professionals", I can relate all too well. Do you remember the old joke?

What is the difference between a doctor and God?





God doesn't think he's a doctor. (G)

2737. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 6:42:58 AM

I watched it and thought it was extremely realistic...some of the chemo scenes made me cringe. There were some posts about it in the Movies & Television thread yesterday. I thought the scenes of Emmas illness after chemo and beyond were devastating because I'd been through it with my son.

2738. msgreer - 3/29/2001 4:39:37 PM

Judith and other Wit viewers

I was just as disappointed with the behavior of the oncology nurse as I was Jason. She came over as sympathetic with facial expressions and afew touches of kindness. However, she never went face to face with the doctors. She never called them on their insensitivity. The best she did was to share a popsicle that the patient offered her.

All nurses are their patient's advocate. Shame on her for not advocating for her patient. Shame on her for not having the pain meds in order before the pain came to this patient.

Shame on her for continually closing the doors and pulling the drapes..how convenient for SOME oncology nurses.What you don't see you don't have to deal with. The isolation of this patient..well I found it devastating.

2739. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 4:43:46 PM

Sometimes I think there are two worlds in life, one with health and one with sickness, and at any specific point in time we can only be in and understand one or the other.

2740. Indiana Jones - 3/29/2001 4:46:31 PM

I agree, PP. Especially when it comes to serious and terminal illnesses.

2741. mgleason - 3/29/2001 4:50:37 PM

Intimations of mortality are always unwelcome.

2742. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 4:53:14 PM

msgreer:

You know more about these things than I but the nurse seemed compassionate to me, the viewer...I suppose in comparison to the doctors, she struck a positive note in my eyes.

I've heard of feisty nurses standing up to doctors and I've also heard of nurses looking for new jobs...

2743. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 4:56:54 PM

I think many of the disagreements on this page are fueled by the notion that "being ill" is not understood by some, and this causes palpable and predictable anger. There is a least a possible solution, and we have a word for it.

Main Entry: em·pa·thy
Pronunciation: 'em-p&-thE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek empatheia, literally, passion, from
empathEs emotional, from em- + pathos feelings,
emotion -- more at PATHOS
Date: 1904
1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into
an object so that the object appears to be infused
with it
2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being
sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings,
thoughts, and experience of another of either the past
or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and
experience fully communicated in an objectively
explicit manner

2744. msgreer - 3/29/2001 5:06:59 PM

Nice post PP. Thank You.

Judith a nurse can discuss a situation with any doctor without getting fired. It is too bad it takes so much ego building before you can bring up a subject to some doctors..male and female I might add. I have always believed everyone in the healthcare profession should have to check into a hospital every year, as part of their CEU's, for ten days. Without knowing what is wrong with them they would go through 10 days of testing. Ten days of cold food. 10 days of med mixups. Ten days of ringing the call bell to ask for assitance to the bathroom and wait 15 minutes before anyone comes. Let them have 10 days of vital sign q 4 hours so they are woken up all night. You get my idea.

It is tough in the healthcare profession. We are understaffed and the coming shortage of nurses will only complicated the situation.

2745. msgreer - 3/29/2001 5:09:05 PM

Judith

One way to ask a doctor a question "What would you do if this was your wife/husband/son/daughter?"

It does not require aggressive behavior for the family/nurse. Assertive yes, aggressive no.

2746. mgleason - 3/29/2001 5:15:32 PM

Prof,

You've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, empathy for the pain and suffering of others is the last thing many people wish to experience. Ostriches flourish among us, after all.

2747. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 5:29:54 PM

I saw a movie with William Hurt once where he played a doctor who was hospitalized...it made him a better doctor. That would be a good idea, msgreer....but I think 5 days would do it.:-)

2748. Shannon - 3/29/2001 5:39:02 PM

It's a shame there's no way to make medical professionals have to deal with taking their kid to the hospital, too--short of putting the kid through that misery, which of course you don't want to do. You'd think people who go into pediatric specialties would have some clue about kids.

2749. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 5:44:58 PM

Shannon:

When my son was ill, we had such good luck with the doctors and nurses who cared for him. The people I admire the most are the pediatric oncologists; it takes a special type of person to go into that field of medicene.

2750. Shannon - 3/29/2001 5:58:09 PM

That's great, Judith. Seems like most people I know who have had to deal with oncologists of any sort have liked them.

Really, it was just our neurologist who I had problems with. I comlained about her once to an old friend of mine who's a child psychologist and works with severely disabled children--she said neurologists were, in her experience, the worst child specialists in terms of basic consideration for the fact that they're dealing with little kids.

The NICU nurses were great, as was the neonatologist she saw in the hospital.

2752. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 7:08:34 PM

CalGal, people can have a difference of perspective and opinion without being insulting. You seem to be more harsh in your judgements of many of us lately.

2753. JJBiener - 3/29/2001 7:27:02 PM

CalGal - please don't confuse MsGreer's polemic with the movie

Just as they shouldn't confuse your polemic with MsGreer.

a respect and awareness that MsGreer apparently isn't capable of.

Respect and awareness haven't been your strong suit in recent days. I am not sure you should be throwing stones. I think you need to remove your own blinkers before you start criticizing others.

2754. mgleason - 3/29/2001 8:28:08 PM

And now for something completely different:

Phobias from A to Z

I have decided that I am a Walloonophobe, but only because I'm partial to the Flemings.

The Time article is called Fear Not!

2755. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 8:30:37 PM

I used to have braniffobia...fear of lost luggage; and dimplechinaphobia...fear of Kirk Douglas.

2756. vw - 3/29/2001 8:32:04 PM

My personal favorite is Aulophobia- fear of flutes.

2757. mgleason - 3/29/2001 8:33:41 PM

You're going to make me a badpunophobe, J.

2758. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 8:35:13 PM

Just doing my part. :-)

2759. seadate - 3/29/2001 8:41:50 PM

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

2760. seadate - 3/29/2001 8:43:27 PM

fear of long words

2761. mgleason - 3/29/2001 8:43:30 PM

I've invented one that's not on the list: pineaphobia (fear of pine cones). My husband gave them a wide berth as a child.

2765. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 9:06:53 PM

I deleted your post, Cal. Sorry. (g)

2768. JJBiener - 3/29/2001 9:54:10 PM

Cal - And JJ, if you note, I didn't demand that the medical community deserved respect.

And if you note, I never said you did. I addressed specifically your comment that MsGreer was incapable of respect and awareness. The point of my post was that you shouldn't take others to task for behavior you are engaging in yourself.

Respecting context has nothing to do with how polite one is.

That is good news for you since your rating on the polite meter has been in the dumper lately.

2769. CalGal - 3/29/2001 10:45:38 PM

I addressed specifically your comment that MsGreer was incapable of respect and awareness.

But that's the point. I didn't say she was I incapable of respect and awareness. I said that she was incapapable of respect and awareness of the context, which is entirely different thing.

I was not taking her to task for being rude. I was taking her to task for being ignorant--of the context, of the point, of all sorts of things.

But not for being rude or disrespectful.

2770. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 10:47:58 PM

Good lord....let it rest.

2771. CalGal - 3/29/2001 10:53:11 PM

Fine.

Back on topic, I thought the movie avoided all the simplistic cliches about mean doctors.

2772. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 10:55:49 PM

I wish I could have seen the film...but if it elicits responses as seen here it must be of substance.

2773. PelleNilsson - 3/29/2001 10:56:26 PM

From a novel by Len Deighton:

Old Carruthers and I had a very straightforward relationship. We hated each other. That meant we were exceedingly polite when engaging in conversation.

2774. CalGal - 3/29/2001 10:56:42 PM

I imagine it will be on video shortly. You don't get HBO?

2775. CalGal - 3/29/2001 10:58:09 PM

Pelle,

In my case, there is no relationship between my rudeness and my relative affection or lack thereof for someone.

But that's a great quote.

2776. PsychProf - 3/29/2001 11:00:27 PM

No Cal...dark ages at PP's.

2777. msgreer - 3/31/2001 2:42:39 AM

I am looking for someone to co-host this thread. Actually two people. I have taken on a major contact which will occupy the next three years of my life. I spoke with wabbit. wabbit suggested getting one or two Moties to co-host with me. Judith, are you out there? I was hoping you would be one Motie willing to take this on. If anyone is interested in co-hosting please let me know. Many thanks.

2778. msgreer - 3/31/2001 2:44:55 AM

Thoughtful and Rick..would either of you consider taking on co-hosting?

2779. msgreer - 3/31/2001 2:55:04 AM

I am around this weekend but back to a full schedule during the week. I will check this thread
in the evenings. Thanks again, folks.

2780. RickNelson - 3/31/2001 3:07:27 AM

Hi msgreer,

I'm not sure how good I would be with health issues msgreer. I'm interested in healt