Obesity risks higher than thought
MacKenzie
/21/1219262472405.html
Obesity risks higher than thought
Mark Metherell
August 22, 2008
AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than previously
thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart attack, stroke and
osteoarthritis, a new study has found.
The reassessment of obesity's impact in Australia found that 600,000 more
patients are suffering these diseases because of obesity than was estimated
in 2006.
Gary Deed, the president of Diabetes Australia, said yesterday he was
"alarmed" by the increase and said it highlighted the urgent need to
implement the counter-measures planned by the Federal Government.
The consulting firm Access Economics, which prepared the report for
Diabetes Australia, adjusted its 2006 estimates of obesity's link to
diseases on the basis of revised methods of estimation by the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare.
As a result of the adjustments, Access estimates that 23.8 per cent of type
2 diabetes cases are caused by obesity, more than double the 2006 estimate
of 10.8 per cent; obesity accounts for 21.8 per cent of cardiovascular
diseases, up from about 13 per cent; and 24.5 per cent of osteoarthritis
cases, up from 14 per cent.
Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was responding with
preventive campaigns but said there was a need for more urgency to promote
children's activity and healthier food promotion.
The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today staged by
the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett.
The latest findings were "deeply disturbing", Senator Barnett said. "It
highlights just how serious this issue is for people with these diseases."
There have also been rises, albeit lower, in the proportion of certain
types of cancer, including colorectal, breast, uterine and kidney cancers,
about 20 per cent of which are attributed to obesity, up from about 15 per
cent estimated in 2006.
There is also good news on the cancer front, with a separate report being
released today showing significant improvements in survival rates in
Australia.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's figures show between the
mid-1980s and the early 2000s, the relative chances of surviving five years
after a cancer diagnosis have risen from 41 per cent to 58 per cent for men
and from 53 per cent to 64 per cent for women.
The biggest increases in survival were for those aged in their 50s and 60s.
The best improvements were in prostate, kidney and breast cancers and
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Robin King
"MacKenzie" <mack...@downunder.com> wrote in message
news:200808220303...@outpost.zedz.net...
>
http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2008/08
> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than
previously
> thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart attack,
stroke and
> osteoarthritis, a new study has found.
> The reassessment of obesity's impact in Australia found that
600,000 more
> patients are suffering these diseases because of obesity than was
estimated
> in 2006.
How do they know it was because of obesity?
> As a result of the adjustments, Access estimates that 23.8 per cent
of type
> 2 diabetes cases are caused by obesity, more than double the 2006
estimate
> of 10.8 per cent;
That should send your warning flags up. More likely NIDD
causes obesity.in many people.
obesity accounts for 21.8 per cent of cardiovascular
> diseases, up from about 13 per cent; and 24.5 per cent of
osteoarthritis
> cases, up from 14 per cent.
>
> Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was responding
with
> preventive campaigns
Follow the money trail...
but said there was a need for more urgency to promote
> children's activity and healthier food promotion.
Good idea for all kids.
> There is also good news on the cancer front, with a separate report
being
> released today showing significant improvements in survival rates in
> Australia.
That might also be due to obesity, but you'll never find that
mentioned in the article.
>
> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's figures show
between the
> mid-1980s and the early 2000s, the relative chances of surviving
five years
> after a cancer diagnosis have risen from 41 per cent to 58 per cent
for men
> and from 53 per cent to 64 per cent for women.
>
> The biggest increases in survival were for those aged in their 50s
and 60s.
> The best improvements were in prostate, kidney and breast cancers
and
> non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Fatter people, higher survival rates. Definitely not
something that should shock regular readers here.
Robin
The Master
> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than previously
> thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart attack, stroke and
> osteoarthritis, a new study has found.
That's because Doctors believe every problem a fat person has is due to
their weight. So when we have a legitimate problem, it is ignored by
medical professionals. Once it becomes obvious that there is a major
problem, it is too late since the Doctor ignored the early warning signs.
Ragnar
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2...
Does anyone really believe this study isn’t based in bias? Even though
it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from the CDC.
It’s just propaganda as usual.
It’s just one more bullshit governmentally sponsored study that is
designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet pork barrel
(pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative. We’ve seen
this kind of shit before and there is nothing new here.
Everyone can go home the shows over.
Ragnar
Caleb
There's more money to be mad ignoring this study, so everyone can
continue to sell things to people. Not much money made in the simple
admonition: "Eat less than you're eating now."
Burger King, McDonalds, the beef lobby, etc. -- all do not like the
results of this study.
From my perspective, the basic study makes sense. That obesity is a
cause of many (but not all) of the health problems facing overweight
populations.
Yours,
Caleb
The Master
> From my perspective, the basic study makes sense. That obesity is a
> cause of many (but not all) of the health problems facing overweight
> populations.
I couldn't disagree more. From my perspective, Doctor's insistance that
obesity is the cause of most health problems causes them to ignore "early
warning signs" of legitimate health concerns. Once it becomes obvious
that weight is NOT the cause, it is too late.
As such, fat people don't get the preventative treatments that their
skinny counterparts got. This translates into a higher mortality rate for
the obese, and medical professionals shout "see, it's because they were
fat" rather then admit that the original doctor screwed up.
Studies like this are nothing more then a smoke screen to justify the poor
medical treatment obese people regularly get.
Caleb
wrote:
I think that my statement you quoted is correct:
> ... That obesity is a
> cause of many (but not all) of the health problems facing overweight
> populations.
It sure is a factor that has to be considered in looking at the
overall health of a person, including risks of strokes, heart attacks,
hypertension, etc.
Seems to me you may be saying several things:
1. That some medical providers look at an obese person and attribute
all of his or her health problems to obesity. (No additional medical
tests are done, no additional diagnoses are attempted, etc.) I agree
that this happens to some people, even as they have other underlying
conditions.
2. You also appear to be saying that there is NO relationship between
obesity and health problems and I think this is demonstrably false.
Obesity is clearly implicated in many health problems, often not the
only cause but a major contributor.
Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems,
that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly
obese, everything else being equal? That cancer risks would not be
higher? etc.
Yours,
Caleb
Frank Arthur
obese people are disgusting slobs. Their body odor is obnoxious.obese
people are greedy oinkers.fat people should be euthanized.
God bless you.
ps Ragnar sucks cock
Electrician
oinker activity
http://notsafeforkids.com/?page_id=1751
The Master
> 2. You also appear to be saying that there is NO relationship between
> obesity and health problems and I think this is demonstrably false.
I am saying that there are common problems between skinny and fat people,
who both exhibit "early warning signs". However, while skinny people are
taken seriously, fat people are brushed off as having to lose weight.
This DOES happen, as any fat person who has gone to the doctor will tell
you. As such, those common problems that affect both groups are left
untreated in fat people. Once it becomes a serious problem, THEN AND ONLY
THEN are they taken seriously, greatly increasing the chance of mortality.
Statistics of the mortality rates of obese people are skewed due to the
above fact of life. The deaths from non-weight related problems that are
left untreated due to poor medical care are included, making it impossible
to correctly calculate what affect just obesity has on mortality. In
other words, there are at least two variables, not just one.
> Obesity is clearly implicated in many health problems, often not the
> only cause but a major contributor.
That's the thing though. You can't tell how much of the problem really is
just because of weight, and how much of it is caused by idiot doctors not
taking fat people seriously until it's too late.
> Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems,
> that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly
> obese, everything else being equal?
I'm saying I don't know, because everything else is NOT equal. Can you
quantify the affect the different medical care has on the two groups? I
can't...
Imagine a study, where people who drink coke and don't smoke are tested
against people who drink water and do smoke. After the study is finished,
it is found that the smoking water drinkers have a higher risk of lung
cancer. So, is the lung cancer caused by the smoke, or the water?
We know it was the smoke, because we have other studies where smoke was
the ONLY variable. However, in my above hypothetical study, there were
two... I can just as easily say the cancer was caused by the water.
The Master
skinny
> people are disgusting
skinny
> people should be euthanized.
Corrected your post for you.
John A. Weeks III
<0bedb2b9-f51e-4229...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems,
> that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly
> obese, everything else being equal? That cancer risks would not be
> higher? etc.
Being both a large person and a health care professional, I think
it is pretty clear that their is a link between obesity and health
issues. But saying that their is a link is huge difference from
saying that there is a cause-effect relationship. In fact, some
of the more recent legitimate peer-reviewed research is starting
to suggest that for many overweight people, being large is the
result of a health problem, not the cause of the health problems.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
The Master
> When a very obese person is seen by a medical Doctor the doctor will
> very likely make note of the health risk that the excess weight
> carries
And most likely ignore the actual health complaint.
Skinny person - Gee Doctor, I'm a little out of breath.
Doctor - That's weird, let me run some tests.
Fat Person - Gee Doctor, I'm a little out of breath.
Doctor - It's because of your weight... NEXT!
Why can't the fat person get some tests too? What if they have the same
problem? While the skinny person gets tested, the problem discovered, and
treated properly, the fat person is told to go on a 1200 calorie diet.
Years later, the fat person is dead, and it's a "fat kills" statistic
rather then a "bad doctor" statistic.
Pramesh Rutaji
Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed
foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of
agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including
air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.)
and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large
role in the disease and aging process.
And, I haven't looked at it recently but anyone have any good URLs that
graph the estimated percentage oxygen content in the atmosphere over the
past million years or so?
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297ton...@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply
Rod Speed
No it isnt.
> that is designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet
> pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative.
Wrong again.
> We’ve seen this kind of shit before and there is nothing new here.
> Everyone can go home the shows over.
Just more of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
Rod Speed
> In article
> <0bedb2b9-f51e-4229...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems,
>> that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly
>> obese, everything else being equal? That cancer risks would not be
>> higher? etc.
>
> Being both a large person and a health care professional, I think
> it is pretty clear that their is a link between obesity and health
> issues. But saying that their is a link is huge difference from
> saying that there is a cause-effect relationship. In fact, some
> of the more recent legitimate peer-reviewed research is starting
> to suggest that for many overweight people, being large is the
> result of a health problem, not the cause of the health problems.
For bugger all, actually.
And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
Caleb
> John A. Weeks III <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <0bedb2b9-f51e-4229-82c5-a865f2feb...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
There's a Reuter's report of July 2008 which noted that the average
calorie intake for Americans is 3,770 calories a day. Aside from
whatever health problems people may have, a huge surplus in calories
explains almost all (if not all) of the increase in obesity over the
last few decades.
"If there's a hoofprint on the beach, look for a horse."
Yours,
Caleb
Dee Flint
"Always Learning" <noPubl...@this.time> wrote in message
news:t67ua49h84tpfavds...@zzz.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Ragnar
> <Ragnar...@hotmail.com> wrote this stuff here :
>
>>Even though
>>it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from the CDC.
>>It's just propaganda as usual.
>
> Many people fall for those CDC statistics like the one that says
> smoking causes lung cancer. I've smoked 3.5 packs per day for more
> than 22 years and have never even as much as coughed before.
>
>
Yeah so did my dad. However he developed lung cancer and other cancers in
his late 60s. You just haven't been at it long enough for your particular
body to rebel.
Robin King
news:a92655e8-fcd7-4a1b...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 22, 11:59 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
> > with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
Does it really?
Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased
organ?
What's the rate of regain? It must be high, if many go in for
a second surgery.
You don't hear a lot about the downside of the surgery,
(somebody's making a lot of $$$ off it), but it's most definitely
there.
> There's a Reuter's report of July 2008 which noted that the average
> calorie intake for Americans is 3,770 calories a day. Aside from
> whatever health problems people may have, a huge surplus in calories
> explains almost all (if not all) of the increase in obesity over the
> last few decades.
I am genuinely curious as to how this study was conducted.
Everybody seems to have an explanation for the so-called obesity
epidemic of which they're dead certain, and meanwhile nobody really
knows. As The Master said in another post, you can't tell what
obesity causes until you eliminate confounding factors like shoddy
medical treatment. You folks out there, fat and thin, should be
fighting for better medical treatment, since this would save us all
some health care bux.
> "If there's a hoofprint on the beach, look for a horse."
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
Robin
Caleb
Robin - -
The early citation you had -- about a lapband approach -- was not by
me, although I agree with the poster's views. Again the basic equation
is -- too many calories in and one puts on weight. Few enough calories
and one loses weight.
I'm a little surprised at the high number of calories too. But the
basic reasoning makes a lot of sense to me -- Americans and many
others are just taking in way, way too many calories. Overfeeding
animals works the same way -- they put on weight. Don't feed them and
they lose weight. Nothing mysterious. Lots more snack foods these
days. (Lotsa stuff that didn't exist in the 50's and 40's.) Lots more
fast foods with people eating out about 5 to 6 times a week. Calories
are cheap for BK, McDonald's, etc., to produce and all too fun for us
to consume.
About the smoking business -- yup! My mother died of Adult Respiratory
Distress Syndrome almost certainly caused by her many years of
cigarette smoking. Lotsa people denied the link between tobacco and
health problems, as was so humorously pointed out earlier. (cough!
cough!)
If we have to wait for the overweight-is-risky-deniers to agree on any
given study, we're going to have to wait for a long time. Until then,
more obesity, more diabetes 2, more heart disease, apnea,
hypertension, etc., etc.
Yours,
Caleb
Robin King
news:t67ua49h84tpfavds...@zzz.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT), Ragnar
> <Ragnar...@hotmail.com> wrote this stuff here :
>
> >it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from the
CDC.
> >It's just propaganda as usual.
>
> Many people fall for those CDC statistics like the one that says
> smoking causes lung cancer. I've smoked 3.5 packs per day for more
> than 22 years and have never even as much as coughed before.
What has one got to do with the other? That's your trouble -
it's the Always - you believe that either the CDC does everything
right or everything wrong. You should read about Katherine Flegal's
debunking of this grossly inflated statistic from the CDC. There's a
fascinating synopsis of it in _Rethinking Thin_, by Gina Kolata.
Robin
John A. Weeks III
Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed
> foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of
> agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including
> air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.)
> and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large
> role in the disease and aging process.
Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
If there was a quick fix for the weight problem, the problem would
go away quickly. All that we have proven so far is that diet does
not help the problem. Millions of people have spent millions of
accumulated years on diets, and the result is that nearly all end
up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
> And, I haven't looked at it recently but anyone have any good URLs that
> graph the estimated percentage oxygen content in the atmosphere over the
> past million years or so?
I hope you are not one of those crazy MLM'ers who are selling
oxygen drinks claiming to cure all ills because the earth is
running out of oxygen in the air. I had thought I had heard
it all until I ran into that group.
Rod Speed
> Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern
>> processed foods and eating options introduced at and since the
>> advent of agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple
>> sources including air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise
>> (running and prey, etc.) and food constantly available (never any
>> fasting) I think plays a large role in the disease and aging process.
>
> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
> If there was a quick fix for the weight problem,
There always has been. Dont put anymore into your mouth than you burn.
> the problem would go away quickly.
Nope, but it does go away at the same speed that the problem developed.
> All that we have proven so far is that diet does not help the problem.
Havent proven anything of the sort.
You dont get any fat people coming out of concentration camps except the guards.
There might just be a reason for that.
> Millions of people have spent millions of accumulated years on diets, and
> the result is that nearly all end up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
Because they are too stupid to shovel less into their mouths than they burn.
Rod Speed
Indeed it does.
> "If there's a hoofprint on the beach, look for a horse."
Depends on the detail of the hoofprint.
Rod Speed
> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
> Does it really?
Yep.
> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ?
There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity.
> What's the rate of regain?
Zero.
> It must be high, if many go in for a second surgery.
Wrong again. Some do get a botched job redone.
> You don't hear a lot about the downside of the surgery,
Thats because you dont listen/read in the right places.
> (somebody's making a lot of $$$ off it), but it's most definitely there.
Corse it is, just like with most surgery.
>> There's a Reuter's report of July 2008 which noted that the average
>> calorie intake for Americans is 3,770 calories a day. Aside from
>> whatever health problems people may have, a huge surplus in calories
>> explains almost all (if not all) of the increase in obesity over the
>> last few decades.
> I am genuinely curious as to how this study was conducted.
Usual way, you calculate the calories they shovel into their mouths.
> Everybody seems to have an explanation for the so-called obesity epidemic
> of which they're dead certain, and meanwhile nobody really knows.
Anyone with a clue knows that its shoveling more calories into your mouth than you burn over time.
> As The Master said in another post, you can't tell what obesity causes
> until you eliminate confounding factors like shoddy medical treatment.
Different matter entirely to the cause of obesity.
> You folks out there, fat and thin, should be fighting for better medical treatment,
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to not shovel more food into your mouth than you burn.
> since this would save us all some health care bux.
Wouldnt save me a cent.
Pramesh Rutaji
> In article <g8mtk...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed
>> foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of
>> agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including
>> air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.)
>> and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large
>> role in the disease and aging process.
>
> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
If one avoided everything that claims to kill someone, somehow,
somewhere, one might as well slit their wrist. If you think fitness is
worse than couchpotatoness, then have had it.
> If there was a quick fix for the weight problem, the problem would
> go away quickly. All that we have proven so far is that diet does
> not help the problem. Millions of people have spent millions of
> accumulated years on diets, and the result is that nearly all end
> up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
I didn't say there was a 'quick fix'. Reread while your downing your
processed carbs and watching TV reruns and claiming that lack of
exercise and poor nutrition have nothing to do with obesity and in fact
will kill you.
>> And, I haven't looked at it recently but anyone have any good URLs that
>> graph the estimated percentage oxygen content in the atmosphere over the
>> past million years or so?
>
> I hope you are not one of those crazy MLM'ers who are selling
> oxygen drinks claiming to cure all ills because the earth is
> running out of oxygen in the air. I had thought I had heard
> it all until I ran into that group.
>
> -john-
I sell nothing. I found what I was looking for. There are "some" that
claim that the oxygen content has changed dramatically in the recent
past but it appears that science currently estimates that over the past
several million years during the time period of man's most recently
evolution, the oxygen content is relatively unchanged. So, I made no
claim about oxygen content, only a query for a good graph. I found one.
Pramesh Rutaji
> accumulated years on diets, and the result is that nearly all end
> up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
Eating and living well is not a "diet", but a lifestyle. If you don't
want to live a healthy lifestyle but are only willing to apply a
temporary fix, then enjoy the consequences. If you cut calories and
then add them back, the consequences are entirely your own. Your
obesity is your own punishment.
John A. Weeks III
Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Sure you did. You stated that size is due to bad food, and disease
is caused by lack of exercise. Read it above--I quoted what you
wrote. That sounds like about as quick of a fix as I have ever
heard. My point is that if this was such a sure-fire solution,
then why did the icons of those approaches come to a sudden and
young death. Perhaps there are more factors that what you or the
current state of modern medicine is aware of at this date.
teachrmama
"Pramesh Rutaji" <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:g8p6j...@news3.newsguy.com...
> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> In article <g8mtk...@news5.newsguy.com>,
>> Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed
>>> foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of
>>> agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including
>>> air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.)
>>> and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large
>>> role in the disease and aging process.
>>
>> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
>> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
>> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
>> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
>> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
>
> If one avoided everything that claims to kill someone, somehow, somewhere,
> one might as well slit their wrist. If you think fitness is worse than
> couchpotatoness, then have had it.
No, no. Slitting the wrist has definitely been found to kill--best avoid
that, too.
Robin King
>
> > If there was a quick fix for the weight problem, the problem would
> > go away quickly. All that we have proven so far is that diet does
> > not help the problem. Millions of people have spent millions of
> > accumulated years on diets, and the result is that nearly all end
> > up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
Um, how about not considering weight a problem in the first
place, except at extremes of high and low?
Instead, we can concentrate on things like physical fitness,
eating well, and putting an end to size discrimination.
If this is too much off topic, let's continue it in ssf-a, and
keep the diet stuff to the diet newsgroups. Somebody keeps xposting,
probably a troll looking to start a flamewar.
Robin
Steeler fans suck
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Frank Arthur wrote:
>
> skinny
>
>> people are disgusting
>
> skinny
>
>> people should be euthanized.
>
> Corrected your post for you.
No you dumbass cocksucker, you changed the post because you're too
fucking stupid to author your own
Have a doughnut fatso
Pramesh Rutaji
> Instead, we can concentrate on things like physical fitness,
> eating well, and putting an end to size discrimination.
Physical fitness and eating well is good.
But, not every ride at Disneyland should be required to accommodate
obesity without limit. I support airlines that charge grossly obese
people double fares - they don't have a right to occupy the space I've
paid for.
Pramesh Rutaji
Actually, you can't read or are blind or both. I gave probable reasons
for being overweight and didn't make any projections on the timely
effectiveness of solutions. I said nothing about "disease" either.
There is no magic pill or 'quick fix' for being overweight and one
cannot expect that being overweight is not without health consequences.
The answer is ultimately to stop eating more shit than you shit out
and get more exercise than the path between the fridge and the couch.
> That sounds like about as quick of a fix as I have ever
> heard.
I get it, you define "quick fix" in terms of years.
Robin King
> Robin King wrote:
>
> > Instead, we can concentrate on things like physical
fitness,
> > eating well, and putting an end to size discrimination.
>
> Physical fitness and eating well is good.
>
> But, not every ride at Disneyland should be required to accommodate
> obesity without limit.
?? - Never said they should. If they can accommodate, say, 98%
of their visitors, that should be enough.
I support airlines that charge grossly obese
> people double fares
I don't because very few fat people need an entire extra seat.
Airlines will make seats as small as they can get away with. Years
ago, seats were larger. Now the population is heavier and the seats
have become smaller. What's wrong with this picture?
- they don't have a right to occupy the space I've
> paid for.
If you didn't use part of your space, would you ask for a
partial refund?
I do sympathize with you, though. When there's so little
space available, we become very protective of the tiny portion we do
get. But it's not the fat person's fault, any more than it's the
muscular person's fault, or the long-kegged person's fault. Airlines
screw us all in one way or another. 'Bout time we united against that
instead of bickering over a few square inches.
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
Robin
Dee Flint
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:john-6F397A.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <g8mtk...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> Pramesh Rutaji <p297ton...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern processed
>> foods and eating options introduced at and since the advent of
>> agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple sources including
>> air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise (running and prey, etc.)
>> and food constantly available (never any fasting) I think plays a large
>> role in the disease and aging process.
>
> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
>
If you read up on Jim Fixx, you will find that he lived many years longer
than his father, grandfather, etc. It's entirely possible that the extra
years he lived were due to his running. He might otherwise have died in his
30s.
You cannot say that exercise killed Hays either. You don't know his general
state of health or family history.
Dee Flint
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6h92kdF...@mid.individual.net...
> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
>>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
>
>> Does it really?
>
> Yep.
>
>> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ?
>
> There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity.
>
>> What's the rate of regain?
>
> Zero.
>
That is incorrect. People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their
eating habits. Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating too much even
with a reduced stomach capacity.
Dee Flint
"Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Qs4sk.177805$102....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Larger seats will mean fewer passengers per plane will mean higher fares for
all. Are you ready for that? If you are, more power to you.
Dee Flint
<Joe> wrote in message news:37r1b45ots8e3i8fm...@4ax.com...
>
> Joe
>
That would indeed be fair as it takes so much fuel per pound of load.
John A. Weeks III
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:21:20 GMT, "Robin King"
> <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Simply charge them by weight. Can't be more fair than that.
One needs to consider what is being purchased with a ticket.
If they are selling transportation, then size or weight doesn't
enter the equation. The only factor is getting a person of any
size from point A to point B. Since that is how the industry
works today, why not have a variety of seat sizes, some small,
some average, some bigger, and accommodate people of all sizes.
Can't be any more fair than that.
DB
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in
> If you read up on Jim Fixx, you will find that he lived many years longer
> than his father, grandfather, etc. It's entirely possible that the extra
> years he lived were due to his running. He might otherwise have died in
> his 30s.
>
> You cannot say that exercise killed Hays either. You don't know his
> general state of health or family history.
There are thousands of things that can kill a human being, fat/fitness
related disease is probably not high on the list of fatal diseases. Seems
our image of excellent health is a picture of an Olympic athlete, but it's
not necessary to go to extreme lengths to have good health. Simple half our
walks each day go a lot further than these temporary diet programs or 2 hour
gym work outs.
The American corporate lifestyle has done more to kill people than any war.
Always running late to meetings, high stress, skipping meals in the morning,
junk food snacks at the coffee station, eating large dinners. People may
look thin, but their insides are riddled with disease!
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6h92kdF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
>>>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
>>
>>> Does it really?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ?
>>
>> There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity.
>>
>>> What's the rate of regain?
>>
>> Zero.
> That is incorrect.
Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits.
Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
Not even possible.
The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you.
Robin King
> > Simply charge them by weight. Can't be more fair than that.
That doesn't solve the problem of accommodating people of
different sizes and shapes.
> One needs to consider what is being purchased with a ticket.
> If they are selling transportation, then size or weight doesn't
> enter the equation. The only factor is getting a person of any
> size from point A to point B. Since that is how the industry
> works today, why not have a variety of seat sizes, some small,
> some average, some bigger, and accommodate people of all sizes.
> Can't be any more fair than that.
>
> -john-
Sounds good to me. If they really want to be anal about it,
they could sell seats in multiples of six inches. Most people would
take three or four of those. More people would be willing to pay 33%
extra for comfort than 100% extra. They could also have a few seats
with extra legroom for a fee.
Robin
Robin King
> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> >>> What's the rate of regain?
> >>
> >> Zero.
>
> > That is incorrect.
>
> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>
> > People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating
habits.
>
> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>
> > Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
> > too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>
> Not even possible.
>
> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can
kill you.
About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS.
Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the patient
keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight. Rather modest
expectations, don't you think? - and a far cry from zero.
Robin
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6hdnd9F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>
>>>>> What's the rate of regain?
>>>>
>>>> Zero.
>>
>>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>>
>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating
>>> habits.
>>
>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
>> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>>
>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>>
>> Not even possible.
>>
>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can
>> kill you.
> About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS.
Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight.
> Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the
> patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight.
> Rather modest expectations, don't you think?
Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted.
> - and a far cry from zero.
I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the weight before the surgery.
Rod Speed
> "John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
> news:john-284A21.0...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> In article <37r1b45ots8e3i8fm...@4ax.com>, Joe <>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Simply charge them by weight. Can't be more fair than that.
>
> That doesn't solve the problem of accommodating people of
> different sizes and shapes.
>
>> One needs to consider what is being purchased with a ticket.
>> If they are selling transportation, then size or weight doesn't
>> enter the equation. The only factor is getting a person of any
>> size from point A to point B. Since that is how the industry
>> works today, why not have a variety of seat sizes, some small,
>> some average, some bigger, and accommodate people of all sizes.
>> Can't be any more fair than that.
> Sounds good to me.
More fool you. Its completely impractical to implement and would inevitably
result in more empty seats than currently and so higher prices for everyone.
No thanks.
> If they really want to be anal about it, they could sell seats in multiples
> of six inches. Most people would take three or four of those. More
> people would be willing to pay 33% extra for comfort than 100% extra.
Pity its completely impractical to implement.
> They could also have a few seats with extra legroom for a fee.
They already have those seats. Completely impractical to book them separately for a higher fee.
John A. Weeks III
"Robin King" <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Another statistic to add is that 25% of WLS patients reported
various kinds of mental impairments following the surgery. This
including being foggy to having serious problems with memory and
reasoning. Some reported that it cleared up over time, others
reported the problem as being permanent.
Rod Speed
That not a statistic produced by any operation that knows anything about rigorous science.
John A. Weeks III
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
It was produced by the CDC and published on the website of the
MN state dept of Health. Both are highly respected organizations,
and both have far more credibility than you do. Note that this was
a survey, not a study. That is why the word "reported" is key.
Ragnar
> Frank Arthur wrote:
> > Ragnar wrote:
> >> On Aug 21, 11:03 pm, macken...@downunder.com (MacKenzie) wrote:
> >>>http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2...
>
> >>> Obesity risks higher than thought
> >>> Mark Metherell
> >>> August 22, 2008
>
> >>> AUSTRALIANS with obesity are at significantly higher risk than
> >>> previously
> >>> thought of suffering illness, including diabetes, heart attack,
> >>> stroke and
> >>> osteoarthritis, a new study has found.
>
> >>> The reassessment of obesity's impact in Australia found that 600,000
> >>> more
> >>> patients are suffering these diseases because of obesity than was
> >>> estimated
> >>> in 2006.
>
> >>> Gary Deed, the president of Diabetes Australia, said yesterday he was
> >>> "alarmed" by the increase and said it highlighted the urgent need to
> >>> implement the counter-measures planned by the Federal Government.
>
> >>> The consulting firm Access Economics, which prepared the report for
> >>> Diabetes Australia, adjusted its 2006 estimates of obesity's link to
> >>> diseases on the basis of revised methods of estimation by the Australian
> >>> Institute of Health and Welfare.
>
> >>> As a result of the adjustments, Access estimates that 23.8 per cent
> >>> of type
> >>> 2 diabetes cases are caused by obesity, more than double the 2006
> >>> estimate
> >>> of 10.8 per cent; obesity accounts for 21.8 per cent of cardiovascular
> >>> diseases, up from about 13 per cent; and 24.5 per cent of osteoarthritis
> >>> cases, up from 14 per cent.
>
> >>> Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was responding with
> >>> preventive campaigns but said there was a need for more urgency to
> >>> promote
> >>> children's activity and healthier food promotion.
>
> >>> The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today
> >>> staged by
> >>> the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy Barnett.
>
> >>> The latest findings were "deeply disturbing", Senator Barnett said. "It
> >>> highlights just how serious this issue is for people with these
> >>> diseases."
>
> >>> There have also been rises, albeit lower, in the proportion of certain
> >>> types of cancer, including colorectal, breast, uterine and kidney
> >>> cancers,
> >>> about 20 per cent of which are attributed to obesity, up from about
> >>> 15 per
> >>> cent estimated in 2006.
>
> >>> There is also good news on the cancer front, with a separate report
> >>> being
> >>> released today showing significant improvements in survival rates in
> >>> Australia.
>
> >>> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's figures show between
> >>> the
> >>> mid-1980s and the early 2000s, the relative chances of surviving five
> >>> years
> >>> after a cancer diagnosis have risen from 41 per cent to 58 per cent
> >>> for men
> >>> and from 53 per cent to 64 per cent for women.
>
> >>> The biggest increases in survival were for those aged in their 50s
> >>> and 60s.
> >>> The best improvements were in prostate, kidney and breast cancers and
> >>> non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
>
> >> Does anyone really believe this study isn’t based in bias? Even though
> >> it is an Australian study, think 400,000 deaths yearly from the CDC.
> >> It’s just propaganda as usual.
> >> It’s just one more bullshit governmentally sponsored study that is
> >> designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet pork barrel
> >> (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative. We’ve seen
> >> this kind of shit before and there is nothing new here.
>
> >> Everyone can go home the shows over.
>
> >> Ragnar
>
> > obese people are disgusting slobs. Their body odor is obnoxious.obese
> > people are greedy oinkers.fat people should be euthanized.
> > God bless you.
> > ps Ragnar sucks cock
>
> oinker activityhttp://notsafeforkids.com/?page_id=1751- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More sad ass armature sock puppetry noted and laughed at. You and your
pathetic alter egos need to get a life, junior.
Ragnar
Ragnar
>
Yes it is.
> > that is designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet
> > pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative.
>
> Wrong again.
>
Nope
> > We’ve seen this kind of shit before and there is nothing new here.
> > Everyone can go home the shows over.
>
> Just more of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.- Hide quoted text -
>
Just more of your nonsensical one line useless, bullshit.
Ragnar
Ragnar
> John A. Weeks III <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <0bedb2b9-f51e-4229-82c5-a865f2feb...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >> Are you saying that obesity is NOT related to many health problems,
> >> that it would make no difference whatsoever if a person was morbidly
> >> obese, everything else being equal? That cancer risks would not be
> >> higher? etc.
>
> > Being both a large person and a health care professional, I think
> > it is pretty clear that their is a link between obesity and health
> > issues. But saying that their is a link is huge difference from
> > saying that there is a cause-effect relationship. In fact, some
> > of the more recent legitimate peer-reviewed research is starting
> > to suggest that for many overweight people, being large is the
> > result of a health problem, not the cause of the health problems.
>
> For bugger all, actually.
>
> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
>
> - Show quoted text -
The weight problem never goes away, you asshole! Struggles to control
weight are life long for most people with weight issues. Lap band or
by-pas surgery are only tools to control a chronic condition.
Ragnar
Ragnar
> John A. Weeks III <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >> Weight is an issue because the diet is probably full of modern
> >> processed foods and eating options introduced at and since the
> >> advent of agriculture along with chemical exposure from multiple
> >> sources including air quality. Lack of regular vigorous exercise
> >> (running and prey, etc.) and food constantly available (never any
> >> fasting) I think plays a large role in the disease and aging process.
>
> > Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
> > before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
> > some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
> > at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
> > running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
>
>
> > the problem would go away quickly.
>
>
No it doesn't.
> > All that we have proven so far is that diet does not help the problem.
>
> Havent proven anything of the sort.
>
Even most of the medical community is in agreement that diets ALONE
don't work for most of the population.
> You dont get any fat people coming out of concentration camps except the guards.
>
It's called starvation, dumbass and that is the WRONG way to control
weight.
> There might just be a reason for that.
>
See above fuckwit.
> > Millions of people have spent millions of accumulated years on diets, and
> > the result is that nearly all end up gaining weight within a year of the diet.
>
> Because they are too stupid to shovel less into their mouths than they burn.
>
Or maybe their bodies just store it more efficiently than they burn
it. Get it through your thick, troglodyte. skull, diets ALONE DO NOT
WORK, you fucking moron.
Ragnar
Ragnar
wrote:
Spew another sock puppet you pathetic loser.
Ragnar
Ragnar
> Dee Flint <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:6h92kdF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> Robin King <maplet...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> >>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
> >>>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
>
> >>> Does it really?
>
> >> Yep.
>
> >>> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ?
>
> >> There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity.
>
> >>> What's the rate of regain?
>
> >> Zero.
> > That is incorrect.
>
> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>
> > People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits.
>
> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat
> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>
> > Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
> > too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>
> Not even possible.
>
Without the final phase of by-pass surgery which includes the removal
of a portion of the small intestine, the stomach will stretch over
time to admit more food. Thus weight gain occurs. What do you think
that the human stomach is made out of, a synthetic material and never
changes shape? LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at
times.
Ragnar
The Master
> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
Exercise kills!
Rod Speed
>> Thats not a statistic produced by any operation that knows anything about rigorous science.
> It was produced by the CDC and published on
> the website of the MN state dept of Health.
Bet you cant produce a cite for that.
Google turns up nothing like that.
> Note that this was a survey, not a study. That is why the word "reported" is key.
Bet the fools are confusing the effects of not enough food with the effects of the surgery.
And why was a 'survey' used instead of a study when memory and reasoning are so easy to measure ?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dee Flint <deeflin...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away
>>>>>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc.
>>>>> Does it really?
>>>> Yep.
>>>>> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ?
>>>> There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity.
>>>>> What's the rate of regain?
>>>> Zero.
>>> That is incorrect.
>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too
>> much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits.
>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too
>> much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant.
>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>> Not even possible.
> Without the final phase of by-pass surgery which includes the removal of a portion
> of the small intestine, the stomach will stretch over time to admit more food.
It cant stretch with a lap band and the band is adjustable anyway.
> Thus weight gain occurs.
They dont return to the weight pre surgery.
> What do you think that the human stomach is made out
> of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
The lap band doesnt change the shape.
> LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.
Rod Speed
>> No it isnt.
> Yes it is.
No it isnt. That Diabetes Australia report was NOT govt sponsored.
>>> that is designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet
>>> pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative.
>> Wrong again.
> Nope
Yep. Diabetes Australia has nothing to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative.
Dee Flint
> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6h92kdF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>
> Not even possible.
>
> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you.
>
Search the internet, you will find that there are some who do regain weight.
Of course the malnutrition is a serious issue too but it is not impossible
to regain weight.
Dee Flint
It is not a successful result if they cannot maintain a healthy weight.
That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of success.
Ragnar
> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...@hotmail.com> wrote
BTW, the specific amounts of the regain where not the issue.
> > What do you think that the human stomach is made out
> > of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
>
> The lap band doesnt change the shape.
>
Never said it did moron. Miss the premise much?
> > LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
>
> We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.- Hide quoted text -
>
Give it a shot you appear to have all the answers, lol.
Ragnar
Rod Speed
Depends on how you define success. Even just a significant weight reduction in
those that are too stupid to be able to get that any other way is useful progress.
> That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of success.
Wrong.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Caleb <cal...@teleport.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>> Not even possible.
>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you.
> Search the internet, you will find that there are some who do regain weight.
What matters is whether they regain the pre surgery weight. They dont unless the surgery has been botched.
> Of course the malnutrition is a serious issue too but it is not impossible to regain weight.
What matters is whether they regain the pre surgery weight. They dont unless the surgery has been botched.
Dee Flint
That is opinion. Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how
small and no matter whether they can maintain it. Mine is that success is
reaching and maintaining a healthy weight. Given the risks of
complications, the standard of success needs to be high to make it worth the
risks. We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes
success.
Ragnar
Aussie government will not use the study in some capacity to
capitalize on fighting obesity on a national level???? It must be nice
to live in your simplistic little world.
“The consulting firm Access Economics, which prepared the report for
Diabetes Australia, adjusted its 2006 estimates of obesity's link to
diseases on the basis of revised methods of estimation by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare”.
Dumbass, Access Economics prepared the study and one of their key
functions is to perform “regulatory, taxation and microeconomic
analysis for public policy development” Who do you think sponsors
stuff like that? Any clue at all????
> >>> that is designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet
> >>> pork barrel (pardon the pun) weight loss and nutritional initiative.
> >> Wrong again.
> > Nope
>
> Yep. Diabetes Australia has nothing to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative.
>
Are you really that stupid and naive? Or are you just pretending?
“Dr Deed said he was reassured the Federal Government was responding
with preventive campaigns but said there was a need for more urgency
to promote children's activity and healthier food promotion”.
Read “Federal Government was responding with preventive campaigns” in
the above cited statement. You apparently only read and see what you
want to and are in need of a being hit in the head with a brick before
you get it. Do you need EVERYTHING explicitly spelled out for you
before you can see what’s going on?
Ragnar
Ragnar
"The report is to be launched at an obesity forum in Hobart today
staged by the anti-obesity campaigner and Liberal Senator, Guy
Barnett.
How convenient the release timing of this study, lol. I suppose you
think it’s just one big coincidence.
I used to think Canadians had a lock on naïve stupidity but judging
from your denial of the obvious facts, now I’m not so sure.
Ragnar
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Zero.
>>>>>>> That is incorrect.
>>>>>> Not even possible.
>> Wrong.
> That is opinion.
Nope, thats a fact, there has been a significant reduction in their weight prior to the surgery.
I didnt even use the word success.
> Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how small
I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.
The numbers YOU quoted are nothing like a small loss.
> and no matter whether they can maintain it.
The numbers YOU quoted show that 70% did maintain a weight loss from pre surgery.
> Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight.
Irrelevant to whether WLS does achieve a significant weight loss with those too stupid to lose weight any other way.
> Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be high to make it worth the risks.
Nope, not with those who are too stupid to lose weight without it.
> We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success.
I didnt even mention success, YOU did.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>> Does it really?
>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>> Zero.
>>>>> That is incorrect.
>>>> Not even possible.
>>> Thus weight gain occurs.
> Proof? Cite?
Go and chase that up for yourself.
> Or shut the fuck up.
Go and fuck yourself.
> BTW, the specific amounts of the regain where not the issue.
Wrong, as always. What matters is whether they ever get back to the pre surgery weight.
They dont unless the WLS has been fucked up completely.
>>> What do you think that the human stomach is made out
>>> of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
>> The lap band doesnt change the shape.
> Never said it did moron. Miss the premise much?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
>> We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.
> Give it a shot
You've already proven its you.
Dee Flint
I didn't quote any percentages. You are mixing up my post with another.
>> Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight.
>
> Irrelevant to whether WLS does achieve a significant weight loss with
> those too stupid to lose weight any other way.
>
>> Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be
>> high to make it worth the risks.
>
> Nope, not with those who are too stupid to lose weight without it.
>
>> We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success.
>
> I didnt even mention success, YOU did.
>
Why bother to do something like this unless there is a standard of success?
Whether it should be a high standard or low standard is a matter of personal
opinion but there does need to be a standard. The risks are too high to
undertake if there is no goal of success.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Ragnar <Ragnarsgh...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/obesity-risks-higher-than-thought/2...
>>>> No it isnt.
>>> Yes it is.
>>>> Wrong again.
>>> Nope
Irrelevant to how that report was funded.
Any you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular senator's party isnt even the govt.
> How convenient the release timing of this study, lol.
Its an obesity forum, fool. Of course that sort of thing is where that sort of report gets aired.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the significant link between obesity and diabetes.
> I suppose you think it’s just one big coincidence.
Nope. Its an obesity forum, fool. Of course that sort of thing is where that sort of report gets aired.
Nothing to do with your stupid claims about who paid for the report and the even more stupid claim that
Diabetes Australia has anything what so ever to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Dee Flint <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Robin King <mapl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> What's the rate of regain?
>>>>>>>>>> Zero.
>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect.
>>>>>>>> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too much because their stomach has been crippled
>>>>>>>> so they cant.
>>>>>>>>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits.
>>>>>>>> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too much because their stomach has been crippled
>>>>>>>> so they cant.
>>>>>>>>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating
>>>>>>>>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity.
>>>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>>>>> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you.
But then so can continuing to be grossly obese too.
>>>>>>> About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS.
>>>>>> Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight.
>>>>>>> Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the
>>>>>>> patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight.
>>>>>>> Rather modest expectations, don't you think?
>>>>>> Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted.
>>>>>>> - and a far cry from zero.
>>>>>> I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the weight before the surgery.
>>>>> It is not a successful result if they cannot maintain a healthy weight.
>>>> Depends on how you define success. Even just a significant weight reduction in
>>>> those that are too stupid to be able to get that any other way is useful progress.
>>>>> That their weight is less than before isn't a very good measure of success.
>>>> Wrong.
>>> That is opinion.
>> Nope, thats a fact, there has been a significant reduction in their weight prior to the surgery.
>> I didnt even use the word success.
>>> Yours seems to be that any loss is a success no matter how small
>> I didnt say anything even remotely resembling anything like that either.
>> The numbers YOU quoted are nothing like a small loss.
>>> and no matter whether they can maintain it.
>> The numbers YOU quoted show that 70% did maintain a weight loss from pre surgery.
> I didn't quote any percentages. You are mixing up my post with another.
Correct.
>>> Mine is that success is reaching and maintaining a healthy weight.
>> Irrelevant to whether WLS does achieve a significant weight loss with those too stupid to lose weight any other way.
>>> Given the risks of complications, the standard of success needs to be high to make it worth the risks.
>> Nope, not with those who are too stupid to lose weight without it.
>>> We are each entitled to our own opinions as to what constitutes success.
>> I didnt even mention success, YOU did.
> Why bother to do something like this unless there is a standard of success?
What matters is whether there is a significant loss of weight.
We know that if the grossly obese dont reduce their weight
significantly, that that has significant medical downsides.
So if particular grossly obese individuals are too stupid to stop shovelling
more calories into their mouths than they burn, its worth considering surgery.
> Whether it should be a high standard or low standard is a
> matter of personal opinion but there does need to be a standard.
Nope.
> The risks are too high to undertake if there is no goal of success.
Wrong. Because the risks of continuing to be grossly obese are even higher.
Ragnar
> Any you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that that particular senator's party isnt even the govt.
>
Oh so the government only comprises the party in power and the other
party has nothing to say or promote? You’re an idiot.
> > How convenient the release timing of this study, lol.
>
> Its an obesity forum, fool. Of course that sort of thing is where that sort of report gets aired.
>
Look who just caught up. Don’t you think that a forum sponsored by a
government official would need all the supporting data it could muster
even at the expense of creating the effect it desired? You’re as
gullible as you are dumb.
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the significant link between obesity and diabetes.
One would think but it still doesn’t disprove my assertion that the
government sponsored the study now does it?
> > I suppose you think it’s just one big coincidence.
>
> Nothing to do with your stupid claims about who paid for the report and the even more stupid claim that
> Diabetes Australia has anything what so ever to do with any pork barrel weight loss and nutritional initiative.- Hide quoted text -
>
Change your handle to Ron Spud because potatoes have the same amount
of common sense as you, lol.
Ragnar
Ragnar
> > BTW, the specific amounts of the regain where not the issue.
>
> Wrong, as always. What matters is whether they ever get back to the pre surgery weight.
>
Yeah right, so it makes no difference if they start out pre surgery at
350lbs but only blow back up to 300. You’re a moron.
> They dont unless the WLS has been fucked up completely.
>
> >>> What do you think that the human stomach is made out
> >>> of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
> >> The lap band doesnt change the shape.
> > Never said it did moron. Miss the premise much?
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
LOL, more inane babble. It’s just proof of your inability to support
you’re idiotic claims.
> >>> LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
> >> We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.
> > Give it a shot
>
> You've already proven its you.
To the contrary, The only thing I’ve proven is your inability to back
up anything you say.
Ragnar
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> Does it really?
>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>> Zero.
>>>>>>> That is incorrect.
>>>>>> Not even possible.
>>>>> Thus weight gain occurs.
>>> Proof? Cite?
>> Go and fuck yourself.
<reams of your pathetic excuse for juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>
>>> BTW, the specific amounts of the regain where not the issue.
>> Wrong, as always. What matters is whether they ever get back to the pre surgery weight.
> Yeah right, so it makes no difference if they start out pre surgery at 350lbs but only blow back up to 300.
That doesnt happen with a lap band done properly, fuckwit.
>> They dont unless the WLS has been fucked up completely.
>>>>> What do you think that the human stomach is made out
>>>>> of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
>>>> The lap band doesnt change the shape.
>>> Never said it did moron. Miss the premise much?
>> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
<reams of your pathetic excuse for juvenile shit flushed where it belongs> >
>>>>> LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
>>>> We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.
>>> Give it a shot
>> You've already proven its you.
<reams of your pathetic excuse for juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>
Ragnar
> >> They dont unless the WLS has been fucked up completely.
> >>>>> What do you think that the human stomach is made out
> >>>>> of, a synthetic material and never changes shape?
> >>>> The lap band doesnt change the shape.
> >>> Never said it did moron. Miss the premise much?
> >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> <reams of your pathetic excuse for juvenile shit flushed where it belongs> >
>
> >>>>> LOL. You really behave like a mentally deficient ass at times.
> >>>> We'll see who has just got egg all over its silly little face, yet again.
> >>> Give it a shot
> >> You've already proven its you.
>
> <reams of your pathetic excuse for juvenile shit flushed where it belongs>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No supporting contrary info or data noted and confirmed. What's the
matter spud? Run out of oneline come backs?
Ragnar
Rod Speed
Ragnar <Ragnar...@hotmail.com> desperately attempted to bullshit and
lie its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
DB
Put down the purses girls and lets get on with the topic at hand!
Dee Flint
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:WhYsk.20826$uE5....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
Actually it looks more like a bunch of men trying to out macho each other.
Steeler fans suck
Frank Arthur
> On Aug 22, 12:11 pm, Electrician <electric...@xo.com> wrote:
>> Frank Arthur wrote:
>>> Ragnar wrote:
>>>> designed as a way to garner money for someone’s pet pork barrel
>>>> this kind of shit before and there is nothing new here.
>>>> Everyone can go home the shows over.
>>> obese people are disgusting slobs. Their body odor is obnoxious.obese
>>> people are greedy oinkers.fat people should be euthanized.
>>> God bless you.
>>> ps Ragnar sucks cock
>> oinker activityhttp://notsafeforkids.com/?page_id=1751- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> pathetic alter egos need to get a life, junior.
>
> Ragnar
your wife needs a real man, fatso
post the bitch's cellphone number
MrWonderful
He is the new lady veteran
Oink oink oink
hi ragtard
_______________
┏┫ ｜ ｜ ┣| ┣
┗┫━━ ┃ ━━ ┣┛ ┣┫
┃ ━━━━━ ┃ ┏┳┫┣┳┓
┗━━┳━┳━━┛┃ ┃
━━━━┃ ┃ ┗━┳┳━┛
━━━━┃ ┗━━━━━━┛┃
Frank Arthur
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, John A. Weeks III wrote:
>
>> Yeah, just look at what exercise did for Isaac Hays. Killed him
>> before he had a chance to turn off the treadmill. And maybe eat
>> some natural foods, like Herb-a-life founder Mark Hughes, who died
>> at age 44. Might want to start running, too, so you can be like
>> running guru Jim Fixx, who died at age 52 of a massive heart attack.
>
> Exercise kills!
>
well that's 3 people out of 5 billion. Do you jerk off much?
The Master
>> Exercise kills!
>>
> well that's 3 people out of 5 billion. Do you jerk off much?
Why do you want to know, pervert?
McSame
Ragtard and TM jerk each other off and they finish licking each other's
bungholes.
Ragnar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time to get ready for school sonny, the 8th grade is going to be a
bitch.
Ragnar
Ragnar
Keep your sick fantasies to yourself, you fucking pervert. Nobody
wants a peek into what gets you off.
Ragnar