‘Healthy’ obese still face higher heart disease risk

[crewskater]

No, it's not. There is no point in which the government has the right to control an individual's personal life. That simply is not the role of government, regardless of what it "pays for". And if that's not enough: Bodily autonomy.

When the govt gives you something, they have every right to tell you how to use or spend it. Don't like it? Don't accept their money.

[W1sp]

so do cigarette smokers. Where's your outrage about them?

I can only speak for Sweden but a lot is being done about smoking and I would know since I am one. The tax on cigarettes is insane and they all have disgusting Pictures on them etc. I think sugary drinks etc should have the same and then reduce the tax on fruit and vegetables

[Mistame]

Are you actually claiming that the cost of obesity to publicly funded medicine is just flatly zero?

Of course not. But again, most people pay taxes and their own premiums, so your "extracting the wealth of others" bit is only relevant in the context of those milking the system.

When the govt gives you something, they have every right to tell you how to use or spend it.

No, they don't. This is the equivalent you borrowing twenty bucks from a friend and then when you pay them back, telling them how they have to spend it.

Don't like it? Don't accept their money.

And if the government doesn't like not having control over people's personal lives, they can stop accepting our money.

[Xandrigity]

There is no thing as healthy obese, first. OFC it increases rates or many diseases. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease...I'm sure there are many more. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[Blur4stuff]

People should be free to make their own choices even if they aren't healthy ones. But, that doesn't mean we can't give incentives to make better choices and do things like tax bad ones.

Right now you can visit walmart and get tons of unhealthy foods/snacks for very little money. One thing I'd like to see happen is for those unhealthy items to cost more with the revenue subsidizing healthier choices so they are more affordable.

[Novakhoro]

honestly past a certain bmi threshold these people should suffer death penalty-like consequences

they serve no purpose to society. they are a drain on public health resources. they are visually unpleasant. they force costs of clothing up because companies make XXXXXXXXL sizes to satisfy these fools. majority of them are unemployed because they are lazy and so drain taxpayer money.

a cull past a BMI of 40~ is something i'd fully support.

Gets my vote. People go crazy over eugenics, but it's perfectly acceptable when we do it to all sorts of other life forms like plants and the other animals

[zenkai]

I find it hilarious that a lot of the same people who think drugs should be legal are against people being fat, I guess what you consider healthy varies on your wants.

[infinit]

Something I've noticed about the HAES (healthy at every size) movement is that most are young adults. Once they hit their mid 30s being obese will catch up with you quick.

Like most movements its full of young "privileged" white woman. who want to be in on the oppression olympics.

[The Casualty]

Like most movements its full of young "privileged" white woman. who want to be in on the oppression olympics.

I have a feeling there is not a whole lot of movement going on with the HAES group.

[GennGreymane]

interestsing..... but isnt Healthy and Obese an oxymoron?

[Vynny]

Because people are free to buy from your business or not for ANY reason they want to.

If you don't offer the products they WANT, under you go.

Ted down the street can offer 1000 calorie meals CHEAPER then you can or has a sale on his meals more often then you do, so the fatties buy from him instead of you, under you go!

which is the point of regulating so that Ted down the street cannot legally sell meals over 1000 calories laden with all of the shit meat sellers would otherwise throw out. Are you under the apprehension that some business owners are not legally obliged to follow regulation or something?

Secondly, the regulation would be for meals, so if a fatty really wants to eat over the calorie limit, they can order some extra fries or a side entree and the business is not in trouble. The point is to make it so people have to go out of their way to be unhealthy as opposed to having to go out of their way to be healthy.

P.S.
Before you say that Ted will just ignore the regulation, think about this, I'm losing because Ted is breaking the law, so why would I not report Ted to the proper authorities rather than go under because I can't compete with him not following the rules?

[Dhrizzle]

No such thing as healthy obese. Obese is and always will be unhealthy, no matter what some morons say.

According to this study, of the 6200 participants around 5% developed heart disease, the other 5877 were both obese and healthy. Other than the way you feel about the word "obese," what reasons do you have for considering the researchers/publishers to be morons?

[therealbowser]

This just in, being fat is unhealthy.

Not that I disapprove of this thread, it is a potentially interesting read, I am just sayin'! There really isn't a healthy obese. It's never ideal. But at the same time, you can survive that way if you want to be. It's a matter of life choices; what are you willing to sacrifice for less risk of disease, longer life, and better quality of life?

Life is just a matter of balance. And there will always be factors you cannot control. You could have a perfect vegan lifestyle and work out constantly, yet get hit by a car and die immediately one day. Or you could have someone morbidly obese live a long life because their life and body just happened to work out that way. (That doesn't mean the latter will have a good quality of life, especially in old age... but I like to believe you should live a sustainable lifestyle rather than fretting about a future you can't foresee.)

Basically, I think it's important to sustain a lifestyle you want to live more than worrying constantly about the future. In short... live in the present, not the past or future, when it comes to health.

But eh... I am digressing.

[Revi]

“People have a general understanding now that it is not unhealthy to be overweight or obese as long as your lifestyle is relatively healthy,”

What? Who thinks this?

[Deleted]

Oh fawk off, you can't have it both ways. You want a government dictating what you can or can't eat?

You're obese aren't you. How about option 3: People take responsibility for themselves?

[crewskater]

Of course not. But again, most people pay taxes and their own premiums, so your "extracting the wealth of others" bit is only relevant in the context of those milking the system.



No, they don't. This is the equivalent you borrowing twenty bucks from a friend and then when you pay them back, telling them how they have to spend it.


And if the government doesn't like not having control over people's personal lives, they can stop accepting our money.

Or you could not rely on them and you wouldn't have to worry about it. Problem solved. When people receive food stamps, do you think its acceptable for them to buy shit food?

[Dys]

When people receive food stamps, do you think its acceptable for them to buy shit food?

Seems acceptable to me because they're actually buying food with it, even if it is shitty food. But, I live in an area where selling your food stamps at 50% cash value so you can get your drug fix is common practice, so my view is a bit skewed.

[THE Bigzoman]

How about we live in a free society and not worry about interfering in people's personal lives. Just a thought.

That's fine.

People can pay for shit themselves when shit hits the fan. You can't have your cake and eat it to by screaming "It's my life!!!" while avoiding the ramifications that come with it when they're not convenient.

Freedom AND responsibility. You need to own both.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't see how extracting wealth from some people to pay for other people's bad habits is a pro-freedom policy. At best this is a net neutral.

Because it isn't.

It's anti-freedom because it's anti-responsibility.

[Exeris]

Obesity is responsible for about 5 percent of all deaths a year worldwide, and its global economic impact amounts to roughly $2 trillion annually, or 2.8 percent of global GDP—nearly equivalent to the global impact of smoking or of armed violence, war, and terrorism combined.