View Single Post
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Dec-17-17, 19:38
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,312
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

I have mixed feelings about the article. Having been obese myself, I tend to agree that obesity is NOT caused simply by gluttony and lack-of-will-power.

Tho the article doesn't go into this, if you think about it, I think you'll agree. A person who believes that the obese got that way because they lack will power and just want to eat to much is highly UNLIKELY to be at all sympathetic to spending public dollars to do research on obesity or on methods of assisting the obese to lose weight. And, those who feel that obese people got that way due to their own fault (lack of will power and gluttonous eating) are definitely not going to be be sympathetic to having insurance help pay for treatment because that will cause insurance premiums to rise. After all, who wants to pay more for their own insurance in order to help someone whose problems are all their own fault???

But, because almost everyone believes that cancer is caused by an unfortunate interaction between one's genetics and one's environment, we don't "blame" people who come down with cancer. Therefore, most of us are willing to see public money (i.e., tax dollars) go towards cancer treatment research. Even if we don't have cancer, almost everybody WANTS their insurance to cover cancer treatments; even tho that means our insurance premiums are higher than they would be if cancer treatment were excluded. This is true even for cancers like skin cancer (which is almost completely avoidable by not allowing oneself to be overexposed to UV radiation) and lung cancer (99+% avoidable by never smoking); etc.

As a larger and larger percentage of the population has come to believe that alcoholism and drug addiction are due to an unfortunate interaction between one's genetic heritage and one's environment, we have become more and more accepting of public dollars being spent and research into alcohol and drug addiction treatments. Even if we ourselves are not afflicted with alcohol or drug addiction, we're okay with having drug and alcohol addiction treatment covered by insurance plans... even tho having those treatments covered means we pay more in insurance premiums. And again, this is true even tho alcohol addiction is 100% avoidable by never taking the first drink of alcohol and drug addiction is 99+% avoidable by never taking the first hit of drugs known to be addictive.

Meanwhile, according to the article, most Americans still believe that obesity is the "fault" of the obese when, according to researchers, obesity (just like alcohol and drug addiction and just like cancer) is actually the result of an unfortunate interaction between one's genetic heritage and one's environment. Worse, because people DO have to eat, no one can ever be ever be anywhere close to 99% sure they can avoid obesity...because no one can 100% avoid the "environment" (FOOD) which leads to obesity.

So, because I happen to believe that the obese DID NOT get that way because of lace of will-power or simple gluttony; I am willing to see public money (my tax dollars) spent on research to understand and treat obesity. I am willing for insurance to cover obesity treatments.

If the majority of Americans believed as I do, more funding would be available for obesity research. More insurance would pay for obesity treatments. And that, I think, is the take home message that the NY Times writer was TRYING to get across.

The problem I saw with the article was that bariatric surgery seemed to be touted as THE only effective treatment for obesity. And, as many of us on this board have discovered, it is not!

Having lost 90 lbs and having kept it off for almost three years now, I would NOT agree with you that "diet, exercise and willpower" were important ingredients...at least not in the sense that those terms are traditionally used and understood by most people.

I DID NOT lose weight by dieting it off or by exercising it off or by suddenly discovering a fountain of will-power that I had lacked for 30 years. I lost weight by lucking into a way of eating that allowed me to eat as much as I wanted of wonderful tasting foods. WILL-POWER was simply not really necessary. And, while I did start exercising more after I'd lost a significant amount of weight, the desire to exercise was a RESULT of having lost weight. Exercise WAS NOT an ingredient (cause) of the weight loss.

Yes, I did go on a "diet" in the sense that that word means simply that I changed the kinds of foods I ate. But, most people hear the word diet and think "eat less and learn to live with being hungry" (which is exactly WHY they think willpower to stay on the diet is a necessary ingredient.)

My new way of eating put a STOP to my former gluttony. I quit being ravenously hungry all the time. But, I am not a better person since losing weight. I GOT LUCKY! Wonderfully amazingly LUCKY! I happened upon a treatment (low carb eating) that cured my obesity. I can no more take credit for my weight loss than the person whose cancer is cured by medical treatment can take credit for having be cured of cancer.

So why should I shoulder any more blame for having been obese in the first place than the person who comes down with cancer should shoulder blame for having come down with cancer in the first place.

Yes, perhaps once everyone fully understands what cause some folk's bodies to get out of whack so that they become obese, then MAYBE, if those factors are 100% avoidable, we should blame those who become obese in spite of knowing how to avoid the condition. But, we're not willing to blame alcoholics so, maybe not even then.
Reply With Quote