Overweight Should Be Protected

Bottle_of_Smoke

Attacking someone for being fat should be a hate crime, campaigners say.
They want so-called "fat-ism" to be made illegal on the same grounds as race, age and religious discrimination.
A demonstration was held outside the offices of the mayor of London asking him to lead the way in making sure employers are not prejudiced.
Protesters want the UK to follow San Francisco, where a law bans "fat-ism" in housing and employment and stops doctors pressing patients to slim down.
Sondra Solway, a San Francisco lawyer, said: "The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes."
Size acceptance
In the UK, size is not a protected characteristic under discrimination legislation................

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8314125.stm

Seems a bit mad to me. With heart disease/diabetes type2 on the rise I don't think we should have being fat as a thing to be proud of.

beegirl

Fat-ism just sounds stupid, shouldn't it be size-ism or something?!?!

RacoonQueen

The San Francisco ordinance says you may want to mention weight to the patient but if the patient says they do not want to talk about that then you are asked to respect those wishes.

So they should just let their patients slowly kill themselves?

Roper

If we aren't allowed to call people fat, does that mean we're not allowed to call people black, white or asian? It's a statement of fact .

Captain Furball

brianthebard

Hope those san francisco doctors are allowed refuse to treat a patient if they won't address their weight.

Oryx

People should not be discriminated against because of what they look like. Skinny people, for example, should not be looked down on because they are thin. This does happen to overweight people all the time.

The contradiction comes in because being overweight is unhealthy in a way that other characteristics that cause discrimination are not. Being overweight should not be held up as a valid lifestyle choice. The problem is how to promote the message that obesity is harmful without also sending the message that fat people are in some way flawed.

Bodysmart

Roper wrote: »

It's a statement of fact .

Sorry Roper. You're not allowed to calls them "facts" anymore in case someone disagrees and it hurts their feelings. Instead, it's now to be referred to as a "statement of opinion"

Roper

Bodysmart wrote: »

Sorry Roper. You're not allowed to calls them "facts" anymore in case someone disagrees and it hurts their feelings. Instead, it's now to be referred to as a "statement of opinion"

That's deadly, that basically gives me license to say what I want. "In my opinion, people who watch the X Factor should be stuffed in a room full of ravenous rats" and such.

d'Oracle

I cringe at the idea that a doctor would be bound to not point out a health problem to a patient with a health problem.

Its cringing cringeworthy.

The Davestator

This kind of stuff really annoys me, if people are fat, then they are fat and they should not be protected by law from being told by someone that they are fat.
Obestiy is going to cost the health services in the western world more and more money over the coming decades so this movement is going to make fat people think they are normal - thay are not.

Slightly off topic but is it any wonder kids are so fat with most of the ones I see hitting the spar for breakfast rolls and curry chip rolls for lunch?:eek:

ash23

Who decides what "fat" is.
I would have no issue with a doctor saying to me "ash, you're overweight and you could do with watching your diet". I think the word "fat" is offensive as it's a variable and not fact per se.

Some models who are within the normal BMI and weight range are deemed too fat by designers.

I do think doctors should mention a persons weight in the same way they would recommend they stop smoking.
Should they call them fat? No.

Magic Eight Ball

Roper wrote: »

That's deadly, that basically gives me license to say what I want. "In my opinion, people who watch the X Factor should be stuffed in a room full of ravenous rats" and such.

Careful now, with that attitude you'll have the thought police on to ya.

Zamboni

ash23 wrote: »

I think the word "fat" is offensive as it's a variable and not fact per se.

So what if it's offensive.
1 billion starving in the world.
I'd say those poor bastards find it offensive that food is being wasted on people backsides.

ash23

Zamboni wrote: »

So what if it's offensive.
1 billion starving in the world.
I'd say those poor bastards find it offensive that food is being wasted on people backsides.

Well, for those who have never suffered with a weight problem it's easy to make remarks like that.

There are plenty of offensive words or tags. I could list them but I don't like them. Just because you seem to have an issue with overweight people, doesn't mean it's right to call them an offensive name.
Try justifying names used by racists or homophobes. It's just more socially acceptable to abuse overweight people now.

Zamboni

ash23 wrote: »

Well, for those who have never suffered with a weight problem it's easy to make remarks like that.

There are plenty of offensive words or tags. I could list them but I don't like them. Just because you seem to have an issue with overweight people, doesn't mean it's right to call them an offensive name.

I have suffered with my weight. That is quite irrelevant.
Less than .05% of the population have actual medical conditions that result in overweight issues. (I will hunt down the reference later maybe after lunch...)
The point is if you try and protect the overweight (the non .05% bunch) you are normalising what is clearly an unhealthy state of being. That is not beneficial to anyone. Having excessive adipose tissue is a bad thing.

drkpower

Oryx wrote: »

The contradiction comes in because being overweight is unhealthy in a way that other characteristics that cause discrimination are not. Being overweight should not be held up as a valid lifestyle choice. The problem is how to promote the message that obesity is harmful without also sending the message that fat people are in some way flawed.

But isnt this the message that we should be sending out? Or at least not trying to paint a message that being overweight is akin to one's race and is immune to criticism.

Being overweight is a health issue both for the individual and society and, aside from a few with medical issues, it is entirely matter of lifestyle choice. Sure, some people put on and lose weight more easily, but pretty much everyone, given relatively simple changes to diet and exercise, can lose significant amounts of weight.

So its not something, in my view, that should be legislatively ring-fenced from attack. That is not to say I want overweight people to be abused but I dont want them to be appeased and molly-coddled either. And Im afraid, being overweight is a flaw in most cases. We all have flaws and its hardly a fundamental one but lets not pretend that it isnt. That wont help anyone.

ash23

Zamboni wrote: »

Less than .05% of the population have actual medical conditions that result in overweight issues. (I will hunt down the reference later maybe after lunch...)
The point is if you try and protect the overweight (the non .05% bunch) you are normalising what is clearly an unhealthy state of being. That is not beneficial to anyone. Having excessive adipose tissue is a bad thing.

Does that .05% include those suffering from phychological issues?

Because they are as relevant as those with physical.

I suffered with depression and an adverse reaction to a contraceptive culminating in weight gain of over 5 stone.
It took me YEARS to lose that and only 5 months to gain it.

I was slightly overweight before gaining it but nothing compared to what I became.
I am still on the trek and it is a constant battle not to fall back into bad habits.

I have had people shout at me in the street and call me names. It's extremely hurtful and no, it doesn't help, at all in any shape or form. It simply caused me to become more reclusive and more paranoid and less inclined to go out for a walk as I was ashamed.

People can be addicted to food. Yes, a doctor should recommend that a person lose weight as I said in my first post. But no, they shouldn't call them fat. Use the technical terms.

Procasinator

drkpower wrote: »

But isnt this the message that we should be sending out? Or at least not trying to paint a message that being overweight is akin to one's race and is immune to criticism.

Being overweight is a health issue both for the individual and society and, aside from a few with medical issues, it is entirely matter of lifestyle choice. Sure, some people put on and lose weight more easily, but pretty much everyone, given relatively simple changes to diet and exercise, can lose significant amounts of weight.

So its not something, in my view, that should be legislatively ring-fenced from attack. That is not to say I want overweight people to be abused but I dont want them to be appeased and molly-coddled either. And Im afraid, being overweight is a flaw in most cases. We all have flaws and its hardly a fundamental one but lets not pretend that it isnt. That wont help anyone.

I agree, much like excessive drinking, gambling, smoking, liking that song "I kissed a girl", etc is seen as a flaw. Do we shout abuse at this people? No. But we don't pretend that it's not a flaw.

drkpower

ash23 wrote: »

I am still on the trek and it is a constant battle not to fall back into bad habits.

I am not picking on you here ash, just wanted to point to this particular line (and attitude, perhaps).

This is part of the problem. Aside from those with health (including psychiatric) issues, describing losing weight as a "battle", as if one is suffering from cancer, is entirly inappropriate. Sure, its bloody difficult and a pain in the ass half the time, but no worse than having to go to work every morning or any of the opther things we dont like having to do.

We dont say that we are waging a constant battle with getting up in the morning to go to work, do we? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.

It is not a battle to lose weight. Lets not overplay it and lets definitely not use the language of real hardship.

ash23

drkpower wrote: »

I am not picking on you here ash, just wanted to point to this particular line (and attitude, perhaps).

This is part of the problem. Aside from those with health (including psychiatric) issues, describing losing weight as a "battle", as if one is suffering from cancer, is entirly inappropriate. Sure, its bloody difficult and a pain in the ass half the time, but no worse than having to go to work every morning or any of the opther things we dont like having to do.

We dont say that we are waging a constant battle with getting up in the morning to go to work, do we? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.

It is not a battle to lose weight. Lets not overplay it and lets definitely not use the language of real hardship.

Have you lost 6 stone recently? It is a battle. Because I have an unhealthy relationship with food. When I am lonely, bored, stressed out, unhappy, happy etc I want food. And not lettuce, food that will make me feel full. Would you tell someone who was giving up smoking that it wasn't hard, that it wasn't a battle to have the willpower to stay off them when others are smoking around them?

You post just goes to show you have absolutely no idea how difficult it is to lose a vast amount of weight when food is your crutch.
Also, food is everywhere. No matter where i go it's there. And I always want it. But I do have to make very concious decisions to make healthy choices.
And I do have to restrain myself.

Addictive nature runs in my family.
Myself and 2 of my sisters are overweight and have food issues. The other two are chain smokers. My dad and brother are alcoholics.
But they have a proper addiction. One that is recognised and understood. I'm just fat apparantly.

Procasinator

ash23 wrote: »

But no, they shouldn't call them fat. Use the technical terms.

I fully agree. They should stress the importance of loosing weight. Even be pushy if needed. But remain professional.

It fine to say some one has excess fat, are considered obese, need to loose weight, etc.

But scolding them by saying "You are fat" is a bit much, and sounds too much like a school yard taunt.

Zamboni

Ah, one persons psychological issue is anothers self restraint.

I was fairly obese at one stage.
Did I have mental issues? Nope. I was just a hungry fat bloke.

thorbarry

ash23 wrote: »

Addictive nature runs in my family.
Myself and 2 of my sisters are overweight and have food issues. The other two are chain smokers. My dad and brother are alcoholics.
But they have a proper addiction. One that is recognised and understood. I'm just fat apparantly.

You want to loose the weight tho. I think people are complaining about "fat" people that dont want to loose the weight, and give out about the fact that their doctor is telling them to loose it

ragg

ash23 wrote: »

Well, for those who have never suffered with a weight problem it's easy to make remarks like that.

I was fat, being called fat is upsetting, but not in the same way as being called a racist name etc.. Its upsetting because you know its in your hands to do something about it.
99% of Fat people are fat because they choose to be - they have the tools they need to make a difference, so its a world away from abuse over some ones sexuality, race etc..

ash23

Zamboni wrote: »

Ah, one persons psychological issue is anothers self restraint.

I was fairly obese at one stage.
Did I have mental issues? Nope. I was just a hungry fat bloke.

I never smoked. Don't drink much. Never did drugs either. I don't gamble.

But I don't applaud myself and think I'm great to have had such restraint. I just thank my lucky stars that I never got addicted to anything like that.

Thing is you can do a lot of the above and get sympathy and understanding. Fat people, not so much of the sympathy. Sure it's their own fault. Just stop eating. (Ever said to a heroin addict "sure just stop taking the drugs, it's not that difficult"? :rolleyes: )

mloc

With rare and perhaps irrelevant exception, everyone is responsible for their own weight.

If you don't want to be called a smelly smoker, don't smoke as much.
If you don't want to be called a heavy drinker, don't drink as much.
If you don't want to be called fat, don't eat as much.

It really, really, really is that simple.

d'Oracle

mloc wrote: »

It really, really, really is that simple.

In fairness, its is not.

ash23

thorbarry wrote: »

You want to loose the weight tho. I think people are complaining about "fat" people that dont want to loose the weight, and give out about the fact that their doctor is telling them to loose it

Took me 5 years of misery to do it though. I always wanted to be slim. I just didn't want to give up food. You can't go cold turkey on food either (excuse the pun). You HAVE to eat.

And while initially the theme was about the above, I think everyone knows that to beat an addiction you have to acknowledge it and want to change.
Food addiction is no different. So a doctor banging on about an obese person needing to lose weight when they refuse to acknowledge the problem, it's a waste of time.

Anyone listen to Gerry Ryan this morning. Talking about a guy whose lunch is 4 large fried cod, 6 bags of chips, 4 battered sausages, mushy peas and 2 pies. This guy is bedridden and has no quality of life.
How can anyone say this guy doesn't have a food addiction or that he should "just stop".

ash23

mloc wrote: »

With rare and perhaps irrelevant exception, everyone is responsible for their own weight.

If you don't want to be called a smelly smoker, don't smoke as much.
If you don't want to be called a heavy drinker, don't drink as much.
If you don't want to be called fat, don't eat as much.

It really, really, really is that simple.

Thats silly really.

How many smokers give up smoking and start back with "just the one" and are back on them before they know it.

How many alcoholics give it up and have "just one drink" and are back on the sauce?

An addiction is all or nothing. Thats the point.
but food addiction is harder as you can't do "all or nothing". You have to eat.

Zamboni

ash23 wrote: »

I never smoked. Don't drink much. Never did drugs either. I don't gamble.

But I don't applaud myself and think I'm great to have had such restraint. I just thank my lucky stars that I never got addicted to anything like that.

Ok let's take your smoking/drinking/drug/gamble analogy into the context of the original post.

There is no discrimination legislation for any of those groups.

So, back on topic, why should the overweight be protected???

Fwiw-I don't think anyone has said doctors should call their patients fat.

Zamboni

ash23 wrote: »

Anyone listen to Gerry Ryan this morning. Talking about a guy whose lunch is 4 large fried cod, 6 bags of chips, 4 battered sausages, mushy peas and 2 pies. This guy is bedridden and has no quality of life.
How can anyone say this guy doesn't have a food addiction or that he should "just stop".

Eboi is a little undernourished kid in Darfur.
He is addicted to food too.
He just doesn't get any.

Oryx

mloc wrote: »

With rare and perhaps irrelevant exception, everyone is responsible for their own weight.

If you don't want to be called a smelly smoker, don't smoke as much.
If you don't want to be called a heavy drinker, don't drink as much.
If you don't want to be called fat, don't eat as much.

It really, really, really is that simple.

Its really really not. Have you been addicted to anything? Its not simple at all.

When I said flawed earlier, I suppose by it I meant less worthy, or broken compared to everyone who is 'normal' weight, and therefore a target for criticism and contempt. I dont think you should do that.

Yes, weight control is a question simply of eat less move more, but for a lot of people who are large, they dont know what to eat, have no experience of exercise, its like learning a whole new language. Look on this forum, for 'help thread' examples of how ill educated even otherwise smart people are about food. We are genetically predisposed to eat and gain weight when food is plentiful, and it is, its everywhere. We who dont have weight issues are the lucky ones, but thats no reason to look down our noses at those who are overweight. Its societies problem, I think, that individuals are caught up in.

I dont agree that doctors should pussyfoot around the issue either, that is facilitating peoples ill health, and increasing the level of the problem.

thorbarry

ash23 wrote: »

Took me 5 years of misery to do it though. I always wanted to be slim. I just didn't want to give up food. You can't go cold turkey on food either (excuse the pun). You HAVE to eat.

fair play to you for loosing the weight.

Make no mistake people, it is very hard work for an overweight person to loose alot of weight

mloc

I never said anything about easy. I said simple.

thorbarry

mloc wrote: »

I never said anything about easy. I said simple.

its pretty much the same thing dude.

ash23

Zamboni wrote: »

Eboi is a little undernourished kid in Darfur.
He is addicted to food too.
He just doesn't get any.

And little Johnny is 5 years old and weighs 10 stone and can hardly walk because he does it get it. All the time. Everywhere he looks, there it is.

2 sides of the same coin.

Ok let's take your smoking/drinking/drug/gamble analogy into the context of the original post.

There is no discrimination legislation for any of those groups.

So, back on topic, why should the overweight be protected???

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong but I think you'll find that on a professional level, smokers, drinkers, gamblers etc are protected. Unless their addiction interferes with their work they are likely to get a job and keep it.

The physical aspect of someone who has a food addiction is more apparant. You wouldn't know someone was an alcoholic, a smoker or a gambler by passing them in the street unless they were in advanced stages of liver failure / emphysema or they were inebriated in some way.

Obese is obvious. And abusing obese people is more tolerated in my opinion than other obvious physical traits such as race, age etc.

it's "funny" to shout fatty at a person in the street. It used to be funny to shout "queer" and racist terms too.
It's a matter of making it socially unacceptable which it is at the moment.

If a star has an extreme weight loss they are on the front of OK with banners of "concern" and "shock" . If they gain weight the title reads "who ate all the pies" and basically jeers them.

Anorexia and Bulimia is treated with more "credibility" than being obese. Both are afflictions to do with food and are things that the person does to themselves.
But again, the former is treated with respect and it's recognised as being something that is difficult to overcome where being obese is just seen as being lazy and not arsed.

Zamboni

ash23 wrote: »

And little Johnny is 5 years old and weighs 10 stone and can hardly walk because he does it get it. All the time. Everywhere he looks, there it is.

2 sides of the same coin.

That is a profoundly disturbing post. I hope it is in jest.

mloc

thorbarry wrote: »

its pretty much the same thing dude.

Absolutely not.

To put on weight, you must eat more than you consume.
To lose weight, you must eat less than you consume.

That is simple, but it is not easy.

To quit cigarettes you just stop smoking them. Simple, but not easy.

kizzyr

ash23 wrote: »

Took me 5 years of misery to do it though. I always wanted to be slim. I just didn't want to give up food. You can't go cold turkey on food either (excuse the pun). You HAVE to eat.

And while initially the theme was about the above, I think everyone knows that to beat an addiction you have to acknowledge it and want to change.
Food addiction is no different. So a doctor banging on about an obese person needing to lose weight when they refuse to acknowledge the problem, it's a waste of time.

Anyone listen to Gerry Ryan this morning. Talking about a guy whose lunch is 4 large fried cod, 6 bags of chips, 4 battered sausages, mushy peas and 2 pies. This guy is bedridden and has no quality of life.
How can anyone say this guy doesn't have a food addiction or that he should "just stop".

If he is bedridden who is bringing him all that food?

thorbarry

mloc wrote: »

Absolutely not.

To put on weight, you must eat more than you consume.
To lose weight, you must eat less than you consume.

That is simple, but it is not easy.

To quit cigarettes you just stop smoking them. Simple, but not easy.

so..... its not easy to quit smoking, its simple?

mloc

Simple = not complicated
Easy = not difficult

They are different things.

thorbarry

mloc wrote: »

Simple = not complicated
Easy = not difficult

They are different things.

gotchya

Arsenal are loosing 5-0, all they have to do to win is score 6 goals, simple. But not easy

mloc

thorbarry wrote: »

gotchya

Arsenal are loosing 5-0, all they have to do to win is score 6 goals, simple. But not easy

Exactly.

thorbarry

mloc wrote: »

Exactly.

I never wasn't not good at english

drkpower

ash23 wrote: »

Have you lost 6 stone recently? It is a battle. Because I have an unhealthy relationship with food. When I am lonely, bored, stressed out, unhappy, happy etc I want food.
You post just goes to show you have absolutely no idea how difficult it is to lose a vast amount of weight when food is your crutch.
Also, food is everywhere. No matter where i go it's there. And I always want it. But I do have to make very concious decisions to make healthy choices.
And I do have to restrain myself.

Not 6 stone, just 2 and another 2 (at least) to go. And it wasnt easy. It involved a good bit of exercise which was a bit of a pain in the ass (but more often was enjoyable and made me feel far better). It involved a massive change to my diet. But I looked into what you could eat which was nice and filling and there is loads of stuff out there. Its relatively easy to cut down on junk, snacks, certain types of carbs and still to eat healthy, nutritious and tasty foods. So while it was a pain at first, now its second nature.

It shouldnt be compared to cancer or other illnesses by calling it a battle. It may be your 'crutch', it may be 'everywhere' but so is Coronation Street and the Sun, yet if someone wanted to give up either of those two, they wouldnt get too much sympathy.

Im afraid there is far too much victimhood going on here. Simple alterations in lifestyle over a prolonged period of time is not a 'battle' - it is an alteration. There is a massive difference between the addictive nature of cigarettes, alcohol, drugs etc and food. And noone suggests that you give up food, just that you change food types.

When you say 'food' is your 'crutch', I presume you are not referring to grilled chicken breasts with a side salad ande perhaps some wild rice or cous cous? That can be delicous and nutritious and if you eat that every day, you will lose a lot of weight relatively quickly.

Dublin_Gunner

Ya know what, I'm sick of all this PC brigade stuff.

If you're fat, your fat - end of.

I love the way most fat people seem to think its perfectly fine to call someone 'skinny' - but don't dare call them fat.

My other half is constantly being called 'skinny' (she is quite slim, but enough meat to keep me happy ) - and she hates it. But she daren't call an overweight person fat for fear of them lodging a complaint (it mostly happens in work).

Can't have double standards. If ya don't wanna be called fat, don't eat so much rubbish. (and I'm not referring to the small number of obese people who have an 'actual' medical condition causing the weight).

Procasinator

ash23 wrote: »

But again, the former is treated with respect and it's recognised as being something that is difficult to overcome where being obese is just seen as being lazy and not arsed.

One as seen as more of a psychological problem than the other. Humans have a natural instinct to eat, and probably nearly everyone here likes to eat junk (at least from the taste and initial boost, maybe not the aftermath).

While it is no doubt hard to change a bad diet, and the quick, satisfying nature of eating is addictive, it's something most of us have to build mechanisms to deal with.

The answer isn't pity for those who are large. Understanding? Sure. But most importantly: education.

ash23

Zamboni wrote: »

That is a profoundly disturbing post. I hope it is in jest.

No, it isn't in jest. Take it in context.


As for

It shouldnt be compared to cancer or other illnesses by calling it a battle. It may be your 'crutch', it may be 'everywhere' but so is Coronation Street and the Sun, yet if someone wanted to give up either of those two, they wouldnt get too much sympathy

I never compared it to cancer. If you think that the only people who face an ongoing battle are cancer victims then thats your perception of the word. You can't tell me not to use it.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of people don't take food addiction seriously. Comparing it to the Sun or Corrie is downright insulting to those who overcame food addiction.

It's clearly a waste of time trying to explain it here as every time I do, another person who knows nothing of food addiction comes along and tells me how easy it it to lose weight and how if I'm fat it's my own fault and I should just lose weight.

I leave you all with this.
If weight loss is so damn easy, and over eating is so easy to resolve, then why is weight loss such big business? I mean, everyone knows, eat less, exercise more. Same as everyone knows smoking is bad for you. But people still over eat and they still smoke.


Just to add, to put food addiction in context. I have just had my lunch. A healthy lunch. I am sated but I am not full. One of the girls in the office brought in chocolates. I am so concious of the bag sitting there. I cannot have junk food in my house. Simple as. If it is there I will eat it. I will be lying in bed thinking of the pack of cookies in the press.
Sad? Yes. Pathetic? Yes.
I have no idea why I am this way. I do not know. It's just the way I am. I can eat and eat and eat until I vomit and then I'll still be able to eat more. I cannot eat food I enjoy. Be that sweet things or savoury. Because I have to do things in moderation and if I like something at all then I will eat and eat and eat it.

I love soup. But I can't have one bowl. Would have to have at least 3. So i avoid it even though it's not a bad thing per se.
I can have a cuppa soup because I don't enjoy them.

I've learned over the years to control it a bit better but I don't believe it will ever go away. I will always feel deprived as I will never be able to eat what I want and just enjoy it. I will feel an emptiness when it is finished and I will seek something else.

So it 'aint as simple as ye all seem to think.

Dublin_Gunner

ash23 wrote: »

If weight loss is so damn easy, and over eating is so easy to resolve, then why is weight loss such big business? I mean, everyone knows, eat less, exercise more. Same as everyone knows smoking is bad for you. But people still over eat and they still smoke.

Its called human nature. We inherintly like things that are in fact bad for us. They give us a form of 'thrill'.

Weight loss is such big business because of human nature. If we didn't have the fast food cultures and ease of convenience as we do, we wouldn't have such a problem with people becoming overweight, or more to the point, obese.

Its mostly way past the point that something should have been done, when these people decide to do something about it.

The weight loss brigade target the very people who cannot overcome their human nature (and yes, some do manage to get out of the rut, though with difficulty), but they are never going to break the weight gain / sustain circle without the proper education which the majority of the weight-loss 'specialists' target with apparent quick fix solutions.

drkpower

ash23 wrote: »

If weight loss is so damn easy, and over eating is so easy to resolve, then why is weight loss such big business? I mean, everyone knows, eat less, exercise more. Same as everyone knows smoking is bad for you. But people still over eat and they still smoke.

People do all sorts of things they shouldnt; its human nature to do something that is easy and comforting (eating high fat, high carb foods, not exercising) rather than something that isnt (dieting, exercise). But that doesn't mean that those people should get a free pass when it comes to being critical of their behaviour.

And continually comparing food to physiological substances like smoking is disingenuos and inaccurate.

1. High fat/carb food is not physiologically adddcitive in the manner of nicotine.

2. Losing weight is not about giving up food; you can still eat, and eat lots. Its not even about giving up bad food; you can still have the odd treat. Giving up smoking tends to be an 'all or nothing' affair. If a smoker could just change brand or reduce the amount they smoke in order to be healthy, they would be delighted!

3. It plays into a general view that being overweight is a 'condition' where the 'sufferer' is to be pitied for this 'affliction' rather than something that can be changed with relatively straightforward lifestyle changes. Not easy changes, mind you, but straightforward changes nonetheless.