Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Fat Acceptance Movement
Options
Replies
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
Where I work, it is similar. Many people see it as a "fine" or a "penalty" but the annual health screenings (weight, height, body fat %, blood work, optional test for nicotine/cotinine) are voluntary. Technically, the way it works is that we get a discount if we do the screening and the results are good and we get another discount if we don't smoke. If the results from the screening are not good enough to get the maximum discount, everyone has an option to get extra "points" added to their screening results by taking online training specific to the areas they didn't do well on. So in reality, everybody has an opportunity to get the health screening discount, but it is a discount and not a fine if you don't do it, despite that many employees see it that way.
Personally, I like this because it saves me some money and the worst case is that I have to spend an hour or 2 doing some training (on stuff I usually already know, but it is worth the discount). The only part I don't like is some of the specific administration. For example, there was a year when my LDL was 17. They said that was too low and my total health was just low enough that I didn't qualify for the discount without doing online training. So one of the things I had to do was the cholesterol training. The problem is, this class was all about the dangers of high cholesterol and how to lower cholesterol. I even sent an email to my dr. and he agreed that the lower LDL, the better. So I was annoyed by that. But I still got the discount.1 -
@DearestWinter think of it as the inverse of No Fault insurance, divorce, etc.
If one develops life styles that drives up medical cost they pay more. Personal responsibility seems to be an old concept that is returning perhaps to some degree?
At some point these policies will wind up in a court room I expect in our brave new world.1 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.1 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way
True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?9 -
DearestWinter wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking. It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's. My numbers are great. but my husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand smoking and obesity are issues that an individual has the capability of addressing (in contrast to getting cancer, for example). OTOH, smoking is usually an addiction and obesity can be caused by an eating disorder, both of which are conditions that shouldn't be penalized. Sure, not every single smoker is addicted and not every obese person has an eating disorder but it'd be difficult to weed those people out. Should people pay a fat tax or not? I'm not sure what's reasonable and I'm not sure if charging extra is going to be a wake-up call or just make them more resigned to their size.
I like the idea of encouraging people to be aware of their health, such as requiring them to submit their blood work (or giving them credit for doing so) and, if they smoke or are overweight, requiring them to sign a form indicating they're aware of the health consequences. I also think that if someone smokes or is obese they could be given resources for support and other positive reinforcement. Support groups, free doctor's appointments/labs, cooking classes, etc. (It surprises me how many adults I know who never cook at home because they don't know how.)
Edit: fixed typo
It's not so much a Fat Tax as it is paying more for insurance because you're higher risk and therefore more likely to use the insurance over your lifetime. From my understanding, it's risk level that determines price of insurance.
At least in California, for example, men between 18 and 25 pay higher car insurance rates because, overall as a demographic, they tend to be more impulsive drivers. Is every 18-25 year old man a risky driver? Of course not, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.7 -
Body shaming anyone in any shape is wrong.
I will say though, I do not like people who push uneducated statements on others such as 'you can be obese and healthy'. It's a half truth and too many people take it to heart. I see a lot of followers of plus size models who push this, because they are obese with no major health issues. BUT THEY ARE YOUNG. I was obese and healthy a few years ago... fast forward now and I have hypertension, edema and am bordering on diabetes. That *kitten* catches up with you eventually.7 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Do you enjoy deliberately missing the point?
Explain to me how choosing the threshold for health risk to be acceptable vs unacceptable can be anything other than arbitrary. We know they did not use 100% (everybody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely unacceptable) or 0% (nobody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely acceptable).3 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?1 -
My biggest issue with the "fat acceptance movement" is that it often tries to push thin/skinny/athletic/petite bodies down to make them feel better. "Only a dog wants a bone", "No one wants to snuggle a stick", "Real women have curves".
I want people to like their own bodies, it's not a good feeling to hate yourself. But, don't put my body down to make yourself feel better about yours! My body structure means I will not have the curvy hourglass figure - the closest i'll ever get involves a billion squats and a boob job. Just because I have the "socially accepted" body doesn't mean I don't have my own insecurities.
I don't have to like your body. I don't have to find it attractive. I don't make cruel, unwanted or nasty remarks. I don't push/talk about my weight, health, exercise or lifestyle (unless asked). I DO expect you to do the same.
I could hug you for this - I am 5'1 ~95lb and I get a lot of crap for the way I look. I am the fittest I have ever been at around 17%bf and I lift heavy and eat well. It is as if my existence somehow makes others feel less about themselves so they try to tear me down. I also get flack from my family because I make working out 4 days a week a commitment and they feel like it is excessive. Which, I guess it could seem that way if you are completely sedentary. /Rant
But seriously I feel your pain.16 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way
True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?
Actually I believe studies are varied, but punishment seems to win.1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Do you enjoy deliberately missing the point?
Explain to me how choosing the threshold for health risk to be acceptable vs unacceptable can be anything other than arbitrary. We know they did not use 100% (everybody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely unacceptable) or 0% (nobody at this BMI has potentially weight-related health issues, definitely acceptable).
Using that logic, ALL decisions are arbitrary unless there is absolute certainty.0 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.2 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.5 -
caffeinatedcami wrote: »I was thinking about body image issues (my own and society's in general) and I learned about something called the Fat Acceptance Movement. The Healthy at Any Size Movement is related to this as well. I am curious what people's thoughts on this are.
Personally I am of two minds about it. I have never been clinically overweight but I definitely flirted with the normal-overweight bmi boundary at one point. I have had body image issues since I was a teenager and three of my immediate family members have suffered from anorexia. So I know the toll that negative body image can have on a person. Everyone should love themselves regardless of their size. And fat-shaming should not be tolerated. However, I agree with a lot of the points made in this blog post "6 Things I Don't Understand About the Fat Acceptance Movement". At a certain point does it really demonstrate self-love to give up on weight loss? What are your thoughts?
http://thoughtcatalog.com/carolyn-hall/2014/04/6-things-i-dont-understand-about-the-fat-acceptance-movement/
I am overweight (obese actually at a size 16) and I accept myself just like I am. *I* am not my fat.m much more than my body size, shape, gender, nationality, or skin color. Those things are only outer things....things that have to do with this shell of a body (or the country it resides in) that holds my soul. "I don't have a soul. I AM a soul. I HAVE a body."~ C.S. Lewis
My weight does not define me. My size does not repulse me. I don't think I look hideous. I don't think all fat people are unhealthy, but most will be eventually (if they aren't already) if they don't change it. That is just a fact.
None of this means I don't want to change my size, health or life. There is always room for improvement. I want to be the best version of me I can be. The fact that I accept myself does not mean I don't want to improve my health and my looks. I like how I look. Eventually I will love how I look. And I will like me for where I am, every step of the way.
As far as other people's weight is concerned: They can be whatever size they are and I will not judge or dislike them for that. Lots of people (far more than people realize) have underlying health problems causing their obesity (from thyroid conditions to medications to insulin resistance to PCOS, etc, etc). I would never judge anyone based on weight because the older I get the more I realize humans are ate up with disease and conditions that are contributing to their weight problems.
5 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.
Where did I say I hold anyone in contempt? Also, what is being debated here is whether or not guidelines for obesity are arbitrary. They aren't.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way
True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?
Actually I believe studies are varied, but punishment seems to win.
Hmm, I'm going to have to go digging now because I'm genuinely curious as to which has been found more effective. I know my own n=1 experience is that punishment does not encourage me to change, but I'm curious as to whether I fall outside the norm or if it tends to be 50/50.1 -
ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »ArmyofAdrian wrote: »I don't know what definition of obesity you are using, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going with the CDC's definition of obesity: "Weight that is higher than what is considered as a healthy weight for a given height is described as overweight or obese. " A weight that is higher than what is healthy would be unhealthy.
Also, the AMA, The World Health Organization, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists each recognize obesity as a disease. A disease is included in the set of things that are unhealthy.
Of course, the line between healthy and unhealthy is uniform for a height regardless of any other factors? That seems very, very arbitrary to me. The BMI definition of obesity is population-statistical. It's uninformative for any individual.
How can it be arbitrary when it's based on statistical analysis? Anyway, quibbling over the diagnostic criteria doesn't change the plain fact that obesity is unhealthy.
For several reasons. One, BMI does not include sufficient variables to adequately be more than an estimation for an individual. Two, BMI does not adequately cover sufficient populations to really develop an all-inclusive model with the variables it does include (i.e. the model doesn't fit well for Asians as an example). It also does not fit the very short or the very tall. Three, how exactly were cut-offs picked? They have some basis in risk analysis, but what level of risk is considered unacceptable is basically arbitrary.
Basing a criterion on its statistical significance using huge data sets is not at all "arbitrary".
Deciding that a 20.1% risk* is unacceptable whereas a 20% risk* is acceptable is arbitrary. There is no standard for when health risk crosses from 'acceptable' to not.
Also, when dealing with global population and physiological diversity, I'd hardly consider the sampling used to generate the BMI model as 'huge'.
*Not actual numbers, used only as an example.
You arbitrarily pull numbers out of the air then pretend those arbitrary numbers somehow refute the actual statistical analysis??
Totally missed the point, didn't you?
Okay Rob, I'll ignore the AMA, CDC, NIH, and WHO since they didn't clear their statistical methods with you first and because they can't guarantee absolute 100% predictably of outcomes based on risk factors.
Which of these organizations compell you to hold overweight people in contempt?
I need direct quotes on this one.
The funny thing is I don't disagree that obesity increases health risks. But that isn't really what's being debated here.
it is though, isn't it? I mean, no one here is arguing that obese people should be shamed, held in contempt, mocked, etc. The argument is about the inherent increased risks of obesity (and in my opinion, is best contrasted with the same person if they were not obese).9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »My question to those who say people should take responsibility for themselves, is, "what business is it of yours?"
Why does it matter to you what someone else does or doesn't do? How does it concern you?
Like others have said above, "mind your own business".
Kind of ironic that this is a web site mostly about getting healthier. Try a little compassion for people that have not found this site, or can not make it work for them. Walk a mile in their shoes. Cuz I have been there, done that, lost a lot of weight and have kept it off for over 2 years, thanks to MFP, my fitbit, and a lot of compassionate, helpful people here.
If you pay taxes or insurance it's your busiess. Obesity related illnesses count for over 20% of medical spending in thr US.
So far, in most cases, the obese don't pay highwe insurance premiums or more taxes (over 50% of medical costs are paid by government)
It's coming though. My husband works for a large, global company (based out of the U.S. and has over 100,000 employees). In the last couple years things have changed with our insurance, where it's now mandatory to submit blood work/weight details, in order to not get penalized for health insurance. It's also mandatory that we're screened for smoking.
It started out that if you didn't do this, then you lost HSA deposit incentives (up to $500 per employee/spouse). This year they changed it and if you don't get the blood work done then you actually pay a 'fine' and pay more for your premium. And smokers pay an additional fine on top of that. We've been told that soon there will also be fines for not having good blood work/having high bmi's.
My husband has higher cholesterol and soon we'll be paying more for our insurance because of it. People who have a higher bmi (by the criteria that the insurance company goes by), will also incur fines. And if you're a smoker, then you get hit twice. I don't know if you get triple fines if you fail at all three things (overweight, bad blood work, smoker), but it wouldn't surprise me at all. This applies for spouses of employees as well.
I prefer the Humana Vitality way of doing things, where people are rewarded for doing "healthy" things (such as regular checkups, losing weight if needed, stopping smoking, etc). I receive a 10% discount on my insurance premiums when I hit a certain status with them (i.e. do enough "healthy" things worth a certain number of points).
I've been following this thread just because it's so bizarre to me. I've been overweight most of my life and obese my entire adulthood (except I dropped below into overweight BMI this month - go me!). I remember feeling bad about being "chunky" as a kid. It's not that I wasn't active - I was - rode my bike hours almost every day, but I definitely ate too much and not the best choices of food either. I recall a couple incidences of kids/teens being mean because of my weight, but I never thought being overweight was okay. I definitely agree that making people feel bad about their weight is a *kitten* move. However, I'm not okay with people burying their heads in the sand about the health risks of being overweight and obese, and this is coming from someone who never saw any of those risks realized.
Reward for healthy ot penalty for unhealthy, it's just marketing. Company can make final numbers come out the same either way
True enough, but the psychological impact on the insured is completely different. One would irritate me to no end, and the other makes me feel good. Which do you think is more likely to incite people to improve their health?
Actually I believe studies are varied, but punishment seems to win.
Hmm, I'm going to have to go digging now because I'm genuinely curious as to which has been found more effective. I know my own n=1 experience is that punishment does not encourage me to change, but I'm curious as to whether I fall outside the norm or if it tends to be 50/50.
It's called Loss Aversion. Simply put, people HATE to LOSE more than they LOVE to WIN. When given a choice between two items of equal value, people will overwhelmingly choose the more secure option. As an example, choose between a 100% chance at $100 or a 50% chance at $200. The expected value of 50% of $200 is $100, so they are equal. But people will overwhelmingly choose the sure thing. You have to increase the less secure option to say 50% chance at $400 before people start to take a chance.
In the case of insurance, I think a powerful motivator would be to give people $500 at the beginning of the year and then tie specific health goals that are within their control. If the goals are met, they keep the money, but if they are not, some of the money is removed each month. I also think fines or punishments would be more effective than rewards. Rewards exist for weight loss (greater confidence, ability to play with kids, etc.) but many people don't respond. To the extent I'm motivated by money, if I set a goal of losing 1lb/week, I think I'd be more motivated at the prospect of paying someone $5 for not making my goal than of getting paid $5 for making my it.
This article has some interesting ways of using Loss Aversion in marketing.
http://psychologyformarketers.com/loss-aversion/6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions