An MPs' report on body image has advocated the use of "weight-neutral language". So should we stop calling people "overweight"?
There are many people who would agree that using the term "fat" to somebody's face is neither helpful or pleasant.
But there's a growing movement to get doctors and other public health professionals to stop using words such as "overweight" and "obese" as well.
MPs think the terms have a negative impact on body image and self-esteem, and want doctors to promote broader health and lifestyle messages instead.
The idea has been gaining momentum for a while. A study by the University of Pennsylvania in January found the word "obesity" offensive, while Liverpool City Council considered banning the word in its literature aimed at children in 2010.
And in March, draft guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said those who were obese should merely be encouraged to get down to a "healthier weight".
But not everyone agrees. In 2010, the Public Health Minister for England, Anne Milton, said GPs should tell people they were fat rather than obese as it was more likely to motivate them into losing weight.
So does weight terminology need a rethink?
Dr Sarah Jarvis, a presenter on the BBC's One Show, says when it comes to a medical context, the words "overweight" and "obese" are necessary, largely because they are the framework for the body mass index (BMI).
"I don't want to make people feel bad, and appreciate some people may have problems with self-esteem, but when it comes to it, as a doctor, if you are too careful, you run the risk of people not understanding the health implications.
"The fact is BMI is the best indicator of likelihood of surviving to a later date - and if you get into the obese range, the chances are you are going to die from a condition related to obesity like heart disease. If you are overweight rather than obese, you are more likely to die early and have medical conditions," she says.
The facts are when I started training in 1993, 10% of the UK was obese and now 25% are. We are absolutely not moving the goalposts - we are getting fatter," she says.
Nigel Mercer, the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, agrees that when it comes to someone who is seriously overweight, and it is a medical issue, "there is no pussyfooting around the issue".
But he says the key is "appropriate use of terminology for appropriate use".
"It depends on who comments are being levelled at - to a class of children, where there will be a distribution of body sizes, it is important to know being overweight can lead to diabetes, but it is more of a psychological issue than a health issue - and children can be extremely cruel," he says.
Mercer says for adults, part of the problem is people no longer filter what they say, and society should really keep more of its opinions to itself.
"I am a big bloke, and I would have no problem if a professional told me I was obese, but it would be entirely different if someone told me that in the street," he says.
So.. Im sure you can guess Mattys face upon reading this. Nothing brings forth the rage more than this PC drivel. I really hope the fething MPs "report" didnt cost too much.
What say you?
Its a simple one for me.
I fething love cakes, I love meat pies, I love ice cream. And I proper love pints of beer.
I think most humans do, a long evolution when food was scarce forced us to seek out high value foods such as sugar and fat. Monkeys wage war over honey.
So, if I, as much as I love ice cream and pints, force myself with effort to eat them only two days a week, whilst I spend the rest of the time forcing myself through 10,000 meters on the rowing machine, or gritting my teeth and running 6 miles when I hugely cannot be arsed... why on earth should you, be able to claim its not your fault? Its the food companies/government's/societies fault instead?
Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the story? Do you actually find the very idea somewhat offensive like me? Do you think that this type of debate is exactly what is wrong with things in the first place? The idea that nobody can take their medicine, or deal with a hard truth?
Or do you think there is a balance to be struck? Is the term "obese" too harsh?
If so, what steps do you recommend? What alternatives could we employ?
And most importantly, does anyone on here weigh more than 200lbs and REALLY "eat like a sparrow"?
I just found out I weigh 200, yet I was 185 a couple months ago and my waist line has been shrinking. I'll admit to being overweight, but not full on fat-being 5'11" with a 33" waist isn't bad, but I typically hate PC stuff too. I recommend adding 'oh gak' as a weight size-it doesn't call them fat or super thin, but it certainly draws attention to their weight. 'what have you been eating?!' is another appropriate weight description, as long as the exclamation point is added.
Could always rate degrees of unhealthy weight by using the internationally recognised 'You'll be dead in X months, unless you lay off the pies' system. Does no good for the unhealthily skinny though...
Saw this on The Wright Stuff this morning.
As someone who is overweight, and used to be very fat, it's bs.
You will only change yourself when you hate yourself, and the best way of doing that is by being ridiculed. Nothing wrong with a bit of tough love.
I calls em hows I sees em. Fat, Morbidly Obese, Grossly Overweight. These are the terms doctors should use, if their patients cry that's progress; it's water weight.
I will admit quite honestly that i'm bigger than i should be at 210lbs. But, unlike many (especially americans), me being a soldier has me doing more... i ride my bicycle around 40 miles each saturday, plus other regular strenuous stuff elsewhere in the week...
I work out quite a bit... but like Matty, I love beer, whisky, and food, abit too much at times, but i do try to at meast maintain and lose weight...i don't eat like a supermodel, thats for sure.
My problem with many people is that they just do not car, or just will not try..plus we have a society that now prefers to place blame elsehwere rather than accept fault.
AustonT wrote:I calls em hows I sees em. Fat, Morbidly Obese, Grossly Overweight. These are the terms doctors should use, if their patients cry that's progress; it's water weight.
Haha, that's a good one.
"Bawl your eyes out for an hour fat stuff, that's 3lbs burned off right there"
Georgia Davis weighed 60 stone, or 840 pounds, when emergency workers cut her out of her UK home, using scaffolding to lower her to the ground floor to go to the doctor.
LONDON -- Emergency workers who needed to take an obese teenager from her home to a hospital in Wales had to break through a wall of the residence to get her out and into an ambulance, officials said Friday.
The rescue on the second floor of the small house on Thursday used scaffolding as a ramp to lower the woman to the ground level, the local Rhondda Cynon Taf council said.
The unidentified 19-year-old remained hospitalized Friday and her medical condition was not released.
Neighbors said her weight had risen as high as 380 kilos (835 pounds).
The U.K. has one of Europe's fattest populations: more than 60 percent of adults and one third of children aged 10-11 are overweight or obese, roughly similar to U.S. statistics.
treadhead1944 wrote:Being 250 pounds I am not one to cast the first stone. As on the first of the year I was 296...
I'm 117 pounds. I would cast the first stone if I could lift it
If its a question of sensibility, I don't care, people should be honest enough with themselves that terms like 'fat' and 'obese' shouldn't be banned. But that's just a question of how people react to what other people say ; it's healthier to build up a tough shell than it is to ban words that have meanings. As far as the healthy weight scale, that can go to hell, according to mine, I've been a few pounds away from hospitalization for my entire life, and I've always been into sports, always ate my 3 meals a day, and simply never took weight.
treadhead1944 wrote:Being 250 pounds I am not one to cast the first stone. As on the first of the year I was 296...
I'm 117 pounds. I would cast the first stone if I could lift it
If its a question of sensibility, I don't care, people should be honest enough with themselves that terms like 'fat' and 'obese' shouldn't be banned. But that's just a question of how people react to what other people say ; it's healthier to build up a tough shell than it is to ban words that have meanings. As far as the healthy weight scale, that can go to hell, according to mine, I've been a few pounds away from hospitalization for my entire life, and I've always been into sports, always ate my 3 meals a day, and simply never took weight.
That may change once you hit a certian age. Have no idea what that age is, but suddenly (usually in their mid 30's) men's metabolisms come to a screeching halt, and suddenly you gain weight watching commercials for food. Until that point, my prescription for you is more Poutine, and cook everything you eat confit.
If there is one thing, and it is only one thing, that I am grateful for from my current job, it is that since I started I have shed about 50lbs. I'm not free of the belly yet, but I'm a damned sight leaner than 15 years of days in offices and nights in pubs had made me. I'm physically stronger now than I've ever been. Carrying table saws, lumber and bricks around has done wonders.
I will never be fat again. I realise now how much pain and discomfort I was in carrying that weight.
But I do understand the difficulty in getting rid of weight, the inertia and embarrassment and depression that robs you of energy. It is breaking that cycle that is key and you must endure a good amount of pain to get there.
Dieting is pointless btw, it is exercise that will take off the fat.
I dont think anyone thinks its an American problem TH, indeed, I certainly didnt mention it!
Frankly, all of the west, and especially the English speaking West, seems to become more and more like one big, gak, whiny country each year that passes. I must have visited all of them over the years, and there really are no sizeable differences.
In a nutshell, we are all fat, lazy, entitled whingers. And nobody wants to say what needs saying.
Man the feth up, and sort your own life out for a change.
If you're fat (exceping a valid medical reason) and being called fat hurts your feelings thats just tough, and if it will make people get off their flabby rear ends and lose weight then that can only be a good thing. Yet more PC nonsense.
Hey hey, if I can draw a parallel from my parents, my father's 63 and 135 pounds and my mom is 58 at 125 pounds.
Basically I was cursed with being laughed at for being really short my whole life, but I'll get to keep my tight butt until the day I die. And at 27 people still think I'm underage. Fair enough.
mattyrm wrote:I dont think anyone thinks its an American problem TH, indeed, I certainly didnt mention it!
Frankly, all of the west, and especially the English speaking West, seems to become more and more like one big, gak, whiny country each year that passes. I must have visited all of them over the years, and there really are no sizeable differences.
In a nutshell, we are all fat, lazy, entitled whingers. And nobody wants to say what needs saying.
Man the feth up, and sort your own life out for a change.
I was being preemptive. And you are 100% right. Last night I watched a Sean Bean film, where he got beat up (surprise I know). The story was based on events that happened in 1991 involving an SAS team in Iraq. Read Bravo Two-Zero if you want the whole story. I was in the Gulf at the time, and remember hearing rumors (we spent some time attached to Royal Aviation) about some of what had happened. Today does the Western world make people who could do that? In the 20 years since we (the West) have softened incredibly, and I sometimes doubt that we still turn out the hard men (and women) that can do the spec-ops stuff. For clarification I am referring to following generations, not the current group of operators.
If someone is fat, call them fat. This sort of thing gives Political Correctness a bad name.
Nigel Mercer, the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, agrees that when it comes to someone who is seriously overweight, and it is a medical issue, "there is no pussyfooting around the issue"
I found this funny though, someone who profits on low self esteem calling for people to be told of their failings and get low self esteem
mattyrm wrote:I dont think anyone thinks its an American problem TH, indeed, I certainly didnt mention it!
Frankly, all of the west, and especially the English speaking West, seems to become more and more like one big, gak, whiny country each year that passes. I must have visited all of them over the years, and there really are no sizeable differences.
In a nutshell, we are all fat, lazy, entitled whingers. And nobody wants to say what needs saying.
Man the feth up, and sort your own life out for a change.
/too lazy to go to gym
/brought the gym home.
What you can't see is that my beer fridge is 3 steps away. Typical American laziness.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Dieting is pointless btw, it is exercise that will take off the fat.
If by dieting you mean fad diets or crash diets, I agree 100%. However, your diet, or day to day eating habits, are just as important as exercising.
Dropping sodas was worth 15 pounds to me. Cooking my own food and having soup or a tuna sandwhich for lunch everyday instead of fast food was worth another 10-15 lbs. I'm not maintaining my weight and getting fit with only exercise. You need both.
On topic: I called myself chubby because I was at 199 lbs and 5'9". I'm a much healthier and physically fit 170 lbs now because I didn't want to be chubby for my own sake and for the ladies. It's all about the ladies...
Joey brings up a point, I will continue ridiculing the fat.
They will only change if they hate themselves, the one time where this doesn't work is when people eat when they're down.
Calling the fat makes them more down and makes them get even fatter. That's the only time PC rubbish should be used.
For the skinny it's diffirent. The people who throw up should be helped as do people who hate being "fat" so starve themselves. Or just people who don't understand what to eat to stay healthy.
People with high metabolism are the unlucky (Or lucky) ones. They can't help it other than eating more but that can still clog up their heart. Tough times.
I knew I was chubby and no longer wanted to be. That was on me. If your friend asks if you think they're over-weight let them know, but I don't think calling strangers you meet in a pub Fatty McFatfat is a good idea...
Grey Templar wrote:If someone is fat, they should be told about it.
Most fat people know they are fat. Having someone (excluding medical professionals) just point it out isn't really necessary.
Grey Templar wrote:Just like smoking, drinking, or any other bad habit/condition. If you don't want to change, you won't.
Indeed. Though I would add an amendment that it can be difficult to know what stage a person is in when they are overweight. If a smoker quits you know they aren't smoking because you see them not having a cigarette, but if someone is trying to lose weight they will still look fat. One of the biggest obstacles for fat people exercising is dealing with shame and/or guilt. It seems like everyone is staring at them incredulously, and they aren't always wrong. It has been my experience that there are three general reactions. One is of apathy where the person doesn't care if an overweight person is there, the second type tries to be encouraging and helpful, and the third just doesn't want anyone overweight anywhere near them. The problem of course is that the people that don't like overweight people make the environment that much more difficult for overweight people to get into a better place by creating a subtly hostile environment; they don't want fat people but they don't want them to be in their gym.
Losing significant wieght takes years and is very difficult.
I try not to say any thing (but my diplomacy dike can only hold so much back ) as nigh on all my LR friends (I know i have "some" real life friends ) are on the large size , the two brothers are (give or take 16st each, where as another is clocking up 17st, then there is the one we do worry about, he is close to if not 26st!
26 fracking stone! He knows he is shall we say large and even bosts about it. We do take the piss out of him but we also tell him (insist on or nag the hell) that he needs to lose most of it asap as he gets whezzy just from climing the stairs and geting out of a chair! A chair! Now I know this is quite a macarb thing to do (and I yes I know we really shouldn't but we each have our own page ) but we are running a book as to when he gets diabetes, the type, when a heart attack will happen and the level, when a stroke will hit him and how bad it will be, and, when he finaly clocks off this mortal coil. I've got him being dead by the time he hits 40 and thats if he is lucky.
(I my self am expected to die by the age of 38 under the wheels of an articulated lorry or bus, or as one freind has writen "either by his own hands or a bridge"., quite comforting lo.l)
I my self am (looks for a converter...) 170lb, just another 20lb to go before i hit the sweet spot. Also I still have the same waist line now as I did 13 years ago (which is kind of cool for dressing up for 90s theamed partys nights ), all thanks to eating properly, bike riding and an odd need to still fit in a size 14 dress
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Dieting is pointless btw, it is exercise that will take off the fat.
If by dieting you mean fad diets or crash diets, I agree 100%. However, your diet, or day to day eating habits, are just as important as exercising.
Vastly more so. The amount of effort required to burn off the foods I enjoy is truly gargantuan. Something like 45 kilometers worth of jogging per day.
It's far more important to watch what you eat, than to try and work it off.
On the other hand there are some 8st weakling types here who apparently will be approaching Chunky Monkeys (look it up its a medical term) and probably getting bitch slapped by some sausage fingers, like...
Why hide it, my belly doesn't have a stealth mode.
Being fat is my problem, I love my food more than I should. I am not going to blame ayone else, or condone other fatties who try to make out its other peoples fault.
Kebabs are tasty, as are curries, chinese food, burgers, chocolate, biscuits and pizza.
Salads aren't.
Ribon Fox wrote:That said I do like these alittle to much.
French toast (soked in three beaten eggs) with cheese and bacon
...hmmmmm cheese and bacon....
If I lived in the UK, i would totally propose based on that sandwich alone... I too can still fit in my clothes from when I was in High School. I was fat then too. Just a span from 1988 to 1994 when I wasn't. My natural weight is around 195-200, my weight in the military was around 165. I looked horrible. Put myself back on the scale today, lost another 6lbs, bringing the total lost since January to 43lbs. Yay me!
Hang on, at what point did I become a serial killer?
I think they say you are born that way.
Right that's it, your going on the list!
Ribon Fox wrote:
AustonT wrote:
notprop wrote:
Hang on, at what point did I become a serial killer?
I think they say you are born that way.
I just had to
Spoiler:
Catchy tune for me to work off all those fruit salads
Dunno who the blonde haired bloke singing is, but he's good! Clearly he's not a fan of the fruit salad or the far superior candy stick, stomach is far too fat.
Well that didn't take long for this thread to be derailed to highly fatty sanwiches, sugery sweets, candy sticks, serial killers, sex offenders and Lady GaGa
Ribon Fox wrote:Well that didn't take long for this thread to be derailed to highly fatty sanwiches, sugery sweets, candy sticks, serial killers, sex offenders and Lady GaGa
Ribon Fox wrote:Well that didn't take long for this thread to be derailed to highly fatty sanwiches, sugery sweets, candy sticks, serial killers, sex offenders and Lady GaGa
So...summarized.
It puts the candy back in the basket or else it gets called fat again
Ribon Fox wrote:Well that didn't take long for this thread to be derailed to highly fatty sanwiches, sugery sweets, candy sticks, serial killers, sex offenders and Lady GaGa
So...summarized.
"It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
I would be classed as morbidly obese if you go by that rubbish that is the BMI, 6'4/5" and around 136Kg. I would say I am more obese.
My weakness is that I eat when stressed/angry/low and a fear of exercise. I used to play rugby every week when I was younger, multiple knee injuries meant that I wasn't able to do much in exercise for around 8 years, thereby falling out of the exercise habit. Every time I started to get back into the gym, I would get another injury. My knees have been fixed and I know that I can exercise yet I still get worried that something will happen again. Therefore very little exercise in 8 years equals lots of pounds.
Only now starting to shift the weight by watching portion sizes, not giving in to cravings and going for walks.
Azza007 wrote:I would be classed as morbidly obese if you go by that rubbish that is the BMI, 6'4/5" and around 136Kg. I would say I am more obese.
My weakness is that I eat when stressed/angry/low and a fear of exercise. I used to play rugby every week when I was younger, multiple knee injuries meant that I wasn't able to do much in exercise for around 8 years, thereby falling out of the exercise habit. Every time I started to get back into the gym, I would get another injury. My knees have been fixed and I know that I can exercise yet I still get worried that something will happen again. Therefore very little exercise in 8 years equals lots of pounds.
Only now starting to shift the weight by watching portion sizes, not giving in to cravings and going for walks.
The key is starting to move. Once you get into that habit everything else is easy. Also don't forget to treat yourself. Denying yourself is a surefire way to yo yo with the weight.
notprop wrote:On average most men treat themselves at least once a day.
Are we still talking about the same thing?
Tisk tisk tisk, you know there are 12 year olds that use this fourm, killing people with chainswords is perfectly fine but don't mention self gratifaction...unless you ment "a dump?"
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.
Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.
Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).
I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.
Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).
I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!
Filter? It's medical accuracy.
Like if when asked "what kind of wood" we look at them blankly and say "... wood." But they're looking for oak specifically.
Joey wrote:"They" have indeed "banned" medical words before. "slow", for example.
Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.
Much like there is a separation between "overweight" (more weight than average-- many athletes are "overweight", for example) and "obesity" (having a very high percentage of adipose/fat tissue in the body).
I don't know if you looked at the word he actually used, but you and him are on the same page. The language filter strikes again!
Filter? It's medical accuracy.
Like if when asked "what kind of wood" we look at them blankly and say "... wood." But they're looking for oak specifically.
Joey said re-tard, not slow. No one asks "what kind of re-tard" and gets the answer "well he has a broken leg so clearly he is mobility re-tarded"
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation and it's various PC forms. As a description it's use is more wide and varied.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.
Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.
Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
I think a lot of research is being done into levels of Ghrelin and Leptin (the hormones that govern hunger and fullness) of the obese. I'm sure there are a minority that have OCD like disorders but the levels of obesity are far higher than the levels of any kind of psychological disorder. Its possible that society may be causing the fat to develop mental issues because of body image and what-not, but I refuse to believe that people who eat too much do so because they have psychological disorders. (unless shown evidence of course.) Are we expected to believe that another 30% of America now has a psychological disorder? What happens when this reaches 51%. Can insanity be in the majority?
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
Here argue with yourself.
Melissia wrote:Actually, that particular word was decided to be inaccurate, and it was changed for medical accuracy. Because there are a variety of different medical conditions that can cause mental slowness, lack of acuity, lack of short-term memory, or any number of problems that might be associated with mental retardation.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.
Now speaking of psychology, obesity may become a psychological disorder in the DSM-V and Alcohol/Drug use may become related to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
I think a lot of research is being done into levels of Ghrelin and Leptin (the hormones that govern hunger and fullness) of the obese. I'm sure there are a minority that have OCD like disorders but the levels of obesity are far higher than the levels of any kind of psychological disorder. Its possible that society may be causing the fat to develop mental issues because of body image and what-not, but I refuse to believe that people who eat too much do so because they have psychological disorders. (unless shown evidence of course.)
They are researching Ghrelin and Leptin, but obesity may get linked to OCD as an eating disorder where the person is eating in order to get rid of some sort of obsession. That's the thinking behind some alcohol/drug use, the individual is drinking to get rid of an obsessions unrelated to drinking. As far as obesity goes, they think it may have something to do with survival programming of the brain in humans that can lead to over-eating and obesity. But the DSM-V comes out next year so they have time to add and change whatever they want.
This is the same American Psychiatric Association that believes 13% of boys have ADHD? Yeah, I shall season their findings quite liberally with salt methinks.
I think this is a bad idea. Insulting fatties is the only way to go. Last time I tried complimenting one I got a big meaty slap in the face for my troubles.
Turns out that lady didn't appreciate being told that she looked exactly like the actor who played Jabba the Hutt, go figure!
An MPs' report on body image has advocated the use of "weight-neutral language". So should we stop calling people "overweight"?
There are many people who would agree that using the term "fat" to somebody's face is neither helpful or pleasant.
But there's a growing movement to get doctors and other public health professionals to stop using words such as "overweight" and "obese" as well.
MPs think the terms have a negative impact on body image and self-esteem, and want doctors to promote broader health and lifestyle messages instead.
The idea has been gaining momentum for a while. A study by the University of Pennsylvania in January found the word "obesity" offensive, while Liverpool City Council considered banning the word in its literature aimed at children in 2010.
And in March, draft guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence said those who were obese should merely be encouraged to get down to a "healthier weight".
But not everyone agrees. In 2010, the Public Health Minister for England, Anne Milton, said GPs should tell people they were fat rather than obese as it was more likely to motivate them into losing weight.
So does weight terminology need a rethink?
Dr Sarah Jarvis, a presenter on the BBC's One Show, says when it comes to a medical context, the words "overweight" and "obese" are necessary, largely because they are the framework for the body mass index (BMI).
"I don't want to make people feel bad, and appreciate some people may have problems with self-esteem, but when it comes to it, as a doctor, if you are too careful, you run the risk of people not understanding the health implications.
"The fact is BMI is the best indicator of likelihood of surviving to a later date - and if you get into the obese range, the chances are you are going to die from a condition related to obesity like heart disease. If you are overweight rather than obese, you are more likely to die early and have medical conditions," she says.
The facts are when I started training in 1993, 10% of the UK was obese and now 25% are. We are absolutely not moving the goalposts - we are getting fatter," she says.
Nigel Mercer, the president of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, agrees that when it comes to someone who is seriously overweight, and it is a medical issue, "there is no pussyfooting around the issue".
But he says the key is "appropriate use of terminology for appropriate use".
"It depends on who comments are being levelled at - to a class of children, where there will be a distribution of body sizes, it is important to know being overweight can lead to diabetes, but it is more of a psychological issue than a health issue - and children can be extremely cruel," he says.
Mercer says for adults, part of the problem is people no longer filter what they say, and society should really keep more of its opinions to itself.
"I am a big bloke, and I would have no problem if a professional told me I was obese, but it would be entirely different if someone told me that in the street," he says.
So.. Im sure you can guess Mattys face upon reading this. Nothing brings forth the rage more than this PC drivel. I really hope the fething MPs "report" didnt cost too much.
What say you?
Its a simple one for me.
I fething love cakes, I love meat pies, I love ice cream. And I proper love pints of beer.
I think most humans do, a long evolution when food was scarce forced us to seek out high value foods such as sugar and fat. Monkeys wage war over honey.
So, if I, as much as I love ice cream and pints, force myself with effort to eat them only two days a week, whilst I spend the rest of the time forcing myself through 10,000 meters on the rowing machine, or gritting my teeth and running 6 miles when I hugely cannot be arsed... why on earth should you, be able to claim its not your fault? Its the food companies/government's/societies fault instead?
Do you agree or disagree with the premise of the story? Do you actually find the very idea somewhat offensive like me? Do you think that this type of debate is exactly what is wrong with things in the first place? The idea that nobody can take their medicine, or deal with a hard truth?
Or do you think there is a balance to be struck? Is the term "obese" too harsh?
If so, what steps do you recommend? What alternatives could we employ?
And most importantly, does anyone on here weigh more than 200lbs and REALLY "eat like a sparrow"?
I look forward to reading your input.
And I thought this was going to be a thread about Scotland trying to become a sperate country
Last time I went to my GP, he informed me that I was overweight and that I should think about doing something about it. He also told me to quit smoking. That's a doctor's duty, in my opinion.
dæl wrote:This is the same American Psychiatric Association that believes 13% of boys have ADHD? Yeah, I shall season their findings quite liberally with salt methinks.
Actually that's shared with the National Institute of Mental Health and of course 13% of boys spread across various age groups with different levels of severity of the disorder. With 10% of children between the ages of 13 and 14 having the disorder and 9% of them having a lifelong prevalence of mild ADHD. So its all statistics within statistics within statistics because really it comes down to 13% of then entire male population between the ages of 13 and 18 have ADHD, but it is most prevalent within children from 13-14 with 10% of those children having it (15-16=8%, 17-18=9%), and of those 13% with ADHD 9% will have a lifelong condition of mild ADHD. So its more like just saying that the biggest population with ADHD would have to be 13-14 year old males.
The APA says that 4.1% of adults have it and 9% of children have it because we classify it in severe and mild.
Now even the British Psychological Society uses the DSM-IV-TR currently, but also uses the World Health Organization's ICD-10. The ICD-10 only looks for the severe level so when the BPA decides to use statistics they use the ICD-10 to only find the prevalence of the severe form of ADHD. The BPA found that the according to the ICD-10 1.5% of boys in primary school had ADHD, and the APA has said that 1.8% of adolescents have severe ADHD. When it comes down to it its all just fudging numbers and deciding which diagnostic criteria to meet.
The BPA has acknowledged the difference between the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10, and this is due to differences in psychological practices in both areas of the world. We branched and made it severe/moderate and Europe just decided to look for severe and call it Hyperkinetic disorder. When we look at moderate levels in England we see that the numbers are still similar, with 11% having the disorder with limited or no visible signs.
Isn't it fun when you choose a different set of diagnostic criteria and compare the numbers? We plan to start using the ICD-10 in 2014, but right now British mental health workers use the DSM and ICD. The ICD is also influenced by the APA's DSM, so I mean take it as you will but the DSM and the APA are pretty legit.
This comes from the outright stupid belief held by bad psychologists and idiot policy makers that self esteem is all important. This was caused by the discovery of a correlation between self esteem and success, which for some reason was taken to mean that high self esteem is a predictor for success, instead of the more logical argument that success predicts high self esteem. If you have high self esteem when you're a fat lazy slob, then that's a bit of a delusion.
/rant This stuff gets my goat. My ed psych course was 50% this bs, and barely anything about stuff educators actually need to know.
Except for the belief that a teacher's professed confidence in their students can boost performance.
Self-esteem is a spiraling cycle much like depression; you fail, you lower your self-esteem because you failed, low self-esteem causes you to study less, fail much worse on next test, self-esteem lowers again, etc. Self-esteem reflects your personal belief of how well you can influence your life, if you have low self-esteem you don't think that you can do much of anything to improve yourself and just give up on trying.
It actually makes sense if you actually look at it and think about it instead of casting it aside.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70.
Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70.
Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities.
We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs.
Actually outside of psychology maybe, but within psychology people with dyslexia are classified as having a learning difficulty. They are still in need of special education because they aren't "normal".
Then you have Learning Disorders which relate to various sections of academics. Math LD, Written LD, Verbal LD, all due to wiring of the brain that prevents proper learning of these subjects.
MR, LD, Dyslexia, all are abnormal and need special education.
Chowderhead wrote:
Joey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70. Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities.
We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs.
halonachos wrote:Actually outside of psychology maybe, but within psychology people with dyslexia are classified as having a learning difficulty. They are still in need of special education because they aren't "normal".
Then you have Learning Disorders which relate to various sections of academics. Math LD, Written LD, Verbal LD, all due to wiring of the brain that prevents proper learning of these subjects.
MR, LD, Dyslexia, all are abnormal and need special education.
Chowderhead wrote:
Joey wrote:
Melissia wrote:
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
It is. A re-tard is someone with an IQ of less than 70. Unfortunately such people are simply now labled as having "learning difficulties", therby lumping them in with people who're otherwise intelligent but do have a learning difficulty, dyslexics etc. Due to a reluctance to offend, we take brilliant young people and group them in with the very stupidest in society.
In England, perhaps. But in my school, here in America, we have many programs for the student who have disabilities.
We have gifted, support, Life Skills, and others tailored to every student's needs.
Gifted isn't a disability...
It's under the Americans with Disabilities Act, IIRC.
halonachos, your model completely disregards the idea that people can learn from failure and work harder because of it. I flunked chemistry and got bad results in physics in my second year of uni because I was a lazy gak. I spent the summer studying really hard to catch up while working, and did better in my subsequent exams. My self esteem with regard to my scores was justifiably low- I had not done well, so I didn't deserve to feel good about it.
Increase someone's self worth by making them worth something, not by never letting them know they have failed. Otherwise you make people with artificially high and extremely brittle self esteem, with no resilience. It's much more complicated than "Always preserve self esteem" or "never preserve self esteem". Like most things.
The self esteem/success correlation is exactly that, a correlation. Does good self esteem cause success? Or does success cause good self esteem? What about someone like me with severe clinical depression? Once I am fully "cured" will I instantly become successful?
"Severe clinical depression", isn't that just the Emo effect by another name? (you know I'm kidding )
The thing is you can make satistics say any thing you want, its like the "Global warming is course by lack of pirates", argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. Just becouse the two things look like they are related doesn't mean they are, look at the most sucsefly of the standup comics, most of them are or could be classed with clinical depression but they do just fine
Ribon Fox wrote:"Severe clinical depression", isn't that just the Emo effect by another name? (you know I'm kidding )
The thing is you can make satistics say any thing you want, its like the "Global warming is course by lack of pirates", argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation. Just becouse the two things look like they are related doesn't mean they are, look at the most sucsefly of the standup comics, most of them are or could be classed with clinical depression but they do just fine
I look horrible in skinny jeans, and I look like a donkey cave with a caeser haircut...
Da Boss wrote:halonachos, your model completely disregards the idea that people can learn from failure and work harder because of it. I flunked chemistry and got bad results in physics in my second year of uni because I was a lazy gak. I spent the summer studying really hard to catch up while working, and did better in my subsequent exams. My self esteem with regard to my scores was justifiably low- I had not done well, so I didn't deserve to feel good about it.
Increase someone's self worth by making them worth something, not by never letting them know they have failed. Otherwise you make people with artificially high and extremely brittle self esteem, with no resilience. It's much more complicated than "Always preserve self esteem" or "never preserve self esteem". Like most things.
Anecdotal evidence versus widely held theories of the downward spiral of self-esteem and depression.
As a condition re-tard refers solely to mental retardation
... and again, what kind? The term is not useful in treatment.
R-tard itself doesn't really apply, however Mental Retardation is a mental disorder in the DSM-IV-TR. In fact there are several levels of Mental Retardation ranging from Profound to Mild and they all express different levels of retardation, with profound referring to a person who cannot even feed themselves or sit up on their own. So Retardation itself is a widely accepted medical term and can either be Mild Mental Retardation, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severe Mental Retardation, or Profound Mental Retardation. However the term "r-tard" typically is not used, they either use Mentally R-tarded or Mentally Handicapped.
It's worth pointing out that discussion of the use of "r-tard" rather underlines the futility of changing terminology to avoid offence, since the term "mental retardation" was itself introduced with the intention of providing a non-pejorative replacement for the former medical terms "imbecile", "idiot" and "moron". As with r-tard, any neologism imposed in place of "obese", "overweight" or "fat b-stard" will inevitably just become a new insult within a few years. The process has become known as the "euphemism treadmill".
Personally, I think that the scope of "obese" and "overweight" should not be ceased, but curtailed with a more narrow and restrictive meaning. For example:
And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
One good thing with there being so many large people around.... When Soylent Green comes around there'll be plenty
It's not all exercise, I used to be overweight because i drank a couple cans of coca cola a day. I stopped drinking full fat cola/other brands of fizzy beveridge and i am now skinny. Go figure.
If anything i did more exercise in my chubby days. Only just starting to do more exercise now and thats because my smoking was causing me to get 'puffed out' really easily. Gotta say i love the irony of me stopping in the middle of a 20 mile bike ride to have a Cigarette
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
No.
I'm always so amazed by how people seem to think that a generalized index of ANY SORT can be applied universally. Even if it applies to 99% of the population, IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL.
Do you not understand that "generalized" =/= "universal" ?
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
azazel the cat wrote:
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
Just because a magazine runs it doesn't mean that they created it. And, the numbers they use are based in medical studies. As the article outlined, it is merely a baseline guide. Each person is different, but we can still place, I would guess around 90% of the Earth's population into the ecto-, meso-, and endomorph categories. The baseline remains the same, and is adjusted for each of those types of people. The numbers used are based on an average, and can also be used by using the body fat formula for "target" weight (body weight x body fat percentage= number of excess pounds person is carrying around)
Recent studies have also shown that people whose natural waist line is larger than 40" round, are at much greater risk of many heart and weight related issues... Are there healthy people who are larger than that? sure. Are there unhealthy people who are smaller than that? of course.
The point is, doctors who come up with "fakey BS" stuff in order to create a working, yet flexible baseline with which to judge people who come into their offices with weight problems.
timetowaste85 wrote:Weren't we supposed to be talking about fat people needing to put down the cheeseburgers and hit the treadmill?
yes, however the tangent of defining just what is a "fat person" came into the equation. Of course, there are some I've seen that I think would break a treadmill... which is quite sad.
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually, there is a system that could be used to determine this.... Bicycling Magazine ran the chart a couple months back and it goes something like this
Height = weight.... simple enough, but then they take it a step further, because that doesnt work. You take your height, which lets you know whereabouts you should be, but then you measure the wrist and that will determine where you should actually be.
I think the example was something like 5'9" should be around 160 "ideally", but a person who measures in the "small frame" category ideally would need to be 150, while a person who measures in the "large frame" category's ideal weight would be 170
azazel the cat wrote:No.
I'm always so amazed by how people seem to think that a generalized index of ANY SORT can be applied universally. Even if it applies to 99% of the population, IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL.
Do you not understand that "generalized" =/= "universal" ?
Bicycling Magazine (a source no doubt on scientific par with Cosmo and Tiger Beat) doesn't take body type, or metabolism, or muscle density, or body fat percentage, or even bone density into account. No general index will, so they may as well just make up some more fakey BS that includes eye and hair colour.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:As the article outlined, it is merely a baseline guide. Each person is different, but we can still place, I would guess around 90% of the Earth's population into the ecto-, meso-, and endomorph categories. The baseline remains the same, and is adjusted for each of those types of people. The numbers used are based on an average, and can also be used by using the body fat formula for "target" weight (body weight x body fat percentage= number of excess pounds person is carrying around)
So, I specify that you cannot use any sort of general index to determine weight classifications because they are only averages and do not apply to everyone.
Then you tell me that there is actually a magical index that actually CAN do this.
Then I call you on that BS because you've failed to notice that it's just another generalized, averaged index.
Then you try to defend it by saying that it's just an averaged-out, general index that doesn't apply to everyone, and thus contradicting your first statement where you said that, and I'll quote you again here:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Actually, there is a system that can be used to determine this...
So really, what point were you trying to make, exactly? Because you managed to cite EXACTLY the type of generalized index that I suggested precluding, and then tried to backpeddle on it for the EXACT reason why I said it needed to be precluded in the first place.
And I'm not trying to deny that fat people are at greater risk to their health -quite the opposite, in fact. I live in Canada, wherein our beloved universal health care system is starting to come under attack due to its extremely high cost -due to the greater burden that fat people and smokers place on it. But my entire point is that the practice of using any sort of general index should be done away with because it cannot be universally applied.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
So then what you're saying is that you agree with my original post, and acknowledge that a general index cannot and should not be universally applied?
Ensis Ferrae wrote:We'll have to agree to disagree then. If there is not any sort of basic standar, no matter how loose, then there cannot possibly be any fat person. As i said, there are ways to determine where a person's weight should be that is adjusted based on body type and a number of other factors. This system works fairly well, and has worked for quite a while too.
So then what you're saying is that you agree with my original post, and acknowledge that a general index cannot and should not be universally applied?
that's what the doc's are for mate take the "baseline" and the guy who's got at least 8 years of school inputs all other relevant info on said patient to get their "ideal" weight... An actual "general index" works great for media, etc.... If that is what you were saying in your original post, I misread it then
Since you seem to need the Cliffs Notes version, this is what I said:
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
And this is what I meant:
General indexes should never be used; instead 'ideal weight' should be determined on an individual basis, because general indexes do not apply to everyone, which is why they are called GENERAL indexes. It is also why doctors do not use general indexes; they examine people in a one-on-one basis.
azazel the cat wrote:Since you seem to need the Cliffs Notes version, this is what I said:
azazel the cat wrote:And of course, when I say 'ideal weight', I am not referring to any generalized index; it should be one a person-by-person system, as generalized indexes do not account for height, age, metabolism or body type.
And this is what I meant:
General indexes should never be used; instead 'ideal weight' should be determined on an individual basis, because general indexes do not apply to everyone, which is why they are called GENERAL indexes. It is also why doctors do not use general indexes; they examine people in a one-on-one basis.
I wish the US Army used your logic
My thinking was, if we got rid of all general indexes, how could the average person figure out a loose guide on what they should weight, without consulting their doctors. Especially if they are ones who have prior knowledge of exercise and diet, in relation to weight loss.
I was merely taking the time to point out how foolish it was. My entire argument is based on the concept of not alienating the outliers for the sake of the ease of the majority.
