Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Kinda working out like that "emotion has no place in economics" argument you had earlier.

To be fair, a company making a decision whether to go to market with a product is not doing so based on emotion... They get the consumer to buy their product based on emotion though, so I guess, in the end, everyone is right

Precisely the point. A successful company doesn't make decisions based on "Hey, let's do something morally accepted by the rest of the society as good". They make decisions based on profit.

Yikes...didn't see the age of that.

However, article after article after article on Google Scholar links obesity to genetics. I can't find one that does not, and I've been looking. I'll let you know if I come across one.

You said that the "The fraction of people with an actual disease is so incredibly, incredibly, incredibly tiny compared to the other cases"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Please show me the studies you have read that have led you to this conclusion. I'll be happy to read them over....I'd be interested to read them over, in fact.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Come at me..

Okay.

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/suppl_2/R124.full

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Come at me..

Okay.

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/suppl_2/R124.full

This doesn't single out genetics (and do note it's 8 years old already). It mentions some genes that increase the risk of obesity by e.g. having an influence on feeling / getting hungry or sated. This makes it harder to stay in shape, but it still isn't singling out genetics. Proper nutrition, maybe extending to special nutrition plans along with physical exercise to counter-work genetic priming remains an effective way to counter.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/suppl_2/R124.full

The availability of abundant, energy-rich processed foods in the last few decades has, however, resulted in a sharp rise in the prevalence of obesity in westernized countries. Although it is the obesogenic environment that has resulted in this major healthcare problem, it is acting by revealing a sub-population with a pre-existing genetic predisposition to excess adiposity.

I'm not a very good reader, but it's almost like the article you linked as evidence otherwise says that while genetics can be a contributing factor, the fact you can't put the big mac down is what's actually causing the obesity.

I hope I just don't understand.

<deleted>

So wait, are you asking us to find an article that states that Genetics is 100% why people are obese? Because, that seems to be what you are asking.

Also, your dismissal based on the age of the Article is pure ignorance of how these types of studies work.

But, it is alright. I found one from 2014!

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_31-3-2014-9-58-51

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, are you asking us to find an article that states that Genetics is 100% why people are obese? Because, that seems to be what you are asking.

Yep. Not 100%, that'd be unrealistic. Just high enough of a factor to make it nigh-impossible to counteract.

Like, you can't do much to influence your actual height.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Kinda working out like that "emotion has no place in economics" argument you had earlier.

To be fair, a company making a decision whether to go to market with a product is not doing so based on emotion... They get the consumer to buy their product based on emotion though, so I guess, in the end, everyone is right

Precisely the point. A successful company doesn't make decisions based on "Hey, let's do something morally accepted by the rest of the society as good". They make decisions based on profit.

Decisions to purchase a product are based on emotion. Such transactions are the bedrock of economic systems, therefore emotion is central to commercial economies.

I get what Sigvatr is saying, actually. He's saying that genetics can certainly "prime" people to get fat, by making them enjoy certain unhealthy foods more or by having their body build up more fat per spare calorie than others (or somesuch).

However, both of those 'genetic' problems are still addressable by eating well, exercising a lot, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Sigvatr is saying that one can overcome 'genetic predisposition' and so to use "I have a genetic predisposition towards being fat!" as a defense is to blame the wrong cause.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I get what Sigvatr is saying, actually. He's saying that genetics can certainly "prime" people to get fat, by making them enjoy certain unhealthy foods more or by having their body build up more fat per spare calorie than others (or somesuch).

However, both of those 'genetic' problems are still addressable by eating well, exercising a lot, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Sigvatr is saying that one can overcome 'genetic predisposition' and so to use "I have a genetic predisposition towards being fat!" as a defense is to blame the wrong cause.

At the same time, diseases like Hyperhtyroidism and the like are fairly rare. I mean, not "you're only the 4th person in human history to be diagnosed with this rare disease" rare, but definitely not "you have syphilis" common.

the other thing is that if your devoted, you can lose 20 kilos in a few months with minimal exercise. all you do is only eat breakfast, work off ALL cards/caloies during late afternoon, and then only eat dinner. you will lose weight. It's wat I'm doing.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I get what Sigvatr is saying, actually. He's saying that genetics can certainly "prime" people to get fat, by making them enjoy certain unhealthy foods more or by having their body build up more fat per spare calorie than others (or somesuch).

However, both of those 'genetic' problems are still addressable by eating well, exercising a lot, and living a healthy lifestyle.

Sigvatr is saying that one can overcome 'genetic predisposition' and so to use "I have a genetic predisposition towards being fat!" as a defense is to blame the wrong cause.

At the same time, diseases like Hyperhtyroidism and the like are fairly rare. I mean, not "you're only the 4th person in human history to be diagnosed with this rare disease" rare, but definitely not "you have syphilis" common.

Agreed.

People have free will, they can control their diet and activity. Two people can follow the exact same diet and exercise regimen and still look very different because they're different people and that's determined by genetics. You can work extremely hard at being fit and never quite look like a fitness model because of genetics and conversely if you are obese, like 30+ pounds overweight, you might be predisposed to weight gain because of your genetics but genetics didn't magically make you that big overnight you played an active role in getting there.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Agreed.

People have free will, they can control their diet and activity. Two people can follow the exact same diet and exercise regimen and still look very different because they're different people and that's determined by genetics. You can work extremely hard at being fit and never quite look like a fitness model because of genetics and conversely if you are obese, like 30+ pounds overweight, you might be predisposed to weight gain because of your genetics but genetics didn't magically make you that big overnight you played an active role in getting there.

At the same time.... and this is getting wildly off topic, you can be deemed "obese" and still not really be fat/obese. There are a ton of people who, by virtue of what a scale says are "overweight" but are actually incredibly healthy/fit. Front row forwards in rugby, strongman competitors and the like all fall into this category.



Perhaps that is the princess disney needs to make... the "fat" yet strong as an ox athletic girl

 the shrouded lord wrote:
the other thing is that if your devoted, you can lose 20 kilos in a few months with minimal exercise. all you do is only eat breakfast, work off ALL cards/caloies during late afternoon, and then only eat dinner. you will lose weight. It's wat I'm doing.

You'd be better served exercising, but you're right.

While I do think we'll see a chubby Disney Princess before we see one with a mental disability, I'd prefer to see neither.

 cincydooley wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
the other thing is that if your devoted, you can lose 20 kilos in a few months with minimal exercise. all you do is only eat breakfast, work off ALL cards/caloies during late afternoon, and then only eat dinner. you will lose weight. It's wat I'm doing.

You'd be better served exercising, but you're right.

Though I do think we'll see a chubby Disney Princess before we see one with a mental disability.

you can also do it byourself replacing half your plate with a salad and drinking nothing but water for a month. Like me, I'm going to win that bet

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


you can also do it byourself replacing half your plate with a salad and drinking nothing but water for a month. Like me, I'm going to win that bet

You'd still be better served by exercising consistently, but yes, you can. And did I make a bet with you that I've forgotten about?

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:


you can also do it byourself replacing half your plate with a salad and drinking nothing but water for a month. Like me, I'm going to win that bet

You'd still be better served by exercising consistently, but yes, you can. And did I make a bet with you that I've forgotten about?

Well, I am exercising again. Apparently my gym discourages crutches. And no, it's with a buddy. Whoever looses their wait last has to buy a forge world knight for the guy that did

Prestor Jon wrote:

People have free will, they can control their diet and activity.

Not necessarily true about activity.

If you have a desk job, you are not going to be as active as someone who is up and moving around all day.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Well, I am exercising again. Apparently my gym discourages crutches. And no, it's with a buddy. Whoever looses their wait last has to buy a forge world knight for the guy that did

Cool. Accountability is one of the hardest things about it. Having a buddy, or a friendly wager like that, is great to help you stay on target.

gakky the gym won't let you in with crutches. There are so many things you can do, even on crutches, that don't get in the way of others. Lame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:


If you have a desk job, you are not going to be as active as someone who is up and moving around all day.

No, but you can make up for it after, before, or even during work. I walk our stairs (7 flights) every two hours at work to get up from my desk.

Get me moving, and helps me stretch out my bones.

I have to say, after reading her blog, the parents backing out when they found out about the baby with down syndrome kinda gakky. Leaving those two with a child they where not expecting and without the money

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

People have free will, they can control their diet and activity.

Not necessarily true about activity.

If you have a desk job, you are not going to be as active as someone who is up and moving around all day.

That's me. My walk to and from the station is only about 10 minutes each way at each end. The whole day I am tapping away at a computer.

I try to make up by getting as much exercise as possible at weekends and so on. Sensible diet is very important, of course.

 LordofHats wrote:
My first thought is; I like Timmy and Jimmy in South Park. Episodes centered on them do stand out in my mind. Yet, I can't help but feel that the reason Timmy and Jimmy work is that they're recurring characters. Would anyone really want to watch a show about either of them?

It sounds kind of harsh, but I think the reality is that no one really wants to watch something about someone with sever disabilities (at least of the nature in the OP). The only thing I can think of where this worked is Forest Gump, but then we've got every movie Adam Sandler has ever been in completely washing that movie

Additionally, there will be that inevitable moment where the child asks "what's wrong with them?" I think this is too much of a hot topic. also we do not need a gay princess for similar reasons. I would also like to say that I don't hate disabled/gays, but I think these issues could be dealt with another way

 Albatross wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Kinda working out like that "emotion has no place in economics" argument you had earlier.

To be fair, a company making a decision whether to go to market with a product is not doing so based on emotion... They get the consumer to buy their product based on emotion though, so I guess, in the end, everyone is right

Precisely the point. A successful company doesn't make decisions based on "Hey, let's do something morally accepted by the rest of the society as good". They make decisions based on profit.

Decisions to purchase a product are based on emotion. Such transactions are the bedrock of economic systems, therefore emotion is central to commercial economies.

Emotion however is best hyped than left natural. Natural emotion has too many different directions, corporations want to harness emotion in clumps in order to obtain market control. Therefore 'brave' enterprises that have a moral compass attached may harm more shallow but profitable enterprises. The only reliable mass inroads into moral market are religion and sympathy. Disney made its name tapping into the second with a masterful and precise methodology for making just about anything cute, and uses cuteness as a tool to forges its own moral narrative, but it helps strongly that real issues are avoided and much is glossed over. Hence the repeated use of traditional fairy tales backed up in the modern age with politically correct yet safe tropes. Downs syndrome princess is exceptionally risky as downs syndrome is not cute, and cant be made cute by the normal methods used by Disney.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Well, I am exercising again. Apparently my gym discourages crutches. And no, it's with a buddy. Whoever looses their wait last has to buy a forge world knight for the guy that did

Cool. Accountability is one of the hardest things about it. Having a buddy, or a friendly wager like that, is great to help you stay on target.

gakky the gym won't let you in with crutches. There are so many things you can do, even on crutches, that don't get in the way of others. Lame.
.

I think it may have been Liability or something like that.