Obesity risks higher than thought
in [Low-Carb]
|
From: John A. Weeks III on 24 Aug 2008 09:29 In article <37r1b45ots8e3i8fm17q8sdnra0cnqgkgf(a)4ax.com>, Joe <> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:21:20 GMT, "Robin King" > <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > >"Pramesh Rutaji" <p297tongue6221(a)newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:g8qhod0mka(a)news3.newsguy.com... > >> Robin King wrote: > >> > >> > Instead, we can concentrate on things like physical > >fitness, > >> > eating well, and putting an end to size discrimination. > >> > >> Physical fitness and eating well is good. > >> > >> But, not every ride at Disneyland should be required to accommodate > >> obesity without limit. > > > > ?? - Never said they should. If they can accommodate, say, 98% > >of their visitors, that should be enough. > > > >I support airlines that charge grossly obese > >> people double fares > > > > I don't because very few fat people need an entire extra seat. > >Airlines will make seats as small as they can get away with. Years > >ago, seats were larger. Now the population is heavier and the seats > >have become smaller. What's wrong with this picture? > > > > - they don't have a right to occupy the space I've > >> paid for. > > > > If you didn't use part of your space, would you ask for a > >partial refund? > > > > I do sympathize with you, though. When there's so little > >space available, we become very protective of the tiny portion we do > >get. But it's not the fat person's fault, any more than it's the > >muscular person's fault, or the long-kegged person's fault. Airlines > >screw us all in one way or another. 'Bout time we united against that > >instead of bickering over a few square inches. > >> > >> Pramesh Rutaji > > > >Robin > > > > Simply charge them by weight. Can't be more fair than that. One needs to consider what is being purchased with a ticket. If they are selling transportation, then size or weight doesn't enter the equation. The only factor is getting a person of any size from point A to point B. Since that is how the industry works today, why not have a variety of seat sizes, some small, some average, some bigger, and accommodate people of all sizes. Can't be any more fair than that. -john- -- ====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john(a)johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ======================================================================
From: DB on 24 Aug 2008 11:22 "Dee Flint" <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote in > If you read up on Jim Fixx, you will find that he lived many years longer > than his father, grandfather, etc. It's entirely possible that the extra > years he lived were due to his running. He might otherwise have died in > his 30s. > > You cannot say that exercise killed Hays either. You don't know his > general state of health or family history. There are thousands of things that can kill a human being, fat/fitness related disease is probably not high on the list of fatal diseases. Seems our image of excellent health is a picture of an Olympic athlete, but it's not necessary to go to extreme lengths to have good health. Simple half our walks each day go a lot further than these temporary diet programs or 2 hour gym work outs. The American corporate lifestyle has done more to kill people than any war. Always running late to meetings, high stress, skipping meals in the morning, junk food snacks at the coffee station, eating large dinners. People may look thin, but their insides are riddled with disease!
From: Rod Speed on 24 Aug 2008 14:25 Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:6h92kdFk2s9lU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote >>> Caleb <calebb(a)teleport.com> wrote >>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >>>>> And have fun explaining how their weight problem goes away >>>>> with the most aggressive weight control like lap banding etc. >> >>> Does it really? >> >> Yep. >> >>> Do they get healthier from the removal of a non-diseased organ? >> >> There is no removal of anything except stomach capacity. >> >>> What's the rate of regain? >> >> Zero. > That is incorrect. Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. > People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating habits. Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. > Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating > too much even with a reduced stomach capacity. Not even possible. The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can kill you.
From: Robin King on 24 Aug 2008 21:01 "John A. Weeks III" <john(a)johnweeks.com> wrote in message news:john-284A21.08292624082008(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <37r1b45ots8e3i8fm17q8sdnra0cnqgkgf(a)4ax.com>, Joe <> wrote: > > Simply charge them by weight. Can't be more fair than that. That doesn't solve the problem of accommodating people of different sizes and shapes. > One needs to consider what is being purchased with a ticket. > If they are selling transportation, then size or weight doesn't > enter the equation. The only factor is getting a person of any > size from point A to point B. Since that is how the industry > works today, why not have a variety of seat sizes, some small, > some average, some bigger, and accommodate people of all sizes. > Can't be any more fair than that. > > -john- Sounds good to me. If they really want to be anal about it, they could sell seats in multiples of six inches. Most people would take three or four of those. More people would be willing to pay 33% extra for comfort than 100% extra. They could also have a few seats with extra legroom for a fee. Robin
From: Rod Speed on 24 Aug 2008 21:07
Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:6hdnd9Fl19v0U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Dee Flint <deeflint01(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> Robin King <mapletree(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote > >>>>> What's the rate of regain? >>>> >>>> Zero. >> >>> That is incorrect. >> >> Nope, the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >> >>> People do regain sometimes if they don't correct their eating >>> habits. >> >> Wrong. the whole point of that approach is that they cant eat >> too much because their stomach has been crippled so they cant. >> >>> Some eventually learn to and adapt to eating >>> too much even with a reduced stomach capacity. >> >> Not even possible. >> >> The main problem with that approach is that the malnutrition can >> kill you. > About 70% if patients regain half the weight they lost with WLS. Then they clearly did get a significant reduction in their weight. > Also, weight loss surgery is considered a success if the > patient keeps off 10% or more of her starting weight. > Rather modest expectations, don't you think? Irrelevant to that previous data you quoted. > - and a far cry from zero. I didnt say it was zero from the lowest, just that its zero from the weight before the surgery. |