Re: Obese victims at greater risk of dying from crashes and other accidents

From: Daedalus (jade_at_net-kooks.org)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:04:05 GMT

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 19:17:20 +0200, "Lictor"
<ghostmlNOSPAM-REMOVE@online.fr>, wrote:

>"Daedalus" <jade@net-kooks.org> wrote in message
>news:edh0l05sahqrqgirbdc8eeu1ofq49s3u7g@4ax.com...
>> Your meandering pontification sounds really nice, but it's all
>> conjecture.
>
>That's just the way medecine has progressed so far. Bleeding edge stuff that
>only benefited a handful of people, and then it gets applied to the more
>general population. I won't see why the trend would stop.

This doesn't make any sense. You aren't talking about anything
innovative here, just unnecessarily costly.

(BTW this message has gotten way too long for me to respond to all of
it)

>
>> I think we'd know by now if it was a problem for muscular
>> people. I haven't seen any articles about that being a problem, but
>> this is the latest of several I've seen regarding obese people.
>
>Hint: people love to hear stories about fat ugly people.

Outside of talkshow filth, where do you get this? it's completely ass
backwards from my view. Even people on this newsgroup are always
complaining about the lack of fat people in the media.

> Journalists do
>their job for a living, they publish what people want to read. Noone is
>interrested about hearing bad things happening to Mr MuscleMan. How often do
>you read reports about ex-champs dying from a heart attack at fifty?

So all the stories about Lance Armstrong were a fluke? Christopher
Reeve? Mohammed Ali? Daryl Strawberry? Magic Johnson? Mickey Mantle?
Need I go on?

> Yet,
>they do, thanks to the wonderful and healthy chemicals they stuff themselves
>with.
>Besides, quite a few very muscular types also have a significant amount of
>body fats. Only bodybuilders aim to lower their body fat, the others just
>aim for maximum strength.

This doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about, nor
does it help your argument.

>
>> Most likely because obese people are geneally much thicker than all
>> but your most muscular olympian weight lifter.
>
>It's thicker but fat is also a lot less dense. It's often mixed with a lot
>of water too. Thickness is not everything.

The distance between the sensors for an ultrasound or an MRI and the
area they are trying to examine has everything to do with what we're
discussing.

>
>> > In fact, medical advances pushed by extreme
>> >conditions (wars, military research, medical "stunts"...) have always
>> >eventually benefited to the general population.
>>
>> When you say "extreme conditions" are you referring to obesity as an
>> extreme condition? Otherwise I'm not sure how this relates.
>
>Of course. I mean, we are talking *extreme* obesity here. A "regular" 300lbs
>obese will have no trouble fitting in the current machines. Likewise, if two
>firemen have troubles lifting and carrying a 300lbs obese, *they* really
>ought to seek a new job. I mean, even back when I was at 300lbs, four tiny
>women had no problem carrying me around, once taught the proper technic.
>While practicing Judo, a skilled female partner had no trouble throwing me
>around either. Firemen are skilled, I would expect them to perform without
>problem up to the low end of massive obesity.
>So, we are talking about the minority of people who weight in the 400 or
>maybe 500+ range. Yes, that's pretty extreme. Just like dealing with cancer
>in a 6 months old baby is extreme, or dealing with a terminal heart
>condition in an anorexic is. That's not a judgement in worthiness to admit
>that these cases are indeed extreme.

>
>> Why don't we spend the money encouraging obese people to lose weight
>> since the health system is becoming financially taxed between them and
>> the smokers of the world anyway.
>
>I believe in prevention too. In fact you haven't noticed, my country is
>doing a lot better than the USA on the obesity front. Likewise, we are
>reducing the number of smokers. We are keeping the number of heart diseases
>manageable (one third of the death rate of the USA). Money has been invested
>in proper nutrition in schools and proper city planning to make healthy food
>available to everyone. Proper healthcare also makes it possible to catch up
>diseases early on, rather than wait until people hit the ER and are in
>terminal condition. Guaranteed revenues have made it so that people do not
>have to survive on junk foods alone.
>As a result, we don't have to deal with the issue of beyond-massive obeses
>as much as you do. We spent a lot of money on prevention, we have three
>times less obese people, and only 0.5% beyond the 40 BMI mark. You did not
>invest in prevention, so, obviously, you will have to spend money to deal
>with the consequences.
>
>> Wouldn't it make sense to you to focus on the cuases of disease and cancer
>as well as the detection
>> systems?
>
>You mean, banning cars to reduce air pollution and the like? Sure, we should
>do that. But you can't prevent all the causes of cancer and disease. The
>main cause remains aging. As long as we allow people to live longer, they
>*will* develop this kind of diseases. Prevention does not make people
>immortal.
>
>> That is an assumption that has no basis whatsoever, unless you have a
>> background in magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound and x-ray physics
>> and can tell me for a fact that that will be a result of using more
>> powerful machines.
>
>And people probably had similar doubts about the reconstructive surgery of
>WWI leading to a new pair of buttocks for J-Lo. Yet, it did. When you force
>competition and innovation in a field like this, you usually come up with
>interresting things.
>
>> You could equally hypothesize that using more powerful machines could
>> actually be dangerous to thin people.
>
>I doubt engineers would be that dumb, but you never know...
>
>> >Anyway, the way the USA is heading, 60% of the population will be obese
>in a
>> >few years.
>>
>> I suppose you dont' see a problem with that.
>
>Whether I see a problem with that or not won't change anything about that
>trend... That's just the plain numbers and the way the country is heading.
>It's not like they will change anything to my personnal life, I don't live
>in the country.
>
>> And you can say with 100% certainty that no one is trying to find real
>> solutions, or just not that you've heard about, just not in your
>> opinion, just not any solutions that you agree with?
>
>Well, what kind of solution do you think is being applied? Genetic research?
>Right, 60% of Americans just caught a genetic disease... Research from the
>diet industry? LOL! Diets do not work statistically. It's not even in the
>best interrest of the diet industry to have them work anyway. Research in
>yet another miracle pill? Right, a new pill at $10 a piece, that you have to
>take for life and that will cause an average net weight loss of 10 pounds.
>I'm sure that will do wonders for the healthcare costs!
>I see reports on the "War on Obesity", and it would be funny if the matter
>was not that serious. The whole campain is aimed at keeping tax payers and
>voters happy, not at solving the problem. I expect absolutely zero results
>from it.
>There are indeed a bunch of people trying to find a real way to make as many
>dollars as possible out of the obesity epidemia. They do that by researching
>and applying protocols that have been researched and applied unsuccessfully
>for decades : diets, drugs, non-specific exercises...
>
>> It seems to me there is a ubiquity of concern in American venues from
>> hospitals and media to the legislature over obesity these days.
>
>They are sure making a lot of noise about it. Unfortunately, being concerned
>and noisy about a problem does not solve it. Thinking out of the box does.
>The obesity epidemia is a psychosociocultural phenomenon, that gets
>compounded with genetic and metabolic issues. Yet, practically noone is
>trying to deal with it along these lines. I guess noone is interrested in
>finding a solution that would be essentially cheap, like making some society
>changes, some education and curing people once and for all...
>
>> I'd find it highly surprising if among all of those professionals and
>> concerned citizens no one was actually trying to find a real solution.
>
>I would be surprised if they did. In research, you don't need a bunch of
>idiots doing the same thing, you just need a few genius doing the right
>thing. If indeed someone found a real solution, who do you expect will get
>listened to? The guy with the cheap solution, or the corporation with the
>$10 wonder pill (who also happens to pay the President for his campain)?
>
>> You sound like a fat acceptor.
>
>Do I?
>It depends on what you call fat acceptor I guess...
>Do I believe that people ought to lose some weight when they are obese?
>Certainly, but not at all cost, and only if the loss is sustainable.
>Do I believe that obeses should diet all the way down to slim? Only if they
>wish. It's perfectly reasonnable to stop halfway, when optimal balance
>between health, comfort, self esteem and sustainability is reached.
>Do I think that obesity is unhealthy? Yes, within reason (i.e. being
>slightly overweight is reasonnably healthy, going from massive obese to
>moderate obese might be healthy enough...).
>Do I believe losing weight is easy? Well, it is for me so far, but I don't
>think it's that easy for everyone.
>Do I believe losing weight is complex? Yes. I believe energy in-energy out
>is only the tip of the iceberg. Weight loss is a complex issue.
>Do I believe that obese people should receive proper assistance when they
>wish to lose weight? Of course. A bipolar or an anorexic will receive a
>fully qualified support, from a psychiatrist and a number of specialist.
>That's the only way these can succeed in overcoming their condition. Yet, an
>obese is supposed to receive help from women magazines, books written by
>crooks, or, at best, a dietitian (a mere technician, a non-doctor)?
>Do I believe that people ought to be judge for who they are rather than how
>they look? Sure. I hate racism in all its forms, why should I stop hating it
>when it concerns obeses?
>Do I believe that society should stop pushing people towards a single body
>type model? Damn right!
>Put me in whatever little slot you wish, if you really have to put people in
>slots for your peace of mind...
>
>> How many customers would they alienate if the cost of obesity negated
>> the affordability for everyone else?
>
>Given that Americans seem willing to pay an awful amount of money for their
>healthcare or overpriced drugs, I don't think this is an issue.

Americans don't have a choice about the cost of healthcare now. It has
been foisted upon them by the government. We do have a choice though
to raise holy hell about not wanting them raised further.

>The industry
>knows that they can ask any amount of money, and that people will eventually
>pay. They have no reason to lower their prices. In a society that is
>increasingly hypocondriac, the health industry is in the same position the
>clergy was in the middle ages : they hold the key to what everyone desire
>the most. That's priceless.
>Besides, it's not like you have much choice. When you have a vital issue, I
>don't think you will refuse the treatment and try to negociate the price
>down. There is no competition left in the medical field, the few actors in
>the market have no real presure to compete when they can just agree to keep
>the prices high. As a patient, you don't have any real power to make them
>compete anyway.
>

You're right. But I'm not sure how you are tryig to fit this intot he
discussion about equipment for fat people.

Jade

Quantcast