Disappointed with these Forums

[EvilYeti]

Hi Everyone.

I've had a recent experience with these boards that I find a bit troubling.

In some threads on the banter forum I spoke my mind regarding my opinion of the obesity epidemic in America.

I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc... which is all well and good. After all, its banter and what not.

I've also been accused of being a "woo-woo", a fundie Christian and dismissively encouraged to study "science".

This is not so well and good. See, I'm an actual real NSF funded scientist. I'm not proud, but hey its what I do to pay the bills.

My critics are not.

I'm getting the distinct impression that a sizeable chunk of the contributors of this board are about as familiar with critical thinking and the scientific method as John Edwards, yet somehow still consider themselves "skeptics". I find people like this orders of magnitude more irritating than your typical "woowoo".

I'm thinking of restricting myself to the Academic forums in the future, the quality of discourse seems to be much higher.

Comments?

[Denise]

Evil Yeti, you were giving an opinion on the subject, and people gave you their opinion back. Some were ad homs to be sure, but you did the same exact thing. By slamming your critics by saying that they are not scientists reminds me of two ten year olds arguing who's dad can beat who's dad up. Silly. How do you know the background of the posters who criticised you?

[a_unique_person]

I find it incredible that you feel you have to apologize for working for the NSF.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Denise
Evil Yeti, you were giving an opinion on the subject, and people gave you their opinion back. Some were ad homs to be sure, but you did the same exact thing. By slamming your critics by saying that they are not scientists reminds me of two ten year olds arguing who's dad can beat who's dad up. Silly. How do you know the background of the posters who criticised you?

Denise,

I've been reading these forums for a LONG time and many of the posters have described their careers and education. Some of them even list them under the profile button.

I said I don't care about adhominem attacks, call me whatever you want. As you noted I'll fight back.

What worries me is that we have many, many people lecturing me on "science" when they clearly have no background or even a basic understanding of it at all. And they are being cheered on!

It would be like if Larry King lectured James Randi on being a professional stage magician. Its so far out to left field I'm really at a loss of how to respond. Is it even possible to communicate with people who are perfectly ignorant?

I appreciate you taking time to give me a response Denise, but unfortunately you have not answered any of my questions. :(

[Earthborn]

EvilYeti, are you specialized in human metabolism, the causes of obesity or dietary science?

If not, then surely as a good scientist you can see that your opinion on these matters is not worth more than that of anyone else. :)

[SteveGrenard]

I guess why that is why this section of the forum is called "Science" and the other "Banter." Banter is exactly that, people's personal takes, whereas science should be based on the knowledge represented by it.

While metabolism, or more precisely endocrinology, is not my area of expertise, I deal with the so-called moribdly obese on a daily basis. I meet over the course of a year hundreds of people in the 60"/250 to 500 pound range and do have a special electronic scale that weighs them accurately. Everyone of these patients suffers from obstructive sleep apnea which is severely exacerbated by the weight of their abdomen and their necks when they lie down. Many have to sleep in chairs or with their beds at 45 to 60 degrees uprgiht in order to breathe. We completely reverse this problem w/CPAP which results in normalization of blood pressure while asleep, restoration of normal oxygen saturation and in many cases reversal of cardiac arrhtyhmias. Overnight sleep testing and titration onto CPAP often precedes bariatric surgery, the most popular of which is minimally invasive (endoscopic) lap banding. The surgeons performing this procedure have had amazing results with patients using a combination of counseling, specialized dietary procedures and this surgical procedure.

I would not get involved in that emotional discussion for the very reasons you cite above in Banter but here I am happy to point our greatly overweight boardmates to the above information if they are not already aware of it.


Earthborn ... it was popular years ago to blame all obesity problems on metabolic or endocrine disorders and certainly there is a subset of these folks with thyroid problems that results in
obesity but the vast majority have reached these astronomical weight levels as a result of the old vicious cycle coupled with a love affair with food. The more they eat the more they have to eat the next time. This is the principle behind the rationale for the success of the lap banding procedure. Parents who put their children into this mode during their formative years are, indeed, guilty of a perverse sort of child abuse which is called killing your kids with kindness.

[Always Free]

Steve,

If a person of okay weight and good health wakes up in the mornings feeling like they have a hang over every day, is this normal for many? Or should everyone wake up feeling refreshed if they are having no problems sleeping?

[SteveGrenard]

They should wake up refreshed. If you havent taken any medications or, obviously, alcohol you should not be having morning hangovers or headaches on a regular basis. This is
a prime symptom of a sleep disorder.

[BillyJoe]

.....and you don't necessarily have to be overweight to have sleep apnoea.

[SteveGrenard]

No you do not have to be overweight to have sleep apnea. Thin people have it also. What I said was that being overweight severely exacerbates it and it does ..as it adds the burden of weight (abdomen and neck) to the ability to overcome resistive forces to breathe at night. It is also exacerbated by drinking alcohol in the hours before retiring and by sleeping medications and muscle relaxants such as Valium or other benzodiazapines used as nighttime sedatives. Alcohol relaxes the muscles at the base of the tongue (which is why speech becomes slurred or slowed when we drink a few) and this also exacerbates sleep apnea. We have a built in protection against this which is an arousal after everytime we stop breathing or breathe at diminished levels. These microarousals as they are called interrupts restful sleep causing us to be grogggy, tired and headachy in the morning. If you take sleeping meds and have not had the problem corrected (if they are prescribed without ruling out sleep apnea as a cause of insomnia or daytime sleepiness) then you switch off the central nervous system chemically and do not have the arousals. In short you can die in your sleep. And while dying in one's sleep is a pleasant alternative for someone with terminal cancer, if you are young and/or otherwise healthy, it is not. Studies of time of death records indicate that there is a preponderance of deaths in the hours before we normally wake up. This is no statistical aberration.

Sleep apnea is caused by our anatomy and it is much more prevalent than anyone ever suspected. A large tongue, an enlarged uvula and/or enlarged tonsils and adenoids coupled with relaxation of the muscle tone during sleep and especially during REM phase sleep causes sleep apnea. CPAP therapy during sleep splints the airway, keeps these structures out of the air passages and ameliorates the problem. Surgery and dental appliances have also been used to help correct this problem. Surgery works abut 35% of the time. Dental devices are useful for people with mild sleep apnea caused by small oropharyngeal cavitiies. CPAP remains the gold standard for this condition and knocks out one more thing that will kill us.

[Earthborn]

Earthborn ... it was popular years ago to blame all obesity problems on metabolic or endocrine disorders and certainly there is a subset of these folks with thyroid problems that results in
obesity but the vast majority have reached these astronomical weight levels as a result of the old vicious cycle coupled with a love affair with food.Yes, I know. However, EvilYeti seemed to ignore even the people with metabolic and endocrine disorders. If you follow the thread in Banter, you can see that he himself is largely responsible for making the discussion emotional, so I think it is a bit weak of him to go to Science and complain about how he isn't taken seriously and why people don't recognize him for the scientist he is.

Since you yourself aren't an expert on metabolism and endrocrinology, you won't mind I prefer the opinion of the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/obesity.htm) on this issue. On this page (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/info/perspectives/files/obesknow.htm) some interesting facts are shown which shed a different light on the usual 'oh just eat less and exercise more' doctrine. Some highlights:In an environment made constant for food intake and physical activity, individuals respond differently. Some people store more energy as fat in an environment of excess; others lose less fat in an environment of scarcity. The different responses are largely due to genetic variation between individuals.Overweight and obesity can result from only a very small positive energy input imbalance over a long period of time.So EvilYeti's ideas that obesity is caused by eating large amounts of junkfood simply isn't true: someone can become obese just by eating just a little bit more than they are using.It is time to stop blaming the victim.Nuff, said.

Click here (http://www.obesity.chair.ulaval.ca/Genes.html) for a nice site that lists all the genetic influences on obesity. Almost makes you wonder why there are still skinny people... :)

[SteveGrenard]

I am familiar with the material in the websites you mentioned. I readily agree that endocrine disorders as a result of genetic propensities are part of the problem but only a subset of the problem. Yes, rather than belabor this, let's cut to the chase.

Below is the Surgeon's General Advice to Consumers. And remember there is nothing you can do about your genes and if you have a thyroid problem you can get treatment for it with thryoid supplements.

You can also consider bariatric surgery and you should definitely be tested for sleep apnea, HBP and heart disease....its a multifocal problem with multifocal solutions. Diet is a big part of it but for people who need to fuel a greatly increased BMI it is a depressingingly difficult chore.

The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity



Surgeon General's Healthy Weight Advice for Consumers

"Choose a Healthy Weight for Life"

AIM FOR A HEALTHY WEIGHT

Find your Body Mass Index (BMI) on the chart below.

If you are overweight or obese, losing just 10% of your body weight can improve your health.

If you need to lose weight, do so gradually-1/2 to 2 pounds per week.

BE ACTIVE

Keep physically active to balance the calories you consume.

Be physically active for at least 30 minutes (adults) or 60 minutes (children) on most days of the week.

Limit TV time to less than 2 hours per day.

EAT WELL

Select sensible portion sizes.

Follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

(www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines).

(This is off a link on the CDC website you mentioned above)

So there are interventions that overweight and obese people can do to control this problem and I understand the frustration of activists opposed to McDonald's, BK and Wendy's pandering to these people. I seem to recall about 25 years ago a start-up chain that tried to market healthy fast food. They failed........although such salad and lean turkey sandwich bars have managed to work in food courts in large shopping malls. This is probably because people who follow these diets wouldn't go out of their way to visit a freestanding locale but would stop off while shopping to refuel on healthy food in controlled portions.

I notice that McD, BK and Wendy's have healthy alternatives on their menues now. I wonder how much brown lettuce and tomatos they throw out every day? It's still a people problem,
hence the source of laments and frustration such as that expressed by Yeti.

[SteveGrenard]

For a non-technical discussion of the multifactorial causes of obesity you might want to visit:

http://www.weight-loss-i.com/obesity-causes.htm

Here is an excerpt....

Causes of Obesity

Weight gain occurs when a person consumes more calories than he or she burns. A minor calorie surplus leads to overweight, while a major energy surplus causes obesity. But what causes this imbalance between calories in and calories in the first place may differ from one person to another. Genetic, environmental, psychological, and other factors all play a part. Here are some of the more common causes of obesity.

Causes of Obesity - Genetics

Obesity tends to run in families, implying genetic factors. The search for an "obesity gene" is complicated, however, by the fact that families also tend to share eating and lifestyle habits, making it difficult to separate genetics per se from behavior. Studies have been designed to determine how significantly genes and family lifestyles affect obesity. Some studies of adopted children indicate that genetics and heredity do play some role. Adopted children tend to develop weight problems similar to their biological, rather than adoptive, parents. But although children of obese parents have a 25-30 percent extra liklihood of becoming obese themselves, part of this increased risk of obesity may be due to eating habits and poor family nutrition, rather than heredity.

(snipped..)

[Dinonychus]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Find your Body Mass Index (BMI) on the chart below.

If you are overweight or obese, losing just 10% of your body weight can improve your health.

I've heard that unless you are about average height(5'11"-6'1"), the BMI really isn't a good indicator of your perfect body weight.

Be physically active for at least 30 minutes (adults) or 60 minutes (children) on most days of the week.

Ok, this ain't too bad. And most kids get that hour of activity in without really too much effort.

Limit TV time to less than 2 hours per day.

Ok, now I gotta call this one. How is watching less than two hours of TV a day gonna help you lose weight? I could spend most of my time that I would've normally spent in front of the TV in front of my computer.

Oh, and I didn't know EvilYeti was a scientist until I read this thread of his.

[SteveGrenard]

I actually didn't say this, the Surgeon General of the U.S. says it.
BMI is a guideline based on the folowing formula:

Body Mass Index can be calculated using pounds and inches with this equation

BMI = ( Weight in Pounds
(Height in inches) x (Height in inches) ) x 703

For example, a person who weighs 220 pounds and is 6 feet 3 inches tall has a BMI of 27.5.

( 220 lbs.
(75 inches) x (75 inches) ) x 703 = 27.5


If you are five foot tall and weigh 220 pounds you are considered overweight. If you are six three and weigh the same thing you are not considered overweight. It is a way of attaching a single number to a combination of wt and ht. You cannot control your adult height but you can control your weight. This is the variable we are talking about. In our lab we consider 30 and above as being overweight.

I knew the television recommendation would get some folks....LOL. Maybe if you set up a stationery bike or do exercises in front of the tube this would eliminate the couch potato factor.

[tygirwulf]

SteveGrenard, I don't understand your math there. I suspect we are supposed to divide somewhere, but where?

[SteveGrenard]

sorry - formatting was off. I hope the following is clearer:



BMI English formula = (Weight in pounds ÷ Height in inches ÷ Height in inches) x 703

BMI Metric formula = (Weight in kilograms ÷ Height in cm ÷ Height in cm) x 10,000

BMI cutpoints

The figures below are for adults as the Body Mass Index calculator for children is a little different.

Underweight = BMI less than 18.5
Overweight = BMI of 25.0 to 29.9
Obese = BMI of 30.0 or more


The calculations used were obtained from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) and are only intended to be used as a guideline. You should always consult a doctor for a professional diagnosis.

For the medical and particularly diet professionals the BMI is a convenient way of deciding when to recommend weight loss.
If Mrs. Botchagalupe comes in and she weighs 300 pounds and is 5 foot tall, we don't have to say we discovered a person denser than lead. Its sort of like a vol/wt density calculation except.

(Order of operations: wt (e.g. 300) divided by ht (e.g. 68 inches)=
4.41 divided again by ht (68) = 0.06 then multiply by 703 which is 0.06 x 703 = 42.18 which is the BMI for someone weighing three hundred pounds and standing 68 inches high. )

[Earthborn]

The BMI is quite lousy, not the least because it is pretty unmetric. The x10000 in Steve's metric formula shows that it is adjusted to be compatible with the Imperial measurement and it was originally much simpler. In the rest of the world, this formula is called the Quetelet Index, and the formula is very simple.

Q=Weight.kilogram/(Height.Meter*Height.Meter)

So suppose someone is 1.80 meter and weighs 75 kilograms, their Quetelet index is
75/(1,8*1,8)=23,1 (I'm using decimal comma's according to international standards)
The answer is the same as for the BMI, which mean the BMI is just an imperialised Quetelet index.

It also stinks because it only considers height and weight (or even better: mass) This means that if you take the Index of Arnie Schwarzenegger you might think he is morbidly obese. It does not take into account how muscular your are. Many researchers and dieticians use bodyfat measurements today.

Edited to add: / means dividing, * means multiply. I'm used to QBasic syntax. :)

This Basic program calculates your quetelet index. It should work on any old fashioned Basic interpreter. Windows user could search for QBASIC.EXE on their windows CD.

10 INPUT "Height (Meter) ";h
20 INPUT "Weight (kg) ";w
30 PRINT "Your Quetelet index is ";w/(h*h)
40 END

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Hi Everyone.

I've had a recent experience with these boards that I find a bit troubling.

In some threads on the banter forum I spoke my mind regarding my opinion of the obesity epidemic in America.

I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc... which is all well and good. After all, its banter and what not.

I've also been accused of being a "woo-woo", a fundie Christian and dismissively encouraged to study "science".

This is not so well and good. See, I'm an actual real NSF funded scientist. I'm not proud, but hey its what I do to pay the bills.

My critics are not.

I'm getting the distinct impression that a sizeable chunk of the contributors of this board are about as familiar with critical thinking and the scientific method as John Edwards, yet somehow still consider themselves "skeptics". I find people like this orders of magnitude more irritating than your typical "woowoo".

I'm thinking of restricting myself to the Academic forums in the future, the quality of discourse seems to be much higher.

Comments?

I think this kind of exposure is good for a scientist. It builds "character". I all seriousness I think you are touching on an area that is not usually discussed in scientific forums. There is more to science than just logic and math, there is the aspect of developing your communication skills to reach an audience of, say, non technical people who are considering funding your grant or a general audience who has come to learn a little more on a topic. This is something like a doctor developing a bedside manner. There are certain trigger phrases that people are looking for to get offended at, as well. If you push one of these buttons, that is where people stop thinking and start reacting. You then have the choice of reacting back or learning from the experience and choosing your words more carefully and precisely in the future.

[SteveGrenard]

You make an assumption re Arnold which is simply incorrect.
Here is a selection of stats on him:

Actor Archives: Arnold Schwarzenegger
:: biography :: Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Birthday: 06/30/1947 Birthplace: Graz,
Austria Height: 6'2" Weight: 257 lbs Recent Filmography: 2002: Terminator 3 ...

www.actorarchives.com/arnold/ -

Height: 6.2, Weight: 240. ... Official Website: http://www.schwarzenegger.com/.

Arnold Schwarzenegger - arnold schwarzenegger ...
... The Olympian, Oak, The King, Champ, Arnie, Schwazzie, Arnold Strong; ... Height: 6'2";
Arms: 22"; Chest: 57"; Waist: 34 ... 28.5"; Calves: 20"; Off Season Weight: Around 235 ...


So let's look at Arnold's imperialized BMI then even at his top listed weight of 257:

257 divided by 74 inches = 3.47

3.47 divided by 74 inches = .04

.04 x 703 = 28.12

Arnold is not obese but is slightly overweight according to the NIH. We consider 30 as the overweight point so from our lab's point of view he isn't overweight according to his imperilaized BMI.... :) even at his top weight of 257. Predictably his BMI would be lower at his lower or off season weights by several decimals.

[Earthborn]

Okay... Good work, Steve. Arnie is not obese. :)

The criticism is still true though: it still doesn't account for muscles.

[SteveGrenard]

Earth: Good work, Steve. Arnie is not obese.
The criticism is still true though: it still doesn't account for
muscles.

True. But at what point does muscle mass and to what extent does it contribute to obesity or "overweight." Even body builders with signficiant muscle mass can be overweight and need to maintain weight off in other parts of their anatomy in order to compensate for the difficulties caused by excess. But they are not pathologically obese. (see below)

Take thick necks for example.
Football players and many body builders have necks like tree trunks. Many teams are now testing their players for sleep apnea and having them sleep with CPAP because guess what, they have it .... muscles, in the neck or elsewhere notwithstanding, the situation is still basically not healthy for such people.

As the CDC website points out BTW there is a distinction between obesity and being overweight.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Hi Everyone.
I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc... which is all well and good. After all, its banter and what not.

I've also been accused of being a "woo-woo", a fundie Christian and dismissively encouraged to study "science".

This is not so well and good. See, I'm an actual real NSF funded scientist.

My critics are not.



I'm not an NSF funded scientist, so what ARE you suggesting?

[LucyR]

Yeti, you have to admit that you got everyone's back up by posting a picture of a starving child in order to put the problems of fat people in 'perspective'. You followed that up with a number of particularly obnoxious remarks. That was hardly a scientific approach, and you shouldn't be surprised that people reacted badly.

You may well be a competent scientist, but it seemed to me that your posts were based more on emotion than anything else.

[EvilYeti]

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, particularly SteveGrenard. Positive feedback from a compatriot is very encouraging.

Earthborn, are you specialized in human metabolism, the causes of obesity or dietary science? I make no claims to be, but based on your contributions you are not either.

I do know that the top people in the fields you mention are have been pretty ticked off by the media (and others) misrepresenting their research. They are studying the mechanisms of obesity, which is, of course, a very complex subject. The CAUSE of obesity has been undestood for ages and is very, very simple. Overconsumption.

If you are interested in how science is relevant to this debate, I would suggest studying the psychology of addiction. Its very common for addicts (food or otherwise) to attempt to rationalize their addictions; lately the fashion has been misrepresenting medical research. Thats junk science, pure and simple. I'm surprised that it goes so largely unchallenged on these boards.

[plindboe]

EvilYeti,
you behaved like a bigot in that thread, and the reaction you got wasn't surprising at all. A grown man, not to mention a scientist, should have predicted the reaction, when you call someone, who opens up and tell us of problems in his life, for death selphish, ignorant, morally reprehensible & disgusting. I find it even more absurd when you believe you have been wronged and get disappointed with "us". You might know your science, but you have a lot to learn about human behaviour.

Peter :rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by LucyR
Yeti, you have to admit that you got everyone's back up by posting a picture of a starving child in order to put the problems of fat people in 'perspective'. You followed that up with a number of particularly obnoxious remarks. That was hardly a scientific approach, and you shouldn't be surprised that people reacted badly.

You may well be a competent scientist, but it seemed to me that your posts were based more on emotion than anything else.

The picture of the starving child is true. Science is about truth. Why do you think it got everyone's "back up" then? Perhaps it touched a nerve? Raised some uncomfortable issues?

Scientists, especially the good ones, are often emotional and obnoxious. Its a side effect of being passionate about what we do.

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Hi Everyone.

I've had a recent experience with these boards that I find a bit troubling.

In some threads on the banter forum I spoke my mind regarding my opinion of the obesity epidemic in America.

I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc... which is all well and good. After all, its banter and what not.

I've also been accused of being a "woo-woo", a fundie Christian and dismissively encouraged to study "science".

Comments?

Yes, evilyeti....the reasons of that kind of replies are in this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19396&pagenumber=1

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe
EvilYeti,
you behaved like a bigot in that thread, and the reaction you got wasn't surprising at all. A grown man, not to mention a scientist, should have predicted the reaction, when you call someone, who opens up and tell us of problems in his life, for death selphish, ignorant, morally reprehensible & disgusting. I find it even more absurd when you believe you have been wronged and get disappointed with "us". You might know your science, but you have a lot to learn about human behaviour.


I've said, several times now, I don't care about the ad hominem attacks. For the record, I do not have a problem with obese people as a social group. If find some of their habits disgusting, but not the individuals. Do you understand the difference? I criticized RSL *specifically* for what I felt was a selfish and ignorant post. You are the bigot for being intolerant of my opinions.

You are not addressing my concern regarding the accusations of me being a scientific ignoramus. I realize the board is called "banter", but I think we all can agree that is not a license to throw our skepticism and critical thinking skills out the window.

[jj]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Overconsumption.

If you are interested in how science is relevant to this debate, I would suggest studying the psychology of addiction. Its very common for addicts (food or otherwise) to attempt to rationalize their addictions; lately the fashion has been misrepresenting medical research. Thats junk science, pure and simple. I'm surprised that it goes so largely unchallenged on these boards.

As is, I would contend, your routine dismissal of various metabolic disorders that cause obesity, wherein you will not recognize that there are also people who have various disorders that make losing weight, or not gaining weight, very difficult, and in some cases as dangerous as becoming overweight.

Your suggestion that the primary cause is addiction to food lacks several important scientific steps. Being a good scientist, you will be able to document those chemical steps leading to substance addiction, yes?

Now, don't try that old argument of the excluded middle on me again, of course in some cases it's simple unwillingness of people to control their diet.

What that fact does not explain is that some genetic groupings have obvious wide or narrow tendencies, something that any proposal of addiction must somehow cope with via evidence and mechanism, not just words.

[SteveGrenard]

Yeti: Scientists, especially the good ones, are often emotional and obnoxious. Its a side effect of being passionate about what we do.

and Yeti again:

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, particularly SteveGrenard. Positive feedback from a compatriot is very encouraging.


I identify with the emotional and passionate side of science, I endure it everyday when I am confronted by patients with behavioral issues where weight is concerned. I have had any number of patients that myself and colleagues would actually get into fights with , well verbal altercations (I do yell at patients sometimes), because they just don't get it and it is frustrating.

As I tried to point out there is a subset that has a genetic predisposition to weight gain but it is probably smaller than some media hype would lead us to believe as Yeti stated. There is also a small group controlled by a genetic predisposition that are hypothyroid, thus predisposing to both chronic fatigue (thus lack of exercise) and concomittant weight gain. And I know how difficult it is for people to behave in a manner which is consistent with their health, their life and therefore their loved ones and cohorts. I feel they need help and they CAN get it. I think perhaps that Yeti is angry with those who either (a) don't take the time and trouble to find that help or (b) once they've found it, they ignore it. These are the most frustrating cases I have. So I yell at them. I tell them you're gonna die. Your wife will wake up one morning and you'll be dead in the bed beside her and you're 30 years old and have two young kids, etc etc. These are the people that irk me. Sorry. They just piss me off.

Can't help it. RSL is an on-line friend. I have no idea of his circumstances but I have heard his tale a thousand times from others. So now I will be yelling at him if he gives me the opening.

If not this what are friends for? You're in for it now Bobby boy.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I've said, several times now, I don't care about the ad hominem attacks. For the record, I do not have a problem with obese people as a social group. If find some of their habits disgusting, but not the individuals. Do you understand the difference? I criticized RSL *specifically* for what I felt was a selfish and ignorant post. You are the bigot for being intolerant of my opinions.

You are not addressing my concern regarding the accusations of me being a scientific ignoramus. I realize the board is called "banter", but I think we all can agree that is not a license to throw our skepticism and critical thinking skills out the window.
If you have extreme opinions, people might react irrational when telling them your opinions. If you call a black man "******" for instance, I doubt it will lead to any rational discussion. That's what you fail to see. You enter a discussion calling someone ignorant and disgusting, and then get disappointed when they don't react entirely rational.

Peter :rolleyes:

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by plindboe
EvilYeti,
you behaved like a bigot in that thread,

Pointing out that a myriad of sub-problems are actually problems of one's own creation is hardly bigotry. It is factual.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


As is, I would contend, your routine dismissal of various metabolic disorders that cause obesity, wherein you will not recognize that there are also people who have various disorders that make losing weight, or not gaining weight, very difficult, and in some cases as dangerous as becoming overweight.

Even when the poster of the "woe is me, I am fat" posting admits to routine consumption of super-sized fast-food meals?

RSL never claimed a metabolic disorder. That get-out-jail-free-card was tossed around in the replies of other posters.

Yeti's posts dealt with the context of the original poster's claims and comments. Was he polite about it? Nope. Does that make him wrong? Not hardly.

Everyone else decided to strawman the entire affair by inventing excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for RSL. Other posters tried to play the metabolism card, the brain chemistry (my personal favorite "mystery disorder" cop-out) card, and the "some people are just plain fat" card. Other posters tried to super-size the issue by discussing all fat people, when Yeti was actually on-topic in addressing RSL's original post.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Pointing out that a myriad of sub-problems are actually problems of one's own creation is hardly bigotry. It is factual.
Indeed, but calling someone death selphish, ignorant, morally reprehensible & disgusting is the work of a bigot. Try reading the thread. There's alot more to it, than "Pointing out that a myriad of sub-problems are actually problems of one's own creation".

Here's the URL for the thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19694

Peter :)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by plindboe

Indeed, but calling someone death selphish, ignorant, morally reprehensible & disgusting is the work of a bigot. Try reading the thread. There's alot more to it, than "Pointing out that a myriad of sub-problems are actually problems of one's own creation".

Here's the URL for the thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19694

Peter :)

I have read it. The Yeti is correct. RSL is an enormous corpse waiting to happen...entirely of his own creation.

He created a laundry list of why he is in need of a lifestyle change in a manner suggesting that the world is a cold, harsh place unwelcoming of the obese. He has problems with seats on airplanes, movie theaters, restaurants, restrooms, and he can't hold his legs together for very long because his thighs are huge.

When other posters suggest corrective behavior, he responds evasively with excuses as to why he should try them. He is his own self-created misery.

I'm having a little problem buttoning a few pairs of pants I own. I've gotten back to lifting weights and I've actually started running with my new wife in an attempt to permit her to kill me in the process. I'm not writing a novel to tell people how bad my life is because I've made it that way; I'm working to change it to the way I want it to be.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Hazelip
I have read it. The Yeti is correct. RSL is an enormous corpse waiting to happen...entirely of his own creation.

He created a laundry list of why he is in need of a lifestyle change in a manner suggesting that the world is a cold, harsh place unwelcoming of the obese. He has problems with seats on airplanes, movie theaters, restaurants, restrooms, and he can't hold his legs together for very long because his thighs are huge.

When other posters suggest corrective behavior, he responds evasively with excuses as to why he should try them. He is his own self-created misery.

Maybe you missed reading this part: "I know some have read this with the attitude of "hey, it's your own fault you're fat, so stop whining!" I know that (although it isn't true of ALL obese people). I'm not blaming anyone else about my weight. But if you thought I was whining, you weren't paying attention."

Peter :)

[Earthborn]

Steve:So I yell at them. I tell them you're gonna die.And does it help? Are people trusting your judgement when you are yelling at them? I doubt it.

I think your patients should find someone else to be treated by if you cannot control your temper. Someone who is more careful with their feelings. How dare you to "blame the victim" as the CDC calls it?As I tried to point out there is a subset that has a genetic predisposition to weight gain but it is probably smaller than some media hype would lead us to believe as Yeti stated.Some media like the CDC? Studies are showing that the genes are not destiny but are still a significant factor in developing obesity.As you yourself have stated, you are not an expert on metabolism, so I'll put my trust in the CDC and not in you, if you don't mind. The CDC seems to totally disagree with you and argues that obesity is caused for a large part by genetics.

And EvilYeti, you are right, I'm not specialized on this issue either. But then I'm not the one who is challenging mainstream science.
The CAUSE of obesity has been undestood for ages and is very, very simple. Overconsumption.Yes, very mild overconsumption over a long period of time by a person who is predisposed to easily gain weight.lately the fashion has been misrepresenting medical research.Which part of the 'very mild overconsumption over a long period of time by people who are predisposed to easily gain weight' is misrepresented science?If find some of their habits disgusting, but not the individuals. Do you understand the difference?Yes, I know the difference. "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"... The favoured excuse of homophobes.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by plindboe

Maybe you missed reading this part: "I know some have read this with the attitude of "hey, it's your own fault you're fat, so stop whining!" I know that (although it isn't true of ALL obese people). I'm not blaming anyone else about my weight. But if you thought I was whining, you weren't paying attention."

Peter :)

I fail to see how detailing the ordeals and bathroom adventures of the obese can be viewed as anything but whining.

The fact of the matter remains, however, that Yeti did not address any at-large issues of being obese until other posters began making excuses for RSL (thusly ignoring his statements that his obesity is his own fault, something you imply of which I am not aware).

Furthermore, posting something in a public forum, a forum which functions on the exchange of comments (as do all fora), is going to attract comments. Why other posters couldn't follow RSL's lead of not responding (initially, anyway), is beyond me.

I found his posting to be self-serving and repugnant. Yet, you will not find a posting of mine in that thread. If I did, however, I would expect people to remain on the topic of RSL and the problems of his obesity. I would not expect personal attacks and the rationalizations for someone's admittedly bad personal habits.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Someone who is more careful with their feelings. How dare you to "blame the victim" as the CDC calls it?

When the person is a victim of his or her own creation, they deserve every bit of blame they receive.

[SteveGrenard]

EB: And does it help? Are people trusting your judgement when you are yelling at them? I doubt it. etc etc etc:


Yes it works 95% of the time. They can't go anywhere else. My lab, its testing procedures and treatment intervention saves their lives. They realize it after one night when they can finally sleep without choking if they lay down their head. Once we get the patient on CPAP therapy they can safely undergo anesthesia and endoscopic surgery for their obesity ... those that take advantage of what is provided for them. Afterwards they need to stick to a rigid diet involving certain foods and nutrients. Those who comply do well, those who do not, are back in trouble. Their choice. If this is blaming the victim so be it.

And where did I say I blame the victim? I cajole them to get help and then not to ignore it. If you were seeing such cases by your reckoning you'd say oh, how sad, how bad for you..don't worry. Tsk tsk. Go run along now. Do you best. That's really a big help. I'll help my way, you help yours. Outcome is what counts.


The CDC? you say. Suggest you read their own site on this subject and do so carefully. Read the Surgeon General's Advice
to people who are obese. You can't change your genes, the CDC knows it and if every morbidly obese individual is going to wait until they can be genetically engineered to lose weight they'd be dead waiting. You just can't go home, keep eating and blame it on your genes or your metabolism. Those who do, as others have said, are self inflicting their own premature demise. and a life of misery before its over.

Overconsumption is mainstream science. The vicious circle and love affair with food, eating larger and larger meals, is the proximate cause of obesity. Period. Not mild over-eating....
bariatric surgery (look it up) -- lap banding, has proven it in
hard terms. I have been pre and post testing obese people for seven years and I have quite a collection of before and after weight losses and the pix in file to go with it. I don't need you or your misinterpretation of anything the CDC says to tell me what's involved here. But thanks anyway.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Hazelip
I fail to see how detailing the ordeals and bathroom adventures of the obese can be viewed as anything but whining.

Since you're the one failing, that's your problem. Don't blame others because you fail to see something.

Originally posted by Hazelip
Furthermore, posting something in a public forum, a forum which functions on the exchange of comments (as do all fora), is going to attract comments. Why other posters couldn't follow RSL's lead of not responding (initially, anyway), is beyond me.

I'm sure RSL was fully aware of this risk when he posted. However that doesn't justify someone like EvilYeti entering a thread to insult him. Maybe you agree with his points or not, but his behaviour, and the lack of understanding of the responses he got, that's what the problem is.

Originally posted by Hazelip
I found his posting to be self-serving and repugnant. Yet, you will not find a posting of mine in that thread. If I did, however, I would expect people to remain on the topic of RSL and the problems of his obesity. I would not expect personal attacks and the rationalizations for someone's admittedly bad personal habits.
For some reason you completely overlook the personal attacks EvilYeti made. He entered the thread with insults, and received insults in return. It seems to me, that you choose to overlook EvilYeti's insults, and focus on other people's insults, simply because you are of the same opinion as EvilYeti.

Peter :)

[Hazelip]

Peter, that's because Yeti didn't attack, he was illustrative, expressive, and rude.

Yeah, it was rude, but it in no way negates his point. Posting about how one is too damned fat to sit on a toilet and get up when finished because one's posterior is of obscene proportions isn't a reason to coddle or wrist-slap, it's a reason to bludgeon someone with a cluehammer.

[ScottDYelich]

ey --

I came here seeing intelligence ... but what I found was far from it.

I haven't posted here in a long while... just wanted to say I pretty
much agree. I don't bother to follow all the mindless banter anymore.

Scott

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Even when the poster of the "woe is me, I am fat" posting admits to routine consumption of super-sized fast-food meals?

RSL never claimed a metabolic disorder. That get-out-jail-free-card was tossed around in the replies of other posters.

Yeti's posts dealt with the context of the original poster's claims and comments. Was he polite about it? Nope. Does that make him wrong? Not hardly.

Everyone else decided to strawman the entire affair by inventing excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for RSL. Other posters tried to play the metabolism card, the brain chemistry (my personal favorite "mystery disorder" cop-out) card, and the "some people are just plain fat" card. Other posters tried to super-size the issue by discussing all fat people, when Yeti was actually on-topic in addressing RSL's original post.

I'm sorry, but my experience with Yeti on this matter goes back far far beyond anythign to do with RSL.

In fact, you can determine this with the search function, I think, although who knows for sure.

So, since I have experienced his other threads, and I haven't actually READ the RSL thread, perhaps you need to reconsider your ability to read minds.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


The fact of the matter remains, however, that Yeti did not address any at-large issues of being obese until other posters began making excuses for RSL (thusly ignoring his statements that his obesity is his own fault, something you imply of which I am not aware).


I suggest that you do some research into your claim. I've been here quite a while, and so has Yeti.

This is not our first discussion on the issue. (Btw, I'm not particularly large or anything, in case you're about to embark on any kind of ad-hominem.)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


I suggest that you do some research into your claim. I've been here quite a while, and so has Yeti.

This is not our first discussion on the issue. (Btw, I'm not particularly large or anything, in case you're about to embark on any kind of ad-hominem.)

I don't do the ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps you should check your own mind reading skills as well? :rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


I don't do the ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps you should check your own mind reading skills as well? :rolleyes:

Interesting. What, in light of the facts revealed, do you regard your attempted "corrections" as?

I find your research poor and your manners lacking.

[plindboe]

Just curious, Hazelip and EvilYeti, do you resent people who suffer from anorexia as well? These people have lost self control too.

Peter :)

[QuarkChild]

The fact of the matter remains, however, that Yeti did not address any at-large issues of being obese until other posters began making excuses for RSL (thusly ignoring his statements that his obesity is his own fault, something you imply of which I am not aware).

I think the reason "other posters" brought up extraneous issues on genetics, etc, is that EvilYeti said
2. Famine is a much more serious problem then obesity. I don't see the point in discussing the problems fat people have finding their genetalia while hunger is still such a serious problem in the world.
He said "fat people," not "RSL." Suddenly he has extended the discussion to fat people in general, so it seems as if his condemnation of RSL has now been extended to a condemnation of the obese in general. I think that the "other posters," seeing this as an attack on obese people in general, then responded to that by saying that a blanket condemnation of the obese is unfair.

As far as the ad hominems go, I think EvilYeti himself opened the floodgates by making moral judgments (he used the phrase "morally reprehensible"). EvilYeti, listen to what peptoabysmal said about a "bedside manner." If you want to be a good scientist and inform the public of scientific results, your cause is not served by telling people that they are disgusting and immoral. Saying that you are passionate about the subject is not an excuse for alienating people with judgmental remarks.

[spoonhandler]

EvilYeti - I read through this thread and went to Banter to look at RSL's original post. I read it through and thought RSL made it fairly clear he wasn't asking for sympathy or making excuses. In fact, at the end of the post, he said he hoped bringing issues of this nature to light might help someone else get control of themselves before they ended up in his situation. RSL wrote: All I am doing is putting this out, some of it embarrassing, none of it pleasant (to read or write), in hopes that some people might come to a better understanding of the topic. And who knows, maybe some mildly fat person will read this and decide to address their problem before it gets to this point. Believe me, if someone had sat me down years ago and desrcibed all these things to me (especially the Intimacy part), I think I would be a different-sized person today. This suggests that RSL understood right from the outset that his situation is entirely one of his own making. In the same way SteveGrenard uses blunt reality to get his patients to realise they must act in their own interests, RSL seemed to be suggesting that people who overeat should consider not only death, but other quality-of-life issues.

I started scrolling through the subsequent posts and came to your first contribution - a photo of a child starving to death with a carrion bird waiting nearby and a comment that the photo is meant to put RSL's problems into perspective. In what way was your post deserving of scientific respect or consideration? I haven't read the rest of the thread because I felt I had to ask you this question. RSL had already framed his problem correctly: self-inflicted, socially restrictive and a warning to others who find themselves gaining weight due to overeating and/or being inactive. I don't believe RSL was attempting to state that being unable to ride a roller coaster was a personal tragedy compared to which the prospect of being picked over by vultures whilst you starve to death pales by comparison. It was clear to me RSL understood and illustrated how avoidable his situation was.

If you feel RSL lacks self-control, perhaps you might consider exercising mental restraint when composing your posts. Surely as a scientist you have developed the means of communicating ideas effectively without allowing passion to cloud your judgement or your message?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe

For some reason you completely overlook the personal attacks EvilYeti made. He entered the thread with insults, and received insults in return. It seems to me, that you choose to overlook EvilYeti's insults, and focus on other people's insults, simply because you are of the same opinion as EvilYeti.


What you choose to overlook is what drove to that thread in the first place. "I" was insulted in another thead and accused of not understanding science. Why? Because I told RSL that its a very, very bad idea to drink a large Coke with every meal if you are morbidly obese.

Is that advice worthy of an insult? Is that bad science?

And believe me, there are a litnay of insults I could have used, but chose not to, out of respect for RSL. My critics showed no such tact or restraint.

I called him ignorant. He is. He is under the impression that while is diet is not ideal, its not that bad. He's dead wrong. His diet is absolutely terrible. He is consuming 2 to 4 times the calories his lifestyle requires. That is gluttony in my opinion.

It's selfish because he is consuming more than his fair share. Senseless consumption, of any sort, irritates me.

I never said RSL was disgusting, I said some of his habits were. I find smoking disgusting, but not smokers (at least not in general).

[Jesse]

Originally posted by ex-latin
Yes, evilyeti....the reasons of that kind of replies are in this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19396&pagenumber=1 Thank you for advertising my thread.

[Earthborn]

Why? Because I told RSL that its a very, very bad idea to drink a large Coke with every meal if you are morbidly obese.

Is that advice worthy of an insult? Is that bad science?No. But after a little forum archeaology, I found out why your science was considered flaky. These your own words:Your problem isn't with the fat, its all the sugar and refined carbs you are consuming. That is where most of your daily calories are coming from, not fat. Sugars and refined carbs also have the nasty side effect of making you feel extremely hungry a few hours after you eat them as your glucose levels bottom out.

You really should cut ALL sugar out of your diet (no sweet drinks) and severely limit refined carbs, like french fries. Get in the habit of drinking unsweetened tea instead of coke when you eat fast food and skip the fries. You will save money, feel better and lose weight.Let's look at the most important part of that in detail: Your problem isn't with the fat. Just after RSL told you he his diet contains enormous amounts of fat. And you claimed that he could lose weight if only he cut down on carbs. That is flaky science, his problem is most definitely with both carbs and fat.

Just reading how much fat he eats in a day makes me so full that I probably won't eat until wednesday...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by spoonhandler

I started scrolling through the subsequent posts and came to your first contribution - a photo of a child starving to death with a carrion bird waiting nearby and a comment that the photo is meant to put RSL's problems into perspective. In what way was your post deserving of scientific respect or consideration? I haven't read the rest of the thread because I felt I had to ask you this question. RSL had already framed his problem correctly: self-inflicted, socially restrictive and a warning to others who find themselves gaining weight due to overeating and/or being inactive. I don't believe RSL was attempting to state that being unable to ride a roller coaster was a personal tragedy compared to which the prospect of being picked over by vultures whilst you starve to death pales by comparison. It was clear to me RSL understood and illustrated how avoidable his situation was.


What does my picture have to do with science? I was exercising my right of (limited) free speech on this forum to make a political statement. As long as there is one starving child in the world I have zero interest in the problems morbidly obese people face. RSL is free to complain about tiny chairs in restraunts, I'm free to complain about his complaining. RSL mentioned comments, so I gave him mine.

Why the double standard?

I got angry because the guys life is at stake, sometimes manners should take a back seat to humanity, don't you think?

[Jesse]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
As long as there is one starving child in the world I have zero interest in the problems morbidly obese people face. I really can't argue with this statement.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No. But after a little forum archeaology, I found out why your science was considered flaky. These your own words:Let's look at the most important part of that in detail: Your problem isn't with the fat. Just after RSL told you he his diet contains enormous amounts of fat. And you claimed that he could lose weight if only he cut down on carbs. That is flaky science, his problem is most definitely with both carbs and fat.

Just reading how much fat he eats in a day makes me so full that I probably won't eat until wednesday...

Earthborn, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my statement, scientificaly or otherwise.

RSL is DRINKING, not eating, about 1,000 calories a day via soda. He can cut his intake by that much by drinking water instead. Coke is not food, it does nothing to make you feel full (well bloated maybe) and he absolutely should not be drinking it.

His problem really is not with fat, he is not eating that much. He is overdoing it on the carbs, so thats the first thing he should cut out. Its very likely that he could lose weight just cutting down on the refined carbs, especially since he doesn't exercise. Remember, he could make good progress by losing just one pound a week, which I think is well possible if he cuts out the soda, fries and chips.

Please stop trying to lecture me on science, its annoying. You are preaching to the pope.

[Jesse]

Fat Americans (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19806)

[Genghis Pwn]

I have been called a bigot, an idiot, accused of being jealous of fat people (?) etc...

LOL at being accused of being jealous of fat people.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Peter, that's because Yeti didn't attack, he was illustrative, expressive, and rude.

Yeah, it was rude, but it in no way negates his point. Posting about how one is too damned fat to sit on a toilet and get up when finished because one's posterior is of obscene proportions isn't a reason to coddle or wrist-slap, it's a reason to bludgeon someone with a cluehammer.
Do you honestly think that he haven't been told hundreds of times before? What makes you think it will change anything to insult him in a thread? Let's be frank. It's not about helping this person, as you claim. It's about resentment.

In many ways such obesity share alot with the mental disorder anorexia. Both these groups of people have lost self control, and are unable to help themselves. Insulting them certainly doesn't help. It can only do harm, as it will make them feel even more loathsome. Try to understand why people behave as they do, before passing judgement on them. Or maybe you prefer to live in your over-simple version of the world?

Peter :)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by plindboe
Just curious, Hazelip and EvilYeti, do you resent people who suffer from anorexia as well? These people have lost self control too.

Peter :)

Yes, I do. Anyone who can look at him or herself in the mirror at close to 50 pounds (or more) underweight and think "I'm fat" is an idiot. Anyone who can look at nearly her entire skeleton through her skin and think "I'm fat" is an idiot.

These problems do not exist in third-world countries. Have any of you ever stopped to think about that? They have more important things to worry about.

Yet, in this country of plenty (plenty extra, really), our citizens seem driven to create and inflict problems on themselves. We invent mental disorders, give them pills, and more importantly, attention. We shower them with concern and care.

The hell with that. People who are victims of their own creation deserve little more than contempt. Particularly those who air the dirty laundry of "this is how hard my life is carrying this bulk around all day" in the form of a list of problems they have created for themselves.

[MRC_Hans]

People who are victims of their own creation deserve little more than contempt.Is being a jerk self-inflicted? Then let's not pity jerks. ;) :rolleyes:

Hans

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
See, I'm an actual real NSF funded scientist. I'm not proud, but hey its what I do to pay the bills.


I don't think you are paying your bills if you are NSF.

(Bet you haven't heard that a thousand times.)

I thought the banter area was a place where you go to get hammered mindlessly. I think the waters are a bit calmer over here in the science area.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Hazelip
Yes, I do. Anyone who can look at him or herself in the mirror at close to 50 pounds (or more) underweight and think "I'm fat" is an idiot. Anyone who can look at nearly her entire skeleton through her skin and think "I'm fat" is an idiot.

These problems do not exist in third-world countries. Have any of you ever stopped to think about that? They have more important things to worry about.

Yet, in this country of plenty (plenty extra, really), our citizens seem driven to create and inflict problems on themselves. We invent mental disorders, give them pills, and more importantly, attention. We shower them with concern and care.

The hell with that. People who are victims of their own creation deserve little more than contempt. Particularly those who air the dirty laundry of "this is how hard my life is carrying this bulk around all day" in the form of a list of problems they have created for themselves. I think this was quite inspired.

[Earthborn]

Hazelip:
Suppose a person enters a maze for fun, but unknown to him the maze is an enormous trap. As soon as someone enters, the way out is blocked, dangerous trap doors are activated and getting out of the maze is very difficult. The person did choose himself to go inside the maze. Are the problems he is faced with therefore self-inflicted? What if the person knew beforehand that there are a very small percentage of mazes like that?

A child is has a nightmare and when it wakes up it is frightened. Is the condition it is in self-inflicted? After all, if the child didn't have a nightmare it would not be frightened.

Suppose a paranoid schizophrenic suffers from hallucinations and thinks he is being attacked by monsters. Trying to run away from them, he runs across the street and is hit by a car he did not see because of his hallucinations. Is his injury self-inflicted?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn

Click here (http://www.obesity.chair.ulaval.ca/Genes.html) for a nice site that lists all the genetic influences on obesity. Almost makes you wonder why there are still skinny people... :)
Or why there ever was?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by Hazelip

The hell with that. People who are victims of their own creation deserve little more than contempt. Particularly those who air the dirty laundry of "this is how hard my life is carrying this bulk around all day" in the form of a list of problems they have created for themselves.

I dread to think what it would be like reading your crap if you did do ad homs :eek:

And I do hope that all the self rightous people talking about how there are starving people in this world are actually giving time and money to do something about it - or is tutting over fat people overeating enough for them to feel they are doing something about it?:rolleyes:

Sou

[Jesse]

Someone somewhere said something about the truth setting one free. Who said that?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Hazelip:
Suppose a person enters a maze for fun, but unknown to him the maze is an enormous trap. As soon as someone enters, the way out is blocked, dangerous trap doors are activated and getting out of the maze is very difficult. The person did choose himself to go inside the maze. Are the problems he is faced with therefore self-inflicted? What if the person knew beforehand that there are a very small percentage of mazes like that?

Self inflicted..

A child is has a nightmare and when it wakes up it is frightened. Is the condition it is in self-inflicted? After all, if the child didn't have a nightmare it would not be frightened.

Not self inflicted..

Suppose a paranoid schizophrenic suffers from hallucinations and thinks he is being attacked by monsters. Trying to run away from them, he runs across the street and is hit by a car he did not see because of his hallucinations. Is his injury self-inflicted?

Not self inflicted..


Interesting analogy, but it does not seem very valid to me.

Were the last two scenarios, supposed to make us consider that perhaps the first one represented less of a choice ( the choice to enter the maze) than it would, if we did not have the latter two, to consider?

[Jesse]

Whoa. Mazes? Where did MAZES come into this?!

[Soubrette]

Diogenes

I don't know about analogies but I do know that food represents many things in our society. We make food for the ones we love, we exhort children to eat everything on their plate, we offer chocolate or icecream to depressed friends, we go out for meals when we date, we reward good behaviour with sweets etc etc.

Most people do not only eat food when they are hungry. For those of us who struggle with our weight and/or have lost control - it is never as easy as saying just go on a diet. Food is a complex issue, it's not necessarily about free choice, free will or choosing to be fat.

In my experience the mind often plays tricks on itself when it comes to abusing substances - food is something many people abuse.

And Jesse - here's another saying to add to your collection the truth is a strange animal - it appears as different things to different people. I don't know who said that either.

Sou

[Jesse]

All senses can be tricked.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Yes, I do. Anyone who can look at him or herself in the mirror at close to 50 pounds (or more) underweight and think "I'm fat" is an idiot. Anyone who can look at nearly her entire skeleton through her skin and think "I'm fat" is an idiot.

These problems do not exist in third-world countries. Have any of you ever stopped to think about that? They have more important things to worry about.

Yet, in this country of plenty (plenty extra, really), our citizens seem driven to create and inflict problems on themselves. We invent mental disorders, give them pills, and more importantly, attention. We shower them with concern and care.

The hell with that. People who are victims of their own creation deserve little more than contempt. Particularly those who air the dirty laundry of "this is how hard my life is carrying this bulk around all day" in the form of a list of problems they have created for themselves.

Gee hazelip, whats the matter? Do you like to feel superior to people with a mental illness? Gee why don't you go kick the crutches out from under someone with CP and tell them to get up.
Anorexia is a medical condition related to OCD and anxiety, they do not just think to themselves "I am fat", it is an anxiety related perception.

So go ahead on your power driven snotscooter imagining that you are so superior to everyone elese because you don't have a mantal illness. Hope when it happens to you or someone you love that you find more compassion. Or that they don't commit suicide after you give them your thirty secong lecture on why they are inferior.

Lock them in the monasteries why don't you and then pretend they don't exist.

I hope everyone in your family and friends never turns to you for help, reality forbid.

Funk Off

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Gee hazelip, whats the matter? Do you like to feel superior to people with a mental illness? Gee why don't you go kick the crutches out from under someone with CP and tell them to get up.
Anorexia is a medical condition related to OCD and anxiety, they do not just think to themselves "I am fat", it is an anxiety related perception.

So go ahead on your power driven snotscooter imagining that you are so superior to everyone elese because you don't have a mantal illness. Hope when it happens to you or someone you love that you find more compassion. Or that they don't commit suicide after you give them your thirty secong lecture on why they are inferior.

Lock them in the monasteries why don't you and then pretend they don't exist.

I hope everyone in your family and friends never turns to you for help, reality forbid.

Funk Off

I fail to see how pointing out that people in other countries, with far more pressing needs and concerns who do not starve themselves on purpose is claiming a feeling of superiority. As a matter of fact, it is a direct result of our nation's feeling of superiority which has directly contributed to such fictitious illnesses as anorexia and obesity. We don't have to worry about where to get fresh water, or food, or clothing.

So...what do we worry about? Things we make up. Tragedies of our own designs, ailments of our own creation.

No. No, I don't have any sympathy for that, nor do I claim to be superior. I'm just not an idiot starving or eating myself to an early grave.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip

As a matter of fact, it is a direct result of our nation's feeling of superiority which has directly contributed to such fictitious illnesses as anorexia and obesity.

Please explain, then, why anexoria is a theme we see repeated throughout history, in times fat and thin.

Please explain why the illness is "fictitious".

Do people become ill and die of it, yes or no?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


Please explain, then, why anexoria is a theme we see repeated throughout history, in times fat and thin.

Please explain why the illness is "fictitious".

Do people become ill and die of it, yes or no?

Show me where it repeats through history, and I'd be glad to define it for you. Surely, you wouldn't be insinuating that I'm making a baseless claim, without substantiating your own, would you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Hazelip

So...what do we worry about? Things we make up. Tragedies of our own designs, ailments of our own creation.

No. No, I don't have any sympathy for that, nor do I claim to be superior. I'm just not an idiot starving or eating myself to an early grave.

Thanks for your support Hazelip, I wish I had more time to contribute and return the favor. I'll do the best I can.

I consider myself a patriot and I love America, but man, sometimes I just want to give this country one giant pimp slamp.

When did we turn into a nation of whiny p*ssies? I wish I could airlift all the carreer complainers in this nation and drop them into Afghanistan for a nice 6 month "vacation". Get them a good double-shot of clue and perspective.

[plindboe]

Modern culture inflicts these disorders on people. We evolved in nature, and are meant to live in a much different and much more stress free inviroment that we live in today. These disorders are not something people choose to suffer from voluntarily.

But these latest comments tell me there's no reasoning possible with you. How can a nazi be convinced that jews aren't an inferior race? How can one convince an islamic terrorist that Americans aren't evil? It's impossible, since these people have no common sense and are unable to feel empathy, and they have no need to understand the world around them.

You don't want to understand, and seem to prefer to live with your eyes closed holding your extreme beliefs. You will never understand until you or one from your family experience such a disorder.

I'm not angry at you at all, I pity you.

Peter :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


Show me where it repeats through history, and I'd be glad to define it for you. Surely, you wouldn't be insinuating that I'm making a baseless claim, without substantiating your own, would you?

Yeah, yeah, same old. You make an extraordinary claim, and want ME to provide proof.

Get real.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe
Modern culture inflicts these disorders on people. We evolved in nature, and are meant to live in a much different and much more stress free inviroment that we live in today. These disorders are not something people choose to suffer from voluntarily.

If you think natural culture is "less stressful" then modern culture you are out of your friggen mind.

Has your families life ever depended on whether you had a successful hunt that day? Ever wonder what life was like before dentistry, anitbiotics or anesthesia? Sounds high stress to me.

The fact of the matter is many Americans grow up in such a privaledged environment they never develop a coping mechanism to deal with stress. So when they are finally exposed they cannot deal with it rationally and exhibit irrational behavior.

But these latest comments tell me there's no reasoning possible with you. How can a nazi be convinced that jews aren't an inferior race? How can one convince an islamic terrorist that Americans aren't evil? It's impossible, since these people have no common sense and are unable to feel empathy, and they have no need to understand the world around them.

Oh great, here comes the Nazi reference. There is no reasoning possible with me because I have truth, logic and science on my side. You have nothing to support your argument other than lame platitudes and touchy-feely newage-woowoo bullsh*t.

You don't want to understand, and seem to prefer to live with your eyes closed holding your extreme beliefs.

Thats really a very accurate description of you. If you have any hard, tangible evidence to counter my position I will switch my position.

Can you say the same?

I'm not angry at you at all, I pity you.

Why on earth should you pity me? I'm living a happy, healthy life and will continue to do so well into the future.. Save your pity for those that need it.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
If you think natural culture is "less stressful" then modern culture you are out of your friggen mind.

Has your families life ever depended on whether you had a successful hunt that day? Ever wonder what life was like before dentistry, anitbiotics or anesthesia? Sounds high stress to me.

The fact of the matter is many Americans grow up in such a privaledged environment they never develop a coping mechanism to deal with stress. So when they are finally exposed they cannot deal with it rationally and exhibit irrational behavior.
Have you ever watched documentaries about tribes, secluded from modern civilization, living in the rain forest? Do these people suffer from stress related problems like ulcers and heart problems? Are ulcers ever found in animals living in the wild? These kinds of problems and the disorders we're discussing are a result of modern civilization, but that doesn't make them any less real.



Originally posted by EvilYeti
Oh great, here comes the Nazi reference. There is no reasoning possible with me because I have truth, logic and science on my side. You have nothing to support your argument other than lame platitudes and touchy-feely newage-woowoo bullsh*t.
Oh, you two are the woo-woos here. You lack understanding of certain disorders, and because of this lack of knowledge you invent extreme beliefs and theories.



Originally posted by EvilYeti
Thats really a very accurate description of you. If you have any hard, tangible evidence to counter my position I will switch my position.

Can you say the same?

Yes, I have an open mind, not a closed condemning mind. Since you are the one making wild theories and speculations, you have to come up with the evidence.



Originally posted by EvilYeti
Why on earth should you pity me? I'm living a happy, healthy life and will continue to do so well into the future.. Save your pity for those that need it.
I pity anyone that hates and resents others because of irrational beliefs, since this hate most often is a result of problems in their own lifes.

Peter :)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by plindboe

Have you ever watched documentaries about tribes, secluded from modern civilization, living in the rain forest? Do these people suffer from stress related problems like ulcers and heart problems? Are ulcers ever found in animals living in the wild? These kinds of problems and the disorders we're discussing are a result of modern civilization, but that doesn't make them any less real.


I see your know as much about ulcers as you do about obesity. Ulcers are caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori , not stress.

I'm done with you as well, drop the forum a note when you finish high school.

-The Evil Yeti

[plindboe]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Ulcers are caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori , not stress.
I stand corrected.

Peter :)

[Earthborn]

Diogenes:Interesting analogy, but it does not seem very valid to me.Those were not so much analogies, as they are scenarios I made to probe what Hazelip considered 'self-inflicted' to be.

Only the first can be seen as somewhat of an analogy, in that it describes a situation where someone makes very ordinary decisions but as a result ends up in trouble. This is also true of Anorexia/Boulimia, overeating or addictions. There is of course also a big difference (which is exactly the point): the person entering the maze has no conscious control over how easy it is to get out of the maze.Self inflicted..
Not self inflicted..
Not self inflicted..I think your choices are very strange to me, since in the first scenario it was a given that the trouble the person got into was beyond his own control. Apperently you think that for something to be self-inflicted it isn't necessary that the person knowingly did anything to cause it?
Do you agree with Hazelip that 'self-inflicted' means beyond pity?

Plindboe: Yeti is right about ulcers, and this makes your analogy fail. Ulcers and heart related problems do occur in the wild and in animals. And so do depression, addiction, anorexia/boulimia, overeating and compulsive behaviors.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Plindboe: Yeti is right about ulcers, and this makes your analogy fail. Ulcers and heart related problems do occur in the wild and in animals. And so do depression, addiction, anorexia/boulimia, overeating and compulsive behaviors.
Thank you for kicking me while I'm down. :D I had already admitted my mistake above.

Peter :)

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Hazelip
These problems do not exist in third-world countries. Have any of you ever stopped to think about that? They have more important things to worry about. Goblin! :D

[Earthborn]

I had already admitted my mistake above.Yes, while I was typing that... Sorry. :D

Let's suppose the idea that 'self-inflicted illnesses' are less common in the wild, and western civilization exagerates them (actually I don't doubt that this is true), does this mean that they are self-inflicted... or culturally induced?

If we assume that these illnesses are caused by people being 'idiots', you would expect that they were just as common in the wild, unless there is evidence that there are more 'idiots' today than ever...

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


Yeah, yeah, same old. You make an extraordinary claim, and want ME to provide proof.

Get real.

No, I didn't. Anorexia only exists in industrialized, mechanized countries, and in the current modern time. I put forth that it is entirely fictitious in nature, and you ask the wrong question. You made the extraordinary claim that it's occurred throughout history.

You are the one with the outlandish claim. Back it up, and I'll back up mine. If you can't back yours up, why should I bother with you when you won't play by the same rules you set for me?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by plindboe
How can a nazi be convinced that jews aren't an inferior race? How can one convince an islamic terrorist that Americans aren't evil?

So, now I'm a Nazi or a terrorist because I don't believe that a symptom is a disease in and of itself?

[Jesse]

It isn't fictitious that our culture humiliates women who don't fit a certain model.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Earthborn
And so do depression, addiction, anorexia/boulimia, overeating and compulsive behaviors.

Wild pigs suffer anorexia and bulimia? Really? Cite your proof.

I didn't play your silly maze game, because the hypothetical is the final refuge of the defeated argument. If the only way you can argue is to construct elaborate fantasy worlds (mazes :rolleyes: ), then you really aren't able to argue effectively. I won't play that stupid, childish game with you, or anyone.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Hazelip
I didn't play your silly maze game, because the hypothetical is the final refuge of the defeated argument. Thank you for not playing the maze game. It was making me mildly nervous.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Jesse
It isn't fictitious that our culture humiliates women who don't fit a certain model.

No, it's not. Nor have I ever claimed a cultural connection to women who starve themselves does not exist. Nor have I claimed that the symptom of starving one's self isn't a symptom of a larger problem that really does exist, say schizophrenia or some other mental disorder.

Physical trauma to the brain can result in major personality shifts or changes, sometimes permanent. This does not mean, however, that the personality shift is a disease unto itself. Treating it as such would be to treat a fictitious disorder.

[Jesse]

We will continue to have the problems of eating disorders until we conventionally adopt healthier attitudes and standards about food, and until we adopt a healthier attitude about the great and wonderful variety of women's physiques.

[Jesse]

Also, I find many larger women attractive. Many men do. Some men are too frightened to admit this. Perhaps if men were generally more open minded about the variety of women, the pressure to fit a certain model might not be so great.

[Denise]

Anorexic pigs! Is that an oxymoron? http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:XPac74ni8YsC:www.lib.jmu.edu/psychology/psyctutor/article5.pdf+anorexia+animals+study&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Earthborn]

You made the extraordinary claim that it's occurred throughout history.Not extraordinary at all:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452263271/102-2139192-7898519?vi=glance
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021101.htmlI didn't play your silly maze gameCould you then at least explain in your own words how you define 'self-inflicted' ?

Apperently you don't think neurological disorders causing someone to behave in a certain way do not make you think something is not self-inflicted. And could you explain why you make a distinction between 'self-inflicted' and 'not-self-inflicted' at all?
Don't you agree that such a distinction ultimately hinges on purely philosphical ideas about the nature of 'free will' and therefore is objectively meaningless?This does not mean, however, that the personality shift is a disease unto itself.You also don't think it could be a symptom of a disease?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Diogenes:Those were not so much analogies, as they are scenarios I made to probe what Hazelip considered 'self-inflicted' to be.

Only the first can be seen as somewhat of an analogy, in that it describes a situation where someone makes very ordinary decisions but as a result ends up in trouble. This is also true of Anorexia/Boulimia, overeating or addictions. There is of course also a big difference (which is exactly the point): the person entering the maze has no conscious control over how easy it is to get out of the maze.I think your choices are very strange to me, since in the first scenario it was a given that the trouble the person got into was beyond his own control.


How can you say the choice to enter the maze, was beyond the person's control? The other option was to not enter the maze, or to do further research regarding the possible consequences.
Making that choice, and finding oneself in a maze that they cannot deal with, still equates to a self inflicted dillemna, which I believe can be equated to many invidivuals suffering from eating disorders.


Apperently you think that for something to be self-inflicted it isn't necessary that the person knowingly did anything to cause it?

I don't understand why you think I think that. I have pointed out, it is obviously not the case, with the the person who chose to enter the maze.

Do you agree with Hazelip that 'self-inflicted' means beyond pity?
No.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn


....unless there is evidence that there are more 'idiots' today than ever...

Would you consider that there are many more excuses/stimuli to behave idiotically in our modern western culture, such as the Fast-Food and advertising industries, than there are in more primitive or economically deprived cultures?


That said, I would still venture that there are more idiots today than ever, and more opportunity to behave that way.
In a more primitive culture they would not survive very long, because they would not find the sympathy and resources, that our culture feels idiots are entitled to, in order to to exercise their idiotic behaviour.

[Dancing David]

As a matter of fact, it is a direct result of our nation's feeling of superiority which has directly contributed to such fictitious illnesses as anorexia and obesity.
______________________________________
And what do you have to support your claim that anorexia is fictitious, I don't suppose it is substantiated by the practise of mental health profeesionals. Anorexia is an illness, it is not a choice, it is a form of obesessive compulsive disorder. mental illness is not a myth and you put yourself in the ranks of the faith healers and charlatans everytime you say it is a myth. Have you ever known someone with mental illness?
I have known people with anorexia, they do not revel in it, they are unhappy but they are stuck with a stress related illness. The biggest problem is getting them to overcome thier guilt and shame and seek treatment. WHICH YOUR TACTICS DO NOT HELP.

Hazelip you are being called out ,where are your scientific studies that anorexia is fictitious?


EvilYeti and Hazelip: I agree that our nation has some unique problems associated with it, and there are many times I look at my own day and then go, well no matter what I am not watching my child starve or be blown to bits, I agree with that.
I agree that our cluture is really wierd but don't agree that anorexia is fictitios. Middle class white male anger now there is a sense of entitlement for you.

So who appointed you the fat police? Have you ever worked with people who have problems? Have you ever tried to help a family in denial. It is easy to make these blanket statements about what you think is good for people, I have worked with many people and families to do this very thing. The problem is that you have to get them to do it for thier own reasons, you have to build trust and safety, and then support them when they don't take your advice and then come for more help. Do you think that the traditional intervention model works for alocoholics, the one where you just shame them into gtiving up thier addictions? You aren't helping anyone with your statement, you are just creating more shame and guilt, and engendering dangerous stereotypes.

I agree that our society is very blessed and that most people would benefit from visiting a less blessed nation.

Peace

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Hazelip


No, I didn't. Anorexia only exists in industrialized, mechanized countries, and in the current modern time. I put forth that it is entirely fictitious in nature, and you ask the wrong question. You made the extraordinary claim that it's occurred throughout history.


Actually Hazelip mental illness has existed through the centuries, and if you aren't close minded there are women research studies in sociology where they believe that there are cultures that encourage women to be overwieght, the lower the social power of women the larger they tend to become.(These include your non-industrial nations as well)

People from non industrial cultures may feel more pressure to get thier food but they also don't like our stressed out lives.

I am sorry, anorexia is the illness, it is an obsessive compulsive disoredr, menta illness is real, it is not thresult of some brain trauma, it is the result of a biochemical imbalance of the brain, just the way diabetes is a biochemical disorder of the pancreas.

I agree , our culture is rich and spoiled. Our leaders are the big kids on the block and they act like it.

Peace

[Earthborn]

How can you say the choice to enter the maze, was beyond the person's control? The other option was to not enter the maze, or to do further research regarding the possible consequences.
Making that choice, and finding oneself in a maze that they cannot deal with, still equates to a self inflicted dillemna, which I believe can be equated to many invidivuals suffering from eating disorders.Okay, I think I understand you now. I think it is because you misunderstood me: the original maze scenario assumes a maze like you would find in a park or a funfair: there is no way for this person to know or even suspect that there is anything wrong with it. Your argument is completely based on the second maze scenario: "What if the person knew beforehand that there are a very small percentage of mazes like that?" and makes your argument completely valid.Do you agree with Hazelip that 'self-inflicted' means beyond pity?
No.Good, we agree then.Would you consider that there are many more excuses/stimuli to behave idiotically in our modern western culture, such as the Fast-Food and advertising industries, than there are in more primitive or ecomically deprived cultures?Absolutely. I have no doubt that modern society increases the likelihood and/or exaggerates the effects of such disorders. However: the fact that this is true makes it hard to argue that they are 'self-inflicted' as they are largely caused by the environment. I think that this disminishes the responsiblity of the sufferers for their illness.That said, I would still venture that there are more idiots today than ever, and more opportunity to behave that way.
In a more primitive culture they would not survive very long, because they would not find the sympathy and resources, that our culture feels idiots are entitled to, in order to to exercise their idiotic behaviour.There is no doubt that people exhibiting self-destructive behavior have a better chance to survive today. I would not call them 'idiots' as this would just insult these people. They deserve every bit of respect as anyone else, IMO.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I would not call them 'idiots' as this would just insult these people. They deserve every bit of respect as anyone else, IMO.


I feel that giving someone who behaves idiotically, the same respect as everyone else, is insulting to everyone else.

[Earthborn]

Diogenes, does that mean you don't think it is morally wrong to insult addicts, anorexics, bulimics or the depressed?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You also don't think it could be a symptom of a disease?

Yes, I could easily view starving one's self deliberately as a symptom of a problem. I can not, however, view it as a problem in and of itself. That is why I refer to it as a fictitious disorder, and self-inflicted. As long as people continue to think of the anorexic symptoms as a disease unto itself, I will continue to refer to it as fictitious.

It is not a disease. It is a symptom of a larger problem.

Now, for your historical claims references...go read that straight dope article again. It does not support your historical claim. As far as the book for sale at your Amazon link, from the editorial comments:

Here, too, is a fascinating look at how the cultural ramifications of the Industrial Revolution produced a disorder that continues to render privileged young women helpless.

This too, does not support your claim of Anorexia throughout history, as the book appears to be a history of fasting by women, and the term Anorexia Nervousa appears to be retrofitted to the facts of the case.

[RedCoat]

Originally posted by Dancing David
...Middle class white male anger now there is a sense of entitlement for you.

...You aren't helping anyone with your statement, you are just creating more shame and guilt, and engendering dangerous stereotypes.



Dancing David, I am surprised that both of these phrases would appear in the same post. You point out another's inappropriate use of stereotyping and then do the same yourself.

Middle class white men have (as circumstance dictates) the same right to feel angry as anyone else on the planet. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you.

Live well,

RedCoat

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Diogenes, does that mean you don't think it is morally wrong to insult addicts, anorexics, bulimics or the depressed?


It is not nice to insult anyone. Insults tell me a lot about about the insulter, and nothing about the insultee.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


No, I didn't. Anorexia only exists in industrialized, mechanized countries, and in the current modern time.

Really? Then all of the literature is wrong? The discussion above, wherein others also point out your error, is all wrong? (Yes, it could be, but you're contradicting the literature, more to the point.)

You're still making an outlandish, totally extraordinary claim, and I still await your evidence.

Be there or be square.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip

Wild pigs suffer anorexia and bulimia? Really? Cite your proof.


We have two choices here, either you're dodging context completely or you're suggesting that people who live in the wild are somehow "wild pigs". I hope it's the former, the latter would be even worse.

I trust that you're merely being evasive and that my pointing it out will pull you back to muster some support for your extraordinary claims about anexoria. (We can leave the rest out for now, just address anexoria.)

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


Really? Then all of the literature is wrong? The discussion above, wherein others also point out your error, is all wrong? (Yes, it could be, but you're contradicting the literature, more to the point.)

You're still making an outlandish, totally extraordinary claim, and I still await your evidence.

Be there or be square.

You want me to prove a negative? I can't do that. It's impossible.

You want to prove me wrong, however, go ahead and do it. The citations above were not proof of historical evidence of Anorexia. Go and review the links yourself.

If there is evidence of Anorexia in history, find it and show it to me. That is positive evidence...something that exists. Asking me to provide evidence that it does not exist in history is asking me to provide negative evidence, which is impossible.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jesse
Also, I find many larger women attractive. Many men do. Some men are too frightened to admit this. Perhaps if men were generally more open minded about the variety of women, the pressure to fit a certain model might not be so great.

I find that a great deal of this is actually enforced by women, despite what men say. I've known many women who thought they were "fat" and perhaps one or two who might have thought they were a bit thin, if any.

Reassurance in such cases is often not well recieved. As I mentioned somewhere last night, glucose uptake, energy release from fat cells, and other metabolic thresholds are shown biochemically to vary a lot between people. That is all it takes for one person to be fat, and another to be thin.

[Earthborn]

Hazelip, I guess you missed these:Who would have thought that such a terrible disease would have its origin in the Medievel church, as women starved themselves for their beliefs and to become (as they believed) holy. But, like most things under the sun, it's all been done before, so there really shouldn't be any surprise that self-starvation has a very long history. That's not to say the Romans were unfamiliar with throwing up, or that they never did so on purpose. On the contrary, in ancient times vomiting seems to have been a standard part of the fine-dining experience.

I can not, however, view it as a problem in and of itself.You do not consider 'starving oneself' as a problem?It is not a disease. It is a symptom of a larger problem.Indeed, it is the symptom of a disease.This too, does not support your claim of Anorexia throughout history, as the book appears to be a history of fasting by women, and the term Anorexia Nervousa appears to be retrofitted to the facts of the case.You haven't considered the possibility that the same problem can be expressed in different ways in different cultures, but still at the core be the same?

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


You want me to prove a negative? I can't do that. It's impossible.



Not my fault, you're the one that's made the claim that goes opposite the literature.

You're very good at rhetorical deception, but in fact I asked you for evidence that anexoria does not exist in HUMANS in wild settings. The fact that others here have cited that it does is a falsification of your assertion, which means that your premise can be dismissed unless you can muster some evidence counter.

Please do so.

[Earthborn]

Hazelip, could you now please explain what you mean by 'self-inflicted' and why you think people 'who are victims of their own creation' should 'deserve nothing but contempt' ?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by jj

Reassurance in such cases is often not well recieved. As I mentioned somewhere last night, glucose uptake, energy release from fat cells, and other metabolic thresholds are shown biochemically to vary a lot between people. That is all it takes for one person to be fat, and another to be thin.


But not usually all it takes for one person to be 200-300 pounds overweight or skeletal in appearence...

[Earthborn]

If there is evidence of Anorexia in history, find it and show it to me. That is positive evidence...something that exists. Asking me to provide evidence that it does not exist in history is asking me to provide negative evidence, which is impossible.Could you tell us what would you would consider evidence? Apperently historical accounts of people showing the same behavior as anorexics/bulemics isn't it...

[Dancing David]

Aaargh!
So will you even admit that there are things called mental illness, there is a class of anxiety disorders that anorexia fits into. There are many types of ways that OCD manifest, anorexia just happens enough to have it's own category.

I called you out, I am calling you out again, what proof do you have that anorexia is not a mental illness, this is the science forum.

I agree that there are many people who make thier lives worse in our society and that there are people who do not have depression that shouldn't feel sorry for themselves. I will even grant from the start that there are people who should seek out treatment but don't.

Hazelip: you are trashing a mental illness and then skipping around the fact that you say anorexia is a fictitios disorder, it is a form of OCD where the intrusive obsessive thought manifest as a perception of being overwieght. This is common to OCD.

Secong call, Where is your proof that anorexia is not a mental illness?

Peace

PS I do agree with alot of what you have to say but your attitude is exactly the one that is counter productive to getting people in denial to listen to you.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You haven't considered the possibility that the same problem can be expressed in different ways in different cultures, but still at the core be the same?

No, starving one's self for religious reasons, is not Anorexia. It is religious foolishness. Just because someone makes him or herself a martyr, does not mean that the actions taken to achieve such a state is a disease. They are simply religious zealots.

Nor, is the Roman tradition of vomiting during dining a sign of Anorexia. It is a a cultural phenomenon that no longer exists.

I can scream because I am in physical pain, mental anguish, or even anger. It does not mean that all screaming is the same, or that all the reasons are identical.

You have made the claim that Anorexia Nervousa has existed throughout history. You are failing at every turn to prove such. You are, however, attempting to classify all acts of vomiting (other than that induced by illness or alcohol, I assume) as Anorexia Nervousa. This is inaccurate at best, and an attempted falsehood at worst.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by jj


Not my fault, you're the one that's made the claim that goes opposite the literature.

You're very good at rhetorical deception, but in fact I asked you for evidence that anexoria does not exist in HUMANS in wild settings. The fact that others here have cited that it does is a falsification of your assertion, which means that your premise can be dismissed unless you can muster some evidence counter.

Please do so.

I have explained why I can not prove a negative. You are demonstrating a willful ignorance.

Prove that Anorexia is observable in humans in wild, or third-world scenarios. You are making the positive claim, you have the burden of proof. Someone telling me it exists (such as yourself), without proving such a claim of existence, is not proof. It is merely a claim.

All I have done is put forth a claim that it does not exist. The same as I would claim that flying pink unicorns do not exist. If you wish for me to change my position on the matter, prove that your flying pink unicorns of Anorexia exist in humans in wild and third-world scenarios.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hazelip


I have explained why I can not prove a negative. You are demonstrating a willful ignorance.

Not at all. You have claimed something that requires proving the negative. I'm not responsible for putting you in that situation. Now if there were no reports of such things in the literature, I'd tend to side with you, even though there is no prioof, BUT there exist counterexamples to your assertion, a troublesome issue at best for you.

Someone telling me it exists (such as yourself), without proving such a claim of existence, is not proof. It is merely a claim.

I, myself, personally, have not experienced any such thing. You appear to be making the reductionist demand that we ignore anything outside of your and my individual experiences.

The literature on this subject is not exactly lacking. It's not very thorough, but unless you're prepared to dismiss what you can find quickly (did you try to find any?) then you still have a problem. No, I'm not citing anything. I know the "make them cite the fact the sun comes up" game, and that's what you're
playing.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Hazelip, could you now please explain what you mean b