Sunday, 27 January 2013

Another risk of fatness: health-care professional who too readily attribute any health problem to fatness.

0 comments
UCLA sociology professor Abigail Saguy explains :
Scores of studies have shown that medical providers typically regard fat patients as lazy, self-indulgent and noncompliant. As a result, heavy patients don’t always receive the health care they deserve....

Many heavy women told me that doctors routinely blamed any ailment, from a fall to a sore throat, on their weight....
So there may be mistakes in treating fat people. That's plainly wrong and easy to condemn. It's harder to know how to react to criticisms like this:
One woman I talked to visited a new gynecologist, who, during her annual exam, began lecturing her about her weight. When the patient said she did not want to discuss weight loss, the doctor backed off. She resumed her lecture, however, during the pelvic exam, when the patient had her feet in stirrups and a speculum inside her. She told me she felt as if she were mentally “going somewhere else” — not unlike how many women feel while being sexually abused.
This is close to an etiquette consideration: What can you say to a woman while penetrating her vagina? From the patient's perspective, it's hard to know how tolerant or outraged to be. I think some doctors are obtuse about what they can say while they're probing a woman's intimate parts. They might think it's a good time for casual conversation, precisely to demonstrate how nonsexual what they are doing is. The woman might endure the situation, then feel bad about it afterwards. But I don't see much connection to that problem and the fact that one of the casual conversation topics the doctor might introduce is the way you need to lose weight. It's not a good time to try to take advantage of your close connection to the patient!

Finally, there's the health issue of stress, which can grow out of the problem of being overweight. Prof. Saguy seems to say that any message to fat people about the problem of fatness might only make matters worse. Elsewhere, I've seen commentary suggesting that it's the other way around. Lessening the social pressure leads more people to get and stay fat. Who knows where the greatest health risks lie? And should our decisions about how to talk to fat people be based on what's best for their health? Maybe not!
Read more ►

Friday, 25 January 2013

"Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law..."

0 comments
"... according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation."
The Affordable Care Act... allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.
I got there via the Isthmus forum, where Meade wrote:
Does that really make sense? Shouldn't it be reversed? Charge higher penalties/taxes to younger smokers as they will potentially have more years to cost society in lost production and "free" health care.

Charge older retired or retiring smokers lower penalties/taxes, encourage them to keep smoking and die sooner. After all, at their age, the older smokers are no longer contributing. The sooner they die, the less they cost the rest of us.
What are the voluntary activities that create the greatest risks for costing the insurance pool money? Why pick on smokers alone? To get the variable premiums concept started, because we're already into burdening smokers? By the way, "Among Americans, Smoking Decreases as Income Increases/Gradual pattern is consistent across eight earnings brackets." The least well-off people are hit hardest! But — what the hell? — kick the smokers now, and later we can tweak the system and raise the premiums for people who.... well, who would you like to hurt/nudge? How about the fat? Weigh in every year and get your premiums adjusted accordingly, scientifically. Here's a BMI calculator. Maybe we should charge you $1,000 a year in added premiums for every point above the "normal" range.

Where will this smoker premium surcharge lead?
  
pollcode.com free polls 
Read more ►

Monday, 21 January 2013

Drudge slags the First Lady with the unsupported assertion that the "Inaugural lunch tops 3,000 calories."

0 comments

Drudge links to a Washington Times article that refers without linking to another website that supposedly lists the items on the menu and purports to know the calorie count. I found that other website myself, and here's the article, which is obviously exaggerating the calorie count by assuming immense portion sizes. A first course of lobster, with some sauce and potato is unlikely to add up to 783 calories. It's almost surely tiny. A second course with grilled bison and some squash puree is not going to be 1194 calories. It's a lunch entree of lean meat.

This is a very nice and sensible lunch. Stop pooping on it!
Read more ►

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

"More intelligence and fewer offspring?"

0 comments
"Perhaps Idiocracy was stating a more general rule...."

But another thing...
When it comes to humans, for example, though our brains are only 2% of our bodies, they take up a whopping 20% of our energy requirements. 
If that's really true, it could be the key to why one person can eat heartily and never gain weight while the next person, eating the same thing, gets fat. Maybe it's a big brain/small brain distinction. Also, is it possible that instead of going to the gym or getting on a bicycle when we hope to lose weight, what we really should be doing is studying calculus or reading philosophy?

ADDED: Idiocracy primer:

Read more ►

Saturday, 5 January 2013

"A revolution has begun against the perception of beauty in Israel..."

0 comments
"...  this law shatters the anorexic ideal serving as an example for the country’s youth."
The new law, known as the “photoshop law,” requires models to present their employers with a current doctor’s note confirming that they meet a minimum body mass index (BMI) – a calculation of weight to height proportion – of 18.5, which is considered the lowest threshold for a healthy weight. Advertisements featuring models who are “photoshopped” or otherwise digitally altered to make them appear thinner must be clearly marked as manipulated images.
Here's a BMI calculator if you want to check whether you're too skinny to be a model in Israel. I've been 5'5" for more than 40 years, and I've weighed lots of different weights, including the weight of 107, which I regarded as my ideal weight (based on a chart in the Stillman diet book) when I was a college student. But based on that BMI calculator, I see I'd need to weigh at least 111 to be permitted to be a model in Israel! I know you need to be taller to be a model, but my point is that 107 wasn't anorexic for a 20-year-old.

Certainly, for modeling clothes you want a body that doesn't really call attention to itself, that works more like a clothes hanger. It's an aesthetic choice, a way to feature the clothing, the product. The Israeli law is ridiculously repressive. People need to take responsibility for their own bodies, not blame the fashion/magazine industry and certainly not use the government to cut off messages that supposedly feed their irresponsibility.
Read more ►
 

Copyright © Diet Althouse Design by O Pregador | Blogger Theme by Blogger Template de luxo | Powered by Blogger