Page 1 of 2
New Fat States Report just out
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:35 pm
by Chuck(G)
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:52 pm
by Teubonium
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:11 pm
by bort
29th...that's not very exciting.
I thought it was funny that there was a map of the US, with a list of the state names below. I wonder if they think people don't know which state is theirs?
Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:36 pm
by Chuck(G)
bloke wrote:As one with a truly competitive spirit, the question is not "where does my state rank?", but "where do I rank in my state?".
Joe, that's very commendable! So where do you stand in your state's obesity rankings?

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:58 pm
by Dan Schultz
Well.... after reading the 'Indiana' statistics I'm going to quit worrying about it.
I'm supposed to be FAT 
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:22 am
by Lew
We're number 22. I guess I need to go out and start eating more. I won't rest until we're NUMBER 1!

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:32 am
by Doug@GT
bloke wrote:...but why am I supposed to g.a.s. about what the federal government might or might not do about it (except what they will charge me for not minding their own fat-*** business) ?
I was wondering the same thing...so what if there's a "national policy paralysis"?
Those who can lose weight through normal means can exercise their own initiative, instead of waiting for the gubment to do it.
Those who won't lose weight by normal means won't be affected by the suggested policies on that site.
Doug "who's state ranks 12th"
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:15 pm
by windshieldbug
Does this mean we will be subject to a "No Stomach Left Behind" initiative?
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:58 pm
by MaryAnn
I see we've reverted to pictures of food...where are the naked ladies?
Where is the Elvis impersonator picture? Can't we see him adjacent to a steak or burger or .... hard boiled eggs.... or something?
MA
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 1:40 pm
by Chuck(G)
Doug@GT wrote:bloke wrote:...but why am I supposed to g.a.s. about what the federal government might or might not do about it (except what they will charge me for not minding their own fat-*** business) ?
I was wondering the same thing...so what if there's a "national policy paralysis"?
Those who can lose weight through normal means can exercise their own initiative, instead of waiting for the gubment to do it.
Good point.
But let's take a look at the consequences of letting things go the way they're going.
You'll note that the study mentions that more low-income people tend to be obese than middle-income.
You'll also note that obesity is one of the contributing causes for type II diabetes in children:
http://www.niddk.nih.gov/patient/today/qa.htm
And there's been an explosion in type II diabetes frequency in children.
Type II diabetes is a very costly disease over the period of a life. Blindess, amputation and various other bad things happen.
...and those seemingly most at risk are the low-income people. Who's going to pay for their health care?
Why, we will, of course!
.
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:13 pm
by Mark
MaryAnn wrote:I see we've reverted to pictures of food...where are the naked ladies?
Where is the Elvis impersonator picture? Can't we see him adjacent to a steak or burger or .... hard boiled eggs.... or something?
MA
Is this close enough?
BTW, I am astounded that a Google search for "naked tuba steak elvis" returned 538 matches! The Internet is indeed a very weird place.
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:17 pm
by Chuck(G)
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:31 pm
by bort
Back in college, a local diner had the same thing, but called 'em "Hobo Fries." (And no one cared.)
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:14 am
by Lew
MaryAnn wrote:I see we've reverted to pictures of food...where are the naked ladies?
Where is the Elvis impersonator picture? Can't we see him adjacent to a steak or burger or .... hard boiled eggs.... or something?
MA
With an "off topic" thread about obesity, what else but food or a fat Elvis would you expect? At least in this context they're relevent.
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:40 am
by ThomasDodd
Chuck(G) wrote:Good point.
But let's take a look at the consequences of letting things go the way they're going.
You'll note that the study mentions that more low-income people tend to be obese than middle-income.
Worse still was this line:
People who receive food stamps are more likely to be obese compared to both eligible non-participants and higher-income individuals.
So the government is making people fat, with our money, and then asking us to pay for the medical care afterwards.
Notice to the there are eligible non-participants. I.E. people who could get food stamps and don't. And they aren't as fat as those who take the government handout.
And did you here about the Doctor that getting in trouble for telling a patient she was fat?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9063638/
He was on several morning shows.
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:22 am
by Chuck(G)
bloke wrote:
Then, they'll die
sooner and that will
save us a
lot of money!
bloke "who remembers (before stuff was all pergressiv 'n' sh*t) when his family was (by today's standards) 'pooooor'...No one died from obesity, and we paid all of our own doctuh beillz."
Skating dangerously close to politics, but...
Sure, Joe, I'm with ya! If stoopid parents don't want to have their kids vaccinated against polio, measles, TB and whatever, why should we force them or provide it for free? Let them shoulder the consequences. It'll do wonders for the economy, what with wheelchair and respirator sales going up.
And fer gosh sakes, let's quit fluoridating water! Folks who want it can buy fluoridation kits. Why should the government be in the business of telling us what's good for us? Everyone knows that fluoride is a communist plot.
---------------------
I don't know if you remember the polio epidemics before the vaccines came out, but I'm old enough to remember kids with crutches and braces and iron lungs.
If the NIH studies are right, we're on a collison course with another epidemic, this time of diabetes. It's in our best economic self-interest to have a healthy population.
But I don't think it's just the food. When I was a kid, our diet, particularly during the winter months, could hardly be called "balanced". But phys ed was part of school and we got plenty of activity otherwise. Maybe that would be a starting point.
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:55 am
by Dan Schultz
Chuck(G) wrote:bloke wrote:
Then, they'll die
sooner and that will
save us a
lot of money!

...No one died from obesity, and we paid all of our own doctuh beillz."
Skating dangerously close to politics, but... Sure, Joe, I'm with ya! But phys ed was part of school and we got plenty of activity otherwise. Maybe that would be a starting point.
Yeah.... remember playing 'slaughter ball'? Hmmm... I seem to remember another popular name

for the game that is totally politicaly incorrect these days. Sure as heck can't do that any more

OK kids... go sit on the couch and play. There's treats in the fridge.
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:20 pm
by windshieldbug
bloke wrote:How 'bout if the gubment gives people a whole bunch mo' fatty foodz and bunches o' cartons o' cigz?
Cool, where can I sign up?
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:16 pm
by ThomasDodd
windshieldbug wrote:bloke wrote:How 'bout if the gubment gives people a whole bunch mo' fatty foodz and bunches o' cartons o' cigz?
Cool, where can I sign up?
Me to! Me to!