quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
I simply don't buy the arguement that they aren't mature enough to make decisions regarding their health.

Any kid knows that apple=good, and chips=bad.

Umm not really. Any kid knows that what's on the table is to be eaten, full stop. That line perfectly illustrates what I call a submental approach to social medicine.

quote:

Furthermore, gaining weight as a child (then losing it when you become 'mature' (your definition, not mine)), then there is a far lower chance of developing health issues in later life.

I meant losing it during early adulthood/late teens but still running into health problems. Yes there is a lower chance but there still is a chance. And you're suggesting such people should be treated second rate.

quote:

there's no such thing as "social medicine", and it's an attitude like that which causes all the problems.

Umm social medicine is an internationally, scientifically accepted branch of medicine. "Social medicine is the study of health in its widest sense. It recognizes the broad determinants of health - income and poverty, education, environmental factors such as housing and transport - as well as health care and genetic influences."

To put it simply, social medicine uses info from the lab and applies/relates it to real social, clinical life. If you choose to ignore the influence that everyday life in different societies have on health, that would (literally) make you an utterly useless scientist.

Malkie, if you were to take in lots of "healthy" food like avocado, olive oil, fruit juices, whole grains, etc., there is every chance you could put on weight as well. You will be bursting with vitamins and minerals though! In fact, raw food books will tell you to be careful about this, if you are trying to lose weight, as well as eating healthily. It is not as simple as apple = good, chips = bad with regard to obesity. The oven baked chips recipe I mentioned above does have healthy ingredients. Potatoes provide fibre, B-Complex, various minerals, and Vitamin C. If the skin is kept on, a potato will provide potassium as well (which people with high blood pressure are often lacking). Olive oil, apparently, contains Vitamin E, helps counteract cholesterol, and helps in the secretion of bile.

The apples = good, chips = bad argument is about healthy eating, not weight control necessarily, and is a bit of a waffly argument. The reason I wouldn't eat chips from a chipshop or any other kind of establishment is that they are liable to have been cooked in hydrogenated longlife oil, rather than the fact that they are chips.

As per my previous post about healthy eating, and taking this a step further.

As is obvious, nutrition is not a simple matter. Therefore if a person does not take the time to read up on vitamins and minerals available through certain types of food, and the dangers of deficiency (such as the relationship between low potassium levels and high blood pressure and stroke), and be eating what is considered a healthy diet, but not actually an adequate one, should these folk be taxed? Charla has already contributed more to my knowledge of the dangers of lack of folic acid. Also, a person can be absorbing adequate vitamins and minerals, but having them leached out by digesting other foodstuffs. There is a relationship between Vitamin D and calcium and phosphorous, and bone problems. And so the list goes on...

If, just among my friends, the above criteria were to be applied, half of the people of normal weight would be included, and probably all of the people I know that are underweight, and they would end up paying extra tax.

Should people with respiratory problems live and work in densely populated areas. Is it their responsibility to take themselves off somewhere more beneficial to their health, and, if they don't, should we be responsible for their health cares?

Once this thread is opened up to include other members of society, who could be considered "responsible" for their own health problems, it becomes interesting indeed...

I can't believe you people (AD and Charla) are honestly trying to argue that chips are more healthy than an apple.

It's reasonably pointless me continuing to post if that's your belief, and actually probably explains why we have an obesity problem.


It's a simple bottom line - the obese, and only the obese are to blame for their weight, hence they should pay for their healthcare.

quote:

To put it simply, social medicine uses info from the lab and applies/relates it to real social, clinical life. If you choose to ignore the influence that everyday life in different societies have on health, that would (literally) make you an utterly useless scientist.

Sorry, but how does "social medicine" alter what goes into someone's mouth?

It doesn't, and you are basically being "soft" and tolerating excuses for obesity.

It has to stop, otherwise we'll be tolerating a nation of fat people and the few of us who take responsibilities for ourselves will be paying more and more money to support the lazy and unwilling.

Homemade oven-baked chips are healthy, and are quoted as being so in several healthy food books, Malkie.

MALKIE QUOTE: It's a simple bottom line - the obese, and only the obese are to blame for their weight, hence they should pay for their healthcare.

As, by that criteria, should the vitamin and mineral ignorant, and respiratorially challenged quoted in my previous email, Malkie, or do you find that too sensible an argument to take on...

Conversely, I agree with Witch I won't eat chips from a chip shop for the same reason, and prefer a drizzling of olive oil!

Malkie it is my belief that the key is moderation and balance, a far better formula than Apple = bad Chips = good. I have to say I find that a very old fashioned mind-set. Drag yourself into the 21st century. Take the diet of those indigenous to the mediterranean - a few glasses of red wine,some olives,nuts, a little feta cheese, a pitta or pasta.Some of these would have been traditionally labelled as 'bad' but in moderation are quite the reverse, and you cannot deny their good health and life expectancy.

lots of goodness in there, even the red wine! And, I'd imagine most of the major foodgroups...

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
I can't believe you people (AD and Charla) are honestly trying to argue that chips are more healthy than an apple.

Where did I say that?

quote:

It's a simple bottom line - the obese, and only the obese are to blame for their weight

Its only that simple if you're not intellectually capable of acknowledging the numerous other variables involved.

A child born to an ignorant mother who treats him to a macdonald's lunch a few times a week is going to run into health problems in early adulthood and you're ultimately suggesting they're culled from society. Well you're suggesting "they should pay for their healthcare". So what if they can't afford it? Still not your problem, no one's problem; hence they should be culled.

quote:

but how does "social medicine" alter what goes into someone's mouth?

After months of research in your lab, you conclude that eating too much makes you fat (genius!). You go out into the real world to apply your ground breaking finding to real people in society. You find different people in different life situations with different attitudes to diet. The 9 year old who has only ever been exposed to junk food proves particularly difficult to get through to. Your results suddenly mean very little. That's where social medicine comes in. It doesn't just stop at obesity. It also applies to all branches of clinical science. Laboratory findings always have to be applied to the societal level; that's why numerous wonder drugs end up being recalled after clinical trials. Why you agree with that in the animal testing thread but choose to ignore it here is beyond me.

quote:

Malkie it is my belief that the key is moderation and balance, a far better formula than Apple = bad Chips = good.

Why have you jumped on this point as if it's my suggested diet - how about you go back and actually read what I posted. I smiply highlighted that any kid knows that an apple is more healthy than chips. THAT IS ALL.

I am not suggesting a diet made purely of apples, or that eating some chips once in a while instantly leads to obesity.

You people need to rea what I actually posted, and not what you think I posted.

quote:

Take the diet of those indigenous to the mediterranean - a few glasses of red wine,some olives,nuts, a little feta cheese, a pitta or pasta.Some of these would have been traditionally labelled as 'bad' but in moderation are quite the reverse, and you cannot deny their good health and life expectancy.

Heart disease much?

Oh, and red wine is good for you ? Absolute nonsense - it's the antioxidants in the red wine which came from the red grapes which are good for you, not the alcohol. You'd be far better eating a bunch of grapes.

quote:

Its only that simple if you're not intellectually capable of acknowledging the numerous other variables involved.

What other variables are involved other than what goes into your mouth?

Where else is the fat coming from ?

Why can't you answer that ?

quote:

and you're ultimately suggesting they're culled from society.

That's been 6 or 7 times you've said that now, and yet again I ask you to go back and read what I actually posted, and not what you think I posted.

quote:

After months of research in your lab, you conclude that eating too much makes you fat (genius!). You go out into the real world to apply your ground breaking finding to real people in society.

Where does the fat come from if it isn't from what goes into their mouths?

quote:

Its only that simple if you're not intellectually capable of acknowledging the numerous other variables involved.

What are these mysterious variables, and what's stopping anyone over coming them with a little bit of control and gumption?

MALKIE'S MANTRA: Where does the fat come from if it isn't from what goes into their mouths?

Is this the "if I say it 3 times it must be true" belief?

MALKIE SAYS: Heart disease much?

Everybody dies of something, Malkie... How many people do you know that have died in their bed from extreme old age? We don't all live for ever, you know... or maybe you didn't. How sad...

Malkie I'm saying -
A child without proper nutritional guidance does not know that an apple is good for you.
The food I listed must be eaten as part of a balanced diet.
I am not suggesting you stuff yourself with chips.
and;I wish you'd go and have a few glasses of red wine....



[QUOTE]Originally posted by A-D:
You go out into the real world to apply your ground breaking finding to real people in society. You find different people in different life situations with different attitudes to diet. The 9 year old who has only ever been exposed to junk food proves particularly difficult to get through to. Your results suddenly mean very little. That's where social medicine comes in. It doesn't just stop at obesity. It also applies to all branches of clinical science. Laboratory findings always have to be applied to the societal level; that's why numerous wonder drugs end up being recalled after clinical trials. Why you agree with that in the animal testing thread but choose to ignore it here is beyond me.

Here, Here

Since you chose to respond to only half of each sentence, why don't you try reading what I actually posted rather what you think I posted?

quote:

Originally posted by A-D:

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
I can't believe you people (AD and Charla) are honestly trying to argue that chips are more healthy than an apple.

Where did I say that?

quote:

It's a simple bottom line - the obese, and only the obese are to blame for their weight

Its only that simple if you're not intellectually capable of acknowledging the numerous other variables involved.

A child born to an ignorant mother who treats him to a macdonald's lunch a few times a week is going to run into health problems in early adulthood and you're ultimately suggesting they're culled from society. Well you're suggesting "they should pay for their healthcare". So what if they can't afford it? Still not your problem, no one's problem; hence they should be culled.

quote:

but how does "social medicine" alter what goes into someone's mouth?

After months of research in your lab, you conclude that eating too much makes you fat (genius!). You go out into the real world to apply your ground breaking finding to real people in society. You find different people in different life situations with different attitudes to diet. The 9 year old who has only ever been exposed to junk food proves particularly difficult to get through to. Your results suddenly mean very little. That's where social medicine comes in. It doesn't just stop at obesity. It also applies to all branches of clinical science. Laboratory findings always have to be applied to the societal level; that's why numerous wonder drugs end up being recalled after clinical trials. Why you agree with that in the animal testing thread but choose to ignore it here is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:

quote:

Its only that simple if you're not intellectually capable of acknowledging the numerous other variables involved.

What are these mysterious variables, and what's stopping anyone over coming them with a little bit of control and gumption?

Nothing mysterious. They're variables acknowledged by every medical scientist without they're head in the sand. Lab results mean NOtHing if they can't be applied to society.

The part of my post you chose to ignore probably due to your simplistic outlook was this: "After months of research in your lab, you conclude that eating too much makes you fat (genius!). You go out into the real world to apply your ground breaking finding to real people in society. You find different people in different life situations with different attitudes to diet. The 9 year old who has only ever been exposed to junk food proves particularly difficult to get through to. Your results suddenly mean very little. That's where social medicine comes in. It doesn't just stop at obesity. It also applies to all branches of clinical science. Laboratory findings always have to be applied to the societal level; that's why numerous wonder drugs end up being recalled after clinical trials. Why you agree with that in the animal testing thread but choose to ignore it here is beyond me."

Why can;t you respond to this?

quote:

A child without proper nutritional guidance does not know that an apple is good for you.

I couldn't disagree more.

quote:

They're variables acknowledged by every medical scientist without they're head in the sand.

such as ? Name me a couple of variables which can't be over come with a little effort ?

The rest of your post is nothing more than a whine without substance I'm afraid.

MALKIE: I couldn't disagree more. (No evidence given on why...)

What kind of statement is this, Malkie.

(I like this way of posting, Malkie, where I can debate with you about what you've said, but you seem to have made this pact with yourself not to debate back. Saves me getting all the bile you usually produce (must be taking in plenty of olive oil that does it! )

quote:

Originally posted by malkie:
such as ? Name me a couple of variables which can't be over come with a little effort ?

1) You're 7 years old and hungry so you eat what your mother gives you.

2) You're 7 years old and hungry so you eat what the dinner lady gives you.

So this metaphorical child is now obese in their 20s and struggling to loose weight but still runs into problems. Without being able to write a cheque to pay for heart surgery, you're suggesting society shouldn't have to contribute, hence, you're suggesting they're culled from society.

quote:

That's been 6 or 7 (8th?) times you've said that now, and yet again I ask you to go back and read what I actually posted, and not what you think I posted.

I did read what you posted. Here it is:

quote:

If the health issues were due to them being overweight at some point in their life then they need to be held accountable for it.

So now that I've read what you actually posted, please explain to me how it isn't perfectly accurate?

My interpretation that is....