Pharyngula

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 10:33 AM

Seriously? "obese" is one of your negative descriptors?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 9, 2009 10:36 AM

At least there were no kids involved.

And this totally points out the need for universal health care. It wouldn't matter if he had an extra $300 or not and maybe he wouldn't have died in his chair.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 10:37 AM

Actually, PZ... I myself would like some clarification on how "obese" fits in here...

One of these things is not like the other...

Posted by: agolas.07 | December 9, 2009 10:39 AM

"Obese" is no worse than "poor." I doubt either was intended to be negative reflections on Webb's character, if that's what you're worried about.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 10:41 AM

Him being obese directly lead to the condition that had him stuck in his chair for the 8 months.

Read the article. They had to cut a hole in the wall to get him into his chair, which he never left until they took him to the hospital to die. He was 550 pounds when he sat down and the Medical techs told him if he sat in that chair he may never leave. When he died he was 800 pounds. It's an accurate descriptor of the condition he was in that in part lead to his death. Including shunning actual medical help because of his religion and because he was too poor to do anything else about it.

Posted by: sirutka | December 9, 2009 10:42 AM

And this is why I hate the effect the book of Job has on people. What sort of sick twisted story can make people believe that suffering is good? That when things go wrong in your life you should stoically accept, or embrace them, as it's just proof of god's love. I wouldn't torture an animal to prove a point, that's a sign of a sociopath, but apparently it's all cool for god to do it. What's worse is the story doesn't just cause people like this to behave oddly, it encourages passivity, in people and societies, just what we need, more people who think that it's pious to be in pain.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 10:44 AM

"the following conditions led this poor chap to his demise: poor, uneducated, obese and religious"...

Yeah I read it specifically as one of the things that helped lead to his demise.

and I mistyped (shocker)

They had to cut a hole in the wall to get him into his chair

should have been

They had to cut a hole in the wall to get him out of his chair and house.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 9, 2009 10:44 AM

I'm not so sure universal health care will solve such problems (which is not an argument against it, I hasten to add). There are people who will "trust in the Lord" rather than doctors, regardless.

In this case, the injured man certainly could have showed up in the emergency room and worried about paying later (maybe praying about it).

BTW, this is a prime example of religion being evil. These weren't evil people using religion as an excuse to do harm. It is religion itself that did the harm.

Posted by: Ewan R | December 9, 2009 10:47 AM

@15

Universal health care would certainly have solved this problem. The guy initially went to a doctor, was told how much it would cost, and decided instead to die horrifically over 8 months. He would have still been a religious nut, but he would have been alive.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 10:51 AM

It sounds like the poor folk had mental health issues (aside from being religious: hardy har har).

The clue is maybe this: "the neighbors didn't know she even had a husband."

Maybe she was ashamed? Sounds like they wern't part of a church. Why bring this up PZ? You'd think mental illness was reserved for the religious the way you go on.

As the song goes:

Take a look at yourself and you can look at others differently,
Put your hands in the hands of the man from Galilee.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 9, 2009 10:53 AM

And adding 250 lbs. after only 8 months? That's a hell of a lot of food, even for someone who is 100% sedentary.

Posted by: matthew.john.heath | December 9, 2009 10:55 AM

I'm kind of startled that some commenters seem to have seen "poor" and "uneducated" as elements of a list of insults.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 10:56 AM

Stewart @ #19

Did you even read the story, or the frickin post for that matter? Their religious beliefs were a direct contributor to them not seeking professional help more actively. Which part of that do you not understand as religious toxicity?

Oh... and...

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 11:00 AM

But the fact that he was obese has nothing to do with the problem that he had an injury that made him immobile and couldn't get it taken care of through our health care system, and has nothing to do with the fact that he decided to stay put and pray to God to help him. If he literally sat in one place for that long, he would have had problems ever getting up no matter how fat or thin he was.

Had he not been morbidly obese chance are he would have been able to move around much easier, so his weight is a direct contributor to the issue.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 11:02 AM

The clincher in this story is that they -tried- to get him to a doctor... and the size of the bill was the reason he couldn't get treatment, not religious zealotry.

This is true for the beginning of the story... but false for the end of it. Religious zealotry is what caused this guy to consistently tell his wife not to call for help... which ultimately cost him his life.

Posted by: Michelle R | December 9, 2009 11:05 AM

When you can't use a door, obese IS a problem.

Sad story.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 11:05 AM

Had he not been morbidly obese chance are he would have been able to move around much easier, so his weight is a direct contributor to the issue.

Possibly. But is that part of what PZ was trying to get at in his post? I thought his main point was that the guy was stupidly trusting in a nonexistent God to heal an injury, with a possible secondary point that our health care and educational systems suck. I'm trying to say that it's sloppy writing to add "obese" in the post title (notice he didn't use it in the actual post at all, since it wasn't relevant to the main point), because that allows people to focus on his size and go "Oh, he was just one of those dumb overly fatasses".

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | December 9, 2009 11:06 AM

He was not the only one who was "uneducated". How the wife could have thought that all that food was good for him. And being poor and still spending vast sums of money on the calories required to add 250 pounds in 8 months?

Of course, the religious belief that somehow the Invisible Sky-Fairy would wave its magic wand and magically fix him just staggers the imagination.

Posted by: Samantha | December 9, 2009 11:09 AM

Carlie @ 20

But the fact that he was obese has nothing to do with the problem that he had an injury that made him immobile and couldn't get it taken care of through our health care system, and has nothing to do with the fact that he decided to stay put and pray to God to help him

The second part not entirely (although it is possible that he got up to 550 pounds presuming that God would also prevent and obesity related illnesses). The first... we don't know for sure if being 550 pounds caused or added to the cause for an ACL tear but it did probably add to his immobility because most people with ACL tears can limp around with aid of a crutch. Being 550 pounds likely meant that he couldn't use a crutch or even the aid of his wife to get around, and therefore his obesity quite likely did have a factor to his injury and reaction to it.

Regardless of the cause for obesity, it is a medical concern for a variety of reasons. It's entirely reasonable to say that being obese doesn't immediately make someone a lazy slob. It does, however, increase likelihood for several types of injuries and diseases, including ones like this poor man had. It also makes recovery from many injuries more difficult. This isn't the "fault" of the obese individual, but it is a medically important factor, and overlooking that might end up doing more harm. The probability is that if this man had been 180 or 200 pounds rather than 550, he wouldn't have been totally immobile. He still might not have had the money to pay for the necessary treatment (but he might have if he wasn't working due to his weight) and he might still have chosen to sit in his chair and wait for God to heal him, but he probably wouldn't have had to the way he seems to have thought he did.

This man was not the "sort-of" obese that comes from genuinely being big-boned and of a hefty build. He weighed 550 pounds. Unless he was almost 7 feet tall, he was unhealthily overweight. Obese, at least in more layman's terms, normally means just that. Not "BMI of over 30".

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 9, 2009 11:10 AM

Religion as a means of coping with stress is certainly no indictment of religion. At least not if it works.

There's nothing even slightly new about the idea, unsurprisingly. Nietzsche pointed out the real problem with religion as a way of coping, which is that it doesn't actually cure anything, and if anything, it seems to treat the symptoms while prolonging the illness.

While I can point to no hard data to back up his observations, the present story is a more extreme example of what I think is fairly evident to any astute student of humanity.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: ChrisH | December 9, 2009 11:13 AM

Ewen #36

Um, I'd class him as batshit crazy before he started.

*stuffs foot in mouth before making completely tasteless Jonah gag*

*leaves*

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 11:16 AM

Stories of the super-obese are always so profoundly sad. Carly, we're not talking "vanity pounds" here. Letting one's weight go beyond the point at which it presents an eminent hazard to health and life is just an inconvenience and social stigma. It is the sad result of a combination of socioeconomic factors and familial dysfunction. People don't get to that point without someone enabling or even encouraging the person's disorder, whether it be physiological or psychological. This man's death was caused by failures on the part of our health system, his wife, and himself, and it's tragic. But there is no denying that his weight problem was the root cause.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 11:18 AM

What was the point of this post?

If the point was "Fat people get sick and die because they're fat", then fine. Then the title of the post is hunky-dory. It fits.

If the point was "People who rely on God to heal them are being stupid", then it has no reason to be there except as an extra jab at this guy.

As for all of the people piling on to discuss how bad your health gets when you're obese, kindly point to where I said that that wasn't the case. I didn't. What I said is that it's used as a slur, and that environment has helped create and perpetuate a witch-hunt mentality that has actually gotten to the point that a university tried to keep obese students from graduating (that was rescinded after a huge media uproar). I don't see that kind of response happening for people who have anorexia, bad as that is for you (and can be attributed to personal choice, right?) I never even saw that happening to smokers, also another bad health choice. If you classify it as a health problem, it's the only one in existence where the people themselves are vilified rather than the behavior or situation that leads to it. All I'm saying is that the use of "obese" in this case was both unnecessary to the point of the story and contributes to said vilification.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 11:20 AM

Possibly. But is that part of what PZ was trying to get at in his post? I thought his main point was that the guy was stupidly trusting in a nonexistent God to heal an injury, with a possible secondary point that our health care and educational systems suck. I'm trying to say that it's sloppy writing to add "obese" in the post title (notice he didn't use it in the actual post at all, since it wasn't relevant to the main point), because that allows people to focus on his size and go "Oh, he was just one of those dumb overly fatasses".

It is relevant to the story and to the main point IMHO. If he wasn't 500 + his mobility wouldn't have been as severely compromised and he wouldn't likely to have needed to believe that praying to jesus would save him becuase once his knee healed he would have (most likely) been able to get up and walk. I'm no picture of health weight wise and I understand the quick to jump issue with overweight people being targeted unfairly, but this dude was more than just overweight. He was the definition of morbidly obese.

I have no more problem with obese being used here than I do with poor, uneducated or religious. They were all contributing factors.

Hell I would have added married poorly.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 11:21 AM

It's hardly the sort of story to be trying to score points from. Seems that may be PZ's only motivation.

Which would be exactly what I would expect a defender of religion to see this post as... simply "scoring points".

No, the point is to once again point out how the magical thinking and lack of reason that religion fosters is inherently dangerous... it's a point well worth making and should be made loudly every time there's a good example of it... and here's a good example.

From past experience, I know how bad it feels to be poor and to be let down by the medical establishment. You just want to tell everyone to get stuffed.

Two separate issues. That this man felt he could not receive medical care due to the cost is an absolute failure of this government to do something about our healthcare system. No arguments there.

That this man felt compelled to sit and rot while loudly declaring that god would save him and refusing to get further medical attention when it was clearly needed is a failure of the religious institution that convinced him to believe this would be the case through a lifetime of lies and empty promises from a non-existent entity.

Refute that if you can.

Posted by: Ewan R | December 9, 2009 11:23 AM

#42

That's why I felt the need to include 'reading the bible' in that statement... although having been bedridden and then housebound (although mobile) for close to a month this year I applaud anyone who can be completely bedridden for similar lengths of time without going slightly nuts (that may just be my own lack of mental fortitude rather than a particularly meaningful examination of the human condition...)

And rereading the story it isnt instantly clear that the craziness got any worse after the initial 'oh shit we dont have $300' - so my point may be moot anyway.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 9, 2009 11:26 AM

"Obese", like "poor" and "uneducated", is not an insult; nor is it an attack on a person's moral character, or an attempt to pin blame on them. But, exactly like "poor" and "uneducated", it is an identifier which represents a problem.

Obesity is a serious health problem, and needs to be treated as such. As some have noted above, it's true that the line between "normal" and "overweight" is sometimes arbitrary, and depends substantially on one's build, gender and body type; and some people are naturally bulkier than others. But this man was nowhere near that line. He was, on any medical measure, critically and dangerously obese; and it's highly likely (though not certain) that his obesity can be ascribed primarily to massive overeating and an unhealthy lifestyle.

I really cannot understand this new "fat acceptance" movement. Obesity is a treatable condition, and obese people need treatment (namely, a better diet and more exercise). This doesn't mean that it's somehow a person's "fault" that he or she is obese; nor does it imply that obese people are "lazy" or otherwise personally to blame for their condition. Many obese people suffer from various problems (physical, psychological, social or economic) which give rise to their obesity, and which are not in any way their "fault". This isn't about labelling people or assigning blame.

But there's a difference between being sympathetic to people who are obese, and claiming that being obese is somehow "OK" or unproblematic. It isn't. And it's potentially very dangerous to act as if obesity is fine, since this might well encourage obese people to give up their efforts to change their lifestyles and lose weight.

Posted by: Bobber | December 9, 2009 11:32 AM

#50:

This fatass hurt his knee from being too fat

You have no idea why this man got so large, or even how exactly he was injured.

then decided to sit around being fat while shoveling fatty food into his fat maw.

His "decision" was made after he was unable to pay for proper medical attention; one of the pernicious evils of religious faith is that it becomes the last refuge of people who believe they have no place else to turn. Also, how the hell do you know what the man was eating?

He was finally killed by his fatness and his enabler/co-conspirator in fattitude, his wife. She's probably fat, too, but at least she thunders around the house and gets a bit of exercise.

Your well-reasoned and eloquently-stated criticisms of this couple are oh so appreciated. (That's sarcasm, in case you didn't know.)

Oh, and you're a clueless, judgmental asshole. (That is in no way sarcasm.)

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 9, 2009 11:32 AM

Seriously? "obese" is one of your negative descriptors?

No, obesity is a positive indicator.

The trouble, I think, is that you see it as a morally negative descriptor. But is even "uneducated" negative in that way, in a general sense?

Please, being obese is a terrible condition, as is being uneducated. Poverty is no picnic either. Ideally, these would be rectified, with the help of family and society.

Of course, what PZ meant by these various descriptors is not altogether clear, although it appears at least somewhat to be blaming the victim, in parallel with his religiosity. The truth is, he likely had about as much choice in being religious as he did in the other matters.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Darren Garrison | December 9, 2009 11:33 AM

Video that must be seen to believed:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/video/21675699/index.html

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 11:36 AM

Hopefully some saw my tongue planted firmly in my cheek there, but I think there is a valid point in there somewhere. We do like to play the victim when it comes to bad habits. It's not the two packs a day that's killing me, it's my bad genes!

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 9, 2009 11:40 AM

There are failures on many fronts here...

I see 3.

1. lack of adequate education
2. lack of adequate socialization
3. strong religious belief that encouraged 1 & 2.

I see a feedback loop grounded in their low level of education and socialization that kept them in isolation and blissfully ignorant of the ways in which reality actually works. I'm not referring to physics or chemistry, just the basics, like, acting on real information is effectual. Conjuring magic and wishing for miracles is ineffectual. Their religious views reinforced their belief system, setting up a standing-wave of willfully ignorant behavior which ended, tragically, in his demise.

My only hope is that they never had the chance to procreate. That at least would be a silver lining.

Posted by: Bobber | December 9, 2009 11:41 AM

No, I didn't miss it. You're just a poor marksman.

Like to kick puppies, too, do you?

Posted by: andreasj | December 9, 2009 11:49 AM

On the subject of mental ill-health, I've always found it hard to believe anyone gets even near 550 lbs (~250 kg) without having serious psychological issues first. Are there any data available on this?

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 11:50 AM

I don't see that kind of response happening for people who have anorexia, bad as that is for you (and can be attributed to personal choice, right?) I never even saw that happening to smokers, also another bad health choice.

"I'd say it was a symptom/effect of those failures, not the root cause."
It was indeed a symptom/effect of those failures, but it is safe to say that it was ultimately the cause of his death. The human body cannot function for long under those conditions.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 11:51 AM

Divalent,

Yes, but you need complete faith (how many have that) and also, the Bible makes it clear that our days are numbered, so if it was his time to go, then he couldn't have done much about it anyway.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 11:55 AM

Darren Garrison,

I watched the video. Did you notice that the KSN video mentioned that he was refused treatment for not having $300 up front, while Faux News just says they didn't have insurance?

Posted by: Bobber | December 9, 2009 11:56 AM

My post was meant to be funny, but it also was meant to bring out the p.c. brigade, and it worked.

The only one talking "p.c." is you. Want to point out Tillman's obesity as a contributing factor to his demise? That's fair game. But learn to express yourself in a way that is slightly more advanced than that of an ill-mannered six year old. George Carlin was anti-p.c. and edgy; you're just an ass.

Hopefully some saw my tongue planted firmly in my cheek there

More like head planted firmly between cheeks.

Posted by: andreasj | December 9, 2009 11:59 AM

Is there a way to change the name one posts under when logging in with one's Google account?

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 12:02 PM

Bobber: of course I kick puppies. That is the logical conclusion. Since I think people should be responsible and not reach such a girth (barring very rare medical conditions), I must be the biggest asshole on the planet! What a jerk I am. I can't wait to get home from work and strangle my cat. Maybe the dog will get a hot cup of coffee fired into his eyes for good measure.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 12:03 PM

Nope... just took a browse at your blog, Cowan...

You're one of those... rapture awating, AGW denying, ToE denying, illogical, bible-thumping, god-botting liar for jeezus... and you have a PZ obsession, apparently...

You should make for a fun chew toy for a little while...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 12:08 PM

I see you have ONE follower on your blog. Seems like *you* don't have much worth saying.

That's an argument for what, exactly, moron?

BTW, If you don't want to partake of a discussion involving what scripture says, then you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Says the guy who clearly has forgotten where he is. I'd wager there are at least 25 atheists that are regulars here that can tell you more about scripture than you've ever even taken the time to lie about. I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were you...

Comprendez?

Nothing quite so cute as a bible-thumping Internet Tough Guy.

Posted by: mikecbraun | December 9, 2009 12:10 PM

Bobber, P.Z. already did that, as did others, and they all got skewered for it. I just pointed out that nothing, and I mean nothing, can ever be blamed on people, especially obesity, and especially obese people. Grotesquely obese people are just poor victims in this cruel world. How much do you weigh, by the way? I could shed a few dozen pounds myself.
P.S. Why is it funny and okay to make fun of bald people, but not fat people? I never got that. Going bald is less controllable than becoming fat.
Anyway, Asshole Number One signing off. Have a happy holiday season, everyone. Even you, Bobber!

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 12:12 PM

Celtic_Evolution,

"Nope"

Yup!

"just took a browse at your blog, Cowan."

Thank you.

"You're one of those... rapture awating"

No. I'm here for the fight: 'endure to the end...'

"AGW denying"

Have you heard about 'Climategate'? Do you not understand what Copenhagen is about?

"ToE denying"

I thought it was a 'theory'. That's what evolutionists keep telling me. So, I deny a theory. Is that so bad?

"illogical"

Depends where you learned your logic ;-)

"bible-thumping"

Yes.

"god-botting liar"

No.

"and you have a PZ obsession, apparently..."

I guess I would even have him reach a knowledge of the truth. He has to come down off his high horse, though. Pride cometh before destruction, and all that.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | December 9, 2009 12:16 PM

The likes of Cowan make me wish the Scots would actually become independent of the rest of the UK. That way I would not feel so embarrassed about having him as a compatriot. Though not as embarrassed as the good people of Stranraer must feel, and especially his neighbours in Bowling Green Road.

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 12:19 PM

So, I deny a theory. Is that so bad?

Yes, it is.

Do you deny the Theory of Plate Tectonics?
Do you deny Atomic Theory?
Do you deny the Germ Theory of Disease?
Do you deny Heliocentrism?

If yes, then on what basis do you ground your denials of these theories?

Oh, and just in case it's relevant: Scientific theories do not ever get "promoted" to the status of being laws. Theories and laws are different things.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | December 9, 2009 12:23 PM

I thought it was a 'theory'...

Hey dumb-dumb. Yes, it is a Theory.

Read the link to alleviate some of your ignorance.

Oh, and here are some other Scientific Theories:

- Germ Theory
- Gravitational Theory
- Electromagnetic Theory

Grow a brain. Theory is not what you think it means. The ToE, as all scientific Theories, are comprised of measurable, testable, empirical facts.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 12:24 PM

Josh,

I deny this *specific* theory because there is no evidence that evolution can turn molecules into man. It can make organisms resistant to disease and make changes, seemingly large ones, that usually involve a reduction of information in the genome. In other words, the opposite of what has to happen to turn dinosaurs into birds, although I see some scientists are now doubting this part of the theory.

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 12:26 PM

The ToE, as all scientific Theories, are comprised of explanations for measurable, testable, empirical facts.

Sorry. That needed a little adjustment...

Posted by: sparky-ca | December 9, 2009 12:28 PM

Ok, there is a strong correlations on the poor/working poor and getting fat.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wsuwpaper/tgsmith-2.htm

and more simply

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html

The poor in America are more likely to get fat, be undereducated and be religious. All three things contributed to his death, and the tragedy of all of this is it could have been avoided.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 9, 2009 12:29 PM

I deny this *specific* theory because there is no evidence that evolution can turn molecules into man. It can make organisms resistant to disease and make changes, seemingly large ones, that usually involve a reduction of information in the genome. In other words, the opposite of what has to happen to turn dinosaurs into birds, although I see some scientists are now doubting this part of the theory.

In other words, I'm a thundering idiot who doesn't have the slightest comprehension of the Theory of Evolution, but will make no bones about questioning its validity, while carrying no such skepticism of other, less evidentially supported theories, because they don't appear to make baby jesus cry.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 9, 2009 12:30 PM

You're one of those... rapture awating, AGW denying, ToE denying, illogical, bible-thumping, god-botting liar for jeezus..

Ah yes. The 'Betcha can't just swallow one incredibly stupid idea' principle strikes yet again...

(/Hey... has this been named yet? There really does seem to be something to it, but I'm still looking for a nice, terse coinage that fits it.)

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 9, 2009 12:32 PM

(/Fixing attrib: paper above is Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994--tho' the cite is in the link, too, if you've software can open it okay.)

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 12:33 PM

Did someone mention AGW?

This is why I am reluctant to believe 'theories' where there are ulterior motives attached:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/monckton-secretive-copenhagen-treaty-creates-larcenous-global-government-tax.html

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 12:35 PM

I deny this *specific* theory because there is no evidence that evolution can turn molecules into man.

How is it you write a blog while being functionally illiterate, Cowan?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 12:36 PM

Ah yes. The 'Betcha can't just swallow one incredibly stupid idea' principle strikes yet again...

Crank Magnatism

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 12:38 PM

damn. it.

magnetism

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 12:40 PM

Did someone mention AGW?

This is why I am reluctant to believe 'theories' where there are ulterior motives attached

Do you believe denialists when there are ulterior greenbacks involved?

Now fuck off, you posturing fucking moron.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 9, 2009 12:42 PM

Ah, the Viscount Monckton.

Now there's a reputable source of information.

[not]

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | December 9, 2009 12:45 PM

I see certain people have reduced this thread to mush, so I'll be off.

Do yourselves a favour and remember that a theory is not a fact. Look at what's happening in Copenhagen to get a glimpse of how 'theories' are used against reason, logic, truth - and us.

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 12:48 PM

I guess it's also fair to assume, if you feel qualified to deny the dinosaurian ancestry of birds, that you can discuss with us just exactly why science is mistaken in its interpretations of the data upon which this hypothesis is based. Like, I dunno, perhaps the various modifications that took place within the theropod manus?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 9, 2009 12:49 PM

Dude, Meyers just had a video explaining the hacked emails like this week.

Also, Theories are based on solid fact.

StephenCowanPhails@Science.com

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 12:51 PM

This is why I am reluctant to believe 'theories' where there are ulterior motives attached:

You can deny a theory all you want, but you'll need to show why all the science supporting it is wrong.

It's easy to handwave away a few words that define the theory at it's most basic but it's a whole other thing to actually refute the science with a different science based explanation.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 12:51 PM

Do yourselves a favour and remember that a theory is not a fact. Look at what's happening in Copenhagen to get a glimpse of how 'theories' are used against reason, logic, truth - and us.

Do yourself a favour and learn what words mean in English.

Posted by: glowball | December 9, 2009 12:54 PM

Well, it is entirely possible to get obese w/o utter carelessness. Not saying that's what this guy did, but it is possible.
I suffered through years worth of consulting doctors for various random-seeming problems including a slow inexorable slide into overweight-to-obese. Coupled with occasional hair falling out in clumps, psuedo arthritis, various small injuries, wacky blood sugar.
But a great many doctors are overworked and not really interested in anything but what the blood tests say, so I went with untreated subclinical (with TSH normal) hypothyroid and also undetected atypical celiac disease (which is a genetic disease triggered by gluten exposure) for 15+ years of frustration. Both of these can and will totally screw up one's metabolism.
You cannot believe how mad and ready to give up one can get after being patted on the head for the umpteenth time and told that you need to drink more water. Yeah, that will fix all your gut problems, and arthritis too, more water.
One doc even had the bloody nerve, after putting me through a lower GI (he thought I had colon cancer, but at least he was thinking), he had the nerve to blow up at me because he didn't find anything. SOB called me a hypochondriac hysterical female and told me to go home and... Drink More Water!
I finally ran into a decent family-practice doc who actually believed I had the problems I told her, and when she couldn't come up with anything in the tests (normal TSH again) at least suggested that I find myself a dietician. Probably figured I wasn't eating right, but it pointed me in the right direction - I found a dietician/allergist who paired off with an internist. Between the two of them and unsupported by the lousy $550 a month COBRA I was paying (in vain), they found the subclinical thyroid (by testing for Free T3 and Free T4 as well as TSH, TPO, and several other things I don't remember at this point). None of the family practice types had ever done this, or the testing for celiac disease, probably because no insurance companies will pay for any of the tests - thyroid or celiac. Point being I did - just barely - have the funds to go through this last-resort-before-I-gave-up testing. And it was expensive. Some folks wouldn't have the funds. Or the bloody-mindedness to keep looking. I also got a lot of help from my very wonderful husband who refused to blame me for the problems, even though everyone else seemed to.
Once I found out, I think you can imagine the pure RAGE at all the incompentence and not-giving-a-shit (from my point of view) from the bloody system, and the blaming assholes.

Properly treated, and on a gluten-free diet (which really isn't that hard), in a very short amount of time - relatively speaking - I have gotten rid of the majority of problems, and am no longer obese, Yay!

I feel very sorry for these people. Gotta wonder how many of the obese really are that way because they don't care, or because they have undetected problems and just gave up in the face of all the many and various roadblocks. I'm not saying that they're all sick and helpless, and for stars' sake, don't enable anyone, but "Just Stop Eating, Dammit!" doesn't always work. And the next person to tell me to 'Drink more water' is gonna get slapped ;)

But religion seems to be the final and last horrible straw on the camels back for these folks here.
"Obey your husband" didn't do the guy much good either.

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 12:55 PM

Do yourselves a favour and remember that a theory is not a fact.

That's true. But competent scientists don't say that they are.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 12:58 PM

As an aside, the one time I visited it I was asked to leave after I asked them why they were dishonestly quoting from Darwin about the evolution of the eye. They even through the the copy I Origins I had left them out on the street after me.

Holy crap. Couldn't that be considered assault? At least if they aimed it at you?

Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2009 1:01 PM

Ooooohhhh, did he leave because of me?

If people asking you pointed questions is the teh scary, then no, this probably isn't the right place for you.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 9, 2009 1:03 PM

"I went there and observed an entire quiver of stupid"

C_E, I am totally stealing that. That's the funniest thing I've read in a while!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 1:05 PM

Thanks for that personal story, glowball. Indeed, managing one's health isn't always so cut and dried. Add psychological factors such as depression, or an unsupportive family and/or community to the mix and it's not that hard for someone to spiral into a state of extreme unhealth.

Good for you for sticking it through and finding the solution to your problems. Most doctors stick to the adage "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras", but many of them don't take the next step and start looking for zebras and giraffes when there isn't a horse to be found.

Posted by: ChrisH | December 9, 2009 1:08 PM

Sparky #136

He seems to have a homosexuality obsession (going on his tags).

As if that's a surprise!

And Meester Cowan obviously has no idea what a theory entails. I'm no sciencer but have actually got a vage clue.

Posted by: glowball | December 9, 2009 1:11 PM

This is overkill for this group, but I went and had a look-see at the internet dictionaries and, hey! Wow! Theory does not mean "Something made up" rather:

A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

The general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art.

Scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena.

Oh, he left? My bad. Not fast enough.

Posted by: shatfat | December 9, 2009 1:15 PM

@35

He was not the only one who was "uneducated". How the wife could have thought that all that food was good for him. And being poor and still spending vast sums of money on the calories required to add 250 pounds in 8 months?

Generic sodas and white bread (which is loaded with straight up sugar) are cheap. The husband may have been on food stamps, which favors products like Frosted Flakes over bok choy, IYKWIM.

We also don't know that he didn't also suffer from metabolic disorder/diabetes by that point and hence had edema (swelling of limbs). He may have both been overeating against insulin resistance and taking on water weight. IANAD, however.

Posted by: glowball | December 9, 2009 1:18 PM

Thanks Brownian, Ultimate, and you're right - "You're fat but its great because its just the way you are", really doesn't do one much good either. Acceptance easily can == hopelessness and really doesn't move one forward.

Posted by: aharleygyrl | December 9, 2009 1:24 PM

Christians are so contradictory. If someone prays and they get better, that was God. If someone prays and dies, they would rather not discuss it. If pressed, they will have excuses:

1. god helps those who help themselves. and/or

2. he didn't really believe god would heal him

3. it was his time to go. god needed him.

3. it was god's plan.

The power of prayer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

Posted by: shatfat | December 9, 2009 1:29 PM

People are laid up all the time, some for months at a time (my mother had part of her lung removed... cancer... had serious complications and was laid up for 5 months) and manage to stay sane enough to call for help when it was needed. It was the religious belief that "god will provide" that caused this guy to stay where he was and not seek further help. Sorry, i'm not going to simply write that off as "bed-ridden craziness".

Here in the US there actually are some remedies available (however shitty), but he and the wife plunged into fantasy rather than pursue them. (And why not? The wife is already working full time PLUS caring for him 'round the clock.) What's sad is that religion encouraged them to do so.

Some things bouncing around my mind are Medicaid (may have required a divorce--seriously, our system is that screwy), SSD (although that takes two years), medical/rescue transport (Fire Department--they have the equipment), county health department, credit cards or eBay (to get cash up front--credit couldn't have been that bad with a stable roof over their heads, unless they're in Sec. 8, in which case--WHERE WAS MEDICAID? $300 cash up front for a Medicaid patient? Jesus fucking christ-on-a-crutch!).

I wish I could say "medical charities" but no, not so much.

Posted by: CanonicalKoi | December 9, 2009 1:43 PM

And late to the party, but:

@20 Carlie, I have chronic arthritis in both knees. I've had 4 surgeries on one of them, which will likely wind up being replaced by an artificial one before too long. If I gain as little as 5 lbs. over my normal weight (which is a little less than my ideal weight for my height and age), I suffer a lot of pain. Knee problems and injuries are seriously exacerbated by even a slight weight gain. If you try to step on a leg with an ACL tear, the femur and tibia grind together and the leg gives way. Now, imagine that happening with 550 lbs. piled on top of it.

Posted by: negentropyeater | December 9, 2009 1:48 PM

I'm just going to write down some few statisitcs for future reference in case some religiotard comes along and needs a bit of evidence to change some of his preconceptions...

from The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions

Comparison between the most religious country - USA and the least religious country - SWEDEN
(developped economies only)

Religiosity

SW US
12 63 Absolutely believe in God %
05 30 Bible literalists %
07 39 Religious services attendance %
14 60 Prayer %
22 59 Absolutely believe in after life %
12 67 Absolutely believe in heaven %
07 55 Absolutely believe in hell %
35 08 Agnostics and atheists %
82 44 Acceptance of evolution %

Succesful societies scale

SWE USA
1.1 5.6 Homicides /100K
78 724 Incarceration /100K
8.3 11.1 Suicide 15-24Y /100K
14.2 11.3 Suicide other ages /100K
4 8 Under 5 mortality /1K
78.6 76.7 Lifespan Yrs
1.8 572 Gonorrhea 15-19Y /100K
2.8 125 Gonorrhea other ages /100K
0.6 6.4 Syphilis 15-19Y /100K
0.8 4.3 Syphilis other ages /100K
17.2 29.2 Abortions 15-19Y /1K
2.7 33.8 Births 15-17Y /1K
1.6 2.0 Fertility rate
4.0 8.3 Marriages /1K
12 7 Marriage duration Yrs
55 54 Divorces /1K
6.9 8.5 Alcohol consumption Lit/Yr
7.7 7.4 Life satisfaction index value
7.4 7.8 Corruption index value
26.1 35.8 Per capita income K$
25 46.6 Income inequality gini index
6.5 15.8 Poverty index
73 74 Employment levels %

NB : amongst all developped nations, the USA is the first on all religious parameters (only beaten by Ireland for the % who attend religious services), the last for the number of atheists and agnostics and the level of acceptance of evolution.
It comes out worse than any other developped nation on the following factors :
Homicides /100K
Incarceration /100K
Under 5 mortality /1K
Gonorrhea 15-19Y /100K
Gonorrhea other ages /100K
Syphilis 15-19Y /100K
Syphilis other ages /100K
Abortions 15-19Y /1K
Births 15-17Y /1K
Marriage duration
(before last on divorce rate)
Income inequality
Poverty index

Not a pretty picture.

Posted by: BlueMonday | December 9, 2009 1:57 PM

@ #116

I believe the term you are looking for is "congregation."

Posted by: shatfat | December 9, 2009 2:06 PM

Misdiagnosis in the ER! Say it ain't so!

Gainesville, FL seems like ground zero for medical mistakes. If you visit UF, try to stay out of Shands.

Interesting that they don't cover the test for celiac disease. Like they don't cover vaccines. Hm, make you pay for this relatively inexpensive item, in the hopes that, what, if you get way sicker we'll just dump your coverage?

I must say, gluten free diet is a great way to lose weight, especially if you were a beer and bread kind of guy before. Just ask my friend Greg.

Posted by: Eileen | December 9, 2009 2:12 PM

First there were (obese?) people getting touchy over PZ’s headline, but then the thread just kinda flowed into “there is no evidence that evolution can turn molecules into man.” Pharyngula, I love you…

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 2:23 PM

How did this man know he had a torn ACL ? The main symptoms of ACL are sudden knee weakness and pain, normally pretty severe. Without further diagnostics tests though it would not be possible to rule out other causes of the symptoms.

That is a good question. It's the most likely, but definitely not the only possibility. As opposite world to that, my spouse had a torn ACL, promptly went to the emergency room on our health care plan and got it x-rayed, and was told that it was just some strained muscles. It took over a month of it not getting any better to finally get an appointment with a specialist who promptly diagnosed the tear - from the original x-ray. So even with all the health care you want, it might not be correctly diagnosed.

Posted by: shatfat | December 9, 2009 2:30 PM

I need to get the fuck off this topic, but I also need to get the following off my chest:

You can be a fat, lazy, depressed, do-nothing fuck and still lose weight. Here's how (courtesy of a "friend" of mine):

Have your parents cut you off.
Have your girlfriend kick you out.
Have no car, but avoid the bus b/c you might see someone you're avoiding on the bus.
Have your student loans (for that degree you never finished) kick in.
Be chronically under-employed.

Under this regimen, with $50/mo for groceries, you will discover the joys of walking 1-2 mi.s each way for errands, the joys of going cold turkey on Mt. Dew, the joys of not eating for three days straight, the joys of making weird vegan one-pot meals b/c you can't fucking afford cheese, etc, etc.

This was not a fun time for him (and he spent a lot of time blaming everyone and sundry for his life getting to that state) but in the end his mental health is better and he does for himself. (Hell, he--mr. entitlement himself--even learned how to cook.) The irony is that he was being treated for anxiety/depression with SSRIs for years without any appreciable effect. And yeah, he dropped about 100 lbs.

Hardcore gamer, btw. And by "hardcore", I mean "addict." Of course, gamers who are hardcore (drop out of school, lose job, lose sig. other, lose custody of kids, fall into downward emotional spiral) think they are soooo much better than people who escape through drugs or alcohol. Hello? Same damn thing!

Posted by: Eileen | December 9, 2009 2:47 PM

I don't doubt your sincerity, Celtic. Apologies. I do love how this thread morphed, however. :)

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 2:50 PM

I believe the term you are looking for is "congregation."

Men go crazy in congregations; they only get better one by one.

Posted by: Jockaira | December 9, 2009 2:52 PM

Posted by: Bobber | December 9, 2009 11:32 AM #55

Bobber said: "Also, how the hell do you know what the man was eating?" in a self-righteous manner meant to cast shame upon his target, Mikecbraun at #50.

All considerations of religion, poverty, inaccessability to healthcare, and other stupidities aside, Tillman Webb gained about 250 pounds in 8 months while not moving once from his chair (according to medical technicians, Webb's skin had grown into the chair's fabric).

250 pounds in 8 months amounts to a daily average intake of 3500 calories in excess of ALL his metabolic needs. A daily TOTAL intake of 3500 calories will make the average American "fat." It does not matter in what form these calories are consumed, fats, sugars, carbohydrates, whatever.

The medical technicians who delivered him to his home before this tragedy started to unfold had told him that if he were to be placed in the chair, he would probably not get out of it.

It's his own fault for eating too much and not being active to any degree except to open his mouth and shovel in more food. His wife could have helped him here simply by refusing to bring him food. After a few days or weeks of starvation he would have been hungry enough to get himself out of his chair and roll into the kitchen to see what was in the refrigerator. This small amount of exercise to stuff his face might have saved his life.

I'm really tired of fat people blaming everyone but themselves for being fat, as if they were being forced to consume all those excess unneeded calories. I'm also tired of others coming to their defense and giving them rationalizations for being fat stupid lumps of appetite.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, avec fromage | December 9, 2009 3:02 PM

Carlie (@45):

What was the point of this post?

If the point was "Fat people get sick and die because they're fat", then fine. Then the title of the post is hunky-dory. It fits.

If the point was "People who rely on God to heal them are being stupid", then it has no reason to be there except as an extra jab at this guy.

I read the point of this post as not being either one or the other of these exclusively, but some of both and more to boot: To me, PZ was listing the contributing causes of this poor man's death. Obesity (and more about that word in a sec) was a physical cause (I only clicked through to the one article and didn't research the case further, but it seems clear that he died of complications of his weight and consequent immobility); poverty, ignorance, and religious belief were the mutually reinforcing factors that conspired to prevent him from taking a rational, productive approach to solving his physical problem.

It never struck me for a second that PZ was engaging in fat-bashing; instead, his post seemed strangely sympathetic to Webb, notwithstanding all the reasons one might be tempted to sneer. Without implying that I speak for him, it seems to me that PZ doesn't present Webb as an object of derision for his obesity — or for any reason — but instead as a victim of "dysfunctional social conditions"... chief among them (from the POV of a cranky atheist, at least), social acceptance of the notion that prayer can actually solve real problems.

(@84):

Please, being obese is a terrible condition, as is being uneducated.

And there it is. Yes, adding 250 pounds in 8 months means something was terribly awry, either with his body or his mental state or both. But just stating it as "obese" is a bit problematic, because what you just said is that if you're 5'8" and you weigh 198 pounds, that's a terrible condition to be in. I'm not saying it's offensive, I'm saying it's sloppy.

I don't think it's as much a matter of PZ being sloppy as it is of you being hypreprecise: I understand that your hypothetical 5'8" person who weighs 198 lb is technically obese, but that's not what the average nonspecialist means when he or she uses that word. In fact, in my experience, non-doctors are typically surprised at, and unwilling to accept, the notion that the threshold for "obesity" is so low.

I myself am only an inch or two taller than 5'8" and I'm several tens of pounds heavier than 198... yet AFAIK nobody other than my doctor thinks of me as "obese." I'm chubby or chunky or perhaps portly... but if I were in a crowd and somebody called out "hey, look at the obese guy," heads would not swivel in my direction; they'd all be looking for someone at least 100 lb bigger than me.

So no, I don't think PZ was conflating someone like me with someone who's so enormous he literally can't stand up... and I don't think he was promoting any invidious prejudice against people like me, either.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 3:09 PM

I'm like you, Bill. BMI is used as a guideline, but no one, doctor or not, would look at me at 5'11 and 215 lbs and label me obese because my BMI is 30.

I doubt even your doctor considers you obese, unless you're significantly undermuscled.

Posted by: amphiox | December 9, 2009 3:10 PM

re: "How the wife could have thought that all that food was good for him." (and other comments of this type)

Can we really jump to that conclusion? Weight gain results from calories in > calories out. When you're immobile in the chair, you're not burning much in the way of calories.

Add to that the fact that all the cheapest foods are high calorie/low nutrition/low volume, and I think he could easily have gained the 250 pounds without eating all that much at all. Just a regular overall volume of cheap/poor quality food on top of the inactivity would have done it easily.

Posted by: CJO | December 9, 2009 3:14 PM

I'm really tired of fat people blaming everyone but themselves for being fat, as if they were being forced to consume all those excess unneeded calories. I'm also tired of others coming to their defense and giving them rationalizations for being fat stupid lumps of appetite.

Sheesh. At first, I was a little put off by what looked like a case of hair-trigger offense-o-meter, but now I see that such reactions may have been warranted with this kind of vitriol being tossed around.

Poor, uneducated people may not be "being forced to consume all those excess unneeded calories," exactly, but they often live in circumstances where the unneeded calories from fat and sugar that the cheapest and most widely available food products in North America typically contain are a large part of their intake. It's a socio-political problem as much or more than it is an individual failing.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 3:23 PM

>i>So no, I don't think PZ was conflating someone like me with someone who's so enormous he literally can't stand up... and I don't think he was promoting any invidious prejudice against people like me, either.

I don't think he was trying to, no. But I think that was an effect, because it is another case of tying "obese" to "guy who can't even get out of his chair because he weighs 800 pounds".

I'm like you, Bill. BMI is used as a guideline, but no one, doctor or not, would look at me at 5'11 and 215 lbs and label me obese because my BMI is 30. I doubt even your doctor considers you obese, unless you're significantly undermuscled.

But it doesn't matter if your doctor would consider you obese or not. Obese IS a term that is defined by a BMI over 30. If that data is in your record, your insurance company can use it to force you to pay higher premiums. Lincoln University tried to use it to force students to enroll in more health classes. And the more people link "obese" with "800 pound guy" in their minds, the easier it is for companies to do that, because of course it makes sense to charge those people more.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 3:27 PM

Poor, uneducated people may not be "being forced to consume all those excess unneeded calories," exactly, but they often live in circumstances where the unneeded calories from fat and sugar that the cheapest and most widely available food products in North America typically contain are a large part of their intake. It's a socio-political problem as much or more than it is an individual failing.

And it's not just obesity; fresh fruit and vegetables are among the most expensive and time consuming foods to prepare meals around, yet their absence from the average North American's diet has been implicated in a whole host of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cancer. How many here get the recommended 5-10 servings of fruit and vegetables a day? How many here don't overshoot their RDA of sodium?

Posted by: Rob Jase | December 9, 2009 3:32 PM

I've never understood why the story of Job is considered a triumph for Yahweh.

Yahweh & Satan make a bet with Yahweh claiming Job will not lose his faith no matter how bad things get for him. Yahweh gives Satan permission to kill Job's family (apparently their faith was pointless), destroy his livestock, etc, until Job is finally a disgusting mess of boils & running sores. At this point Job finally loses his faith.

Then Yahweh shows up, chews Job out for being a stupid human who doesn't apprecite all the torture he has been put through. Job appologises & is rewarded with a new family (including a newer, younger trophy wife) & riches in exchange for worshipping his torturing lord again.

Yahweh lost the fucking bet, Satan won. Why is this considered a triumph for Yahweh?

Posted by: Egaeus | December 9, 2009 3:41 PM

I am obese and relatively poor. I think both are negative, and I'm taking steps to alleviate both of them (going to the gym, and getting a graduate degree). If calling someone (or being called) obese is offensive to you, lose some damn weight. It's not a good thing, and you're not "big and beautiful." Stop rationalizing and do something to improve your life.

Posted by: Jockaira | December 9, 2009 3:51 PM

Brownian,

What can I say? Foolishly, I didn't keep those transcripts because I thought I'd never need them. So you caught me out with a "strawman" of your own.

I've known several fat and obese people in my life. Most of them will not face the fact that being fat is usually the result of eating too much and exercising very little. When confronted with this basic truth, most of them refuse to deal with it and excuse themselves with various reasons having nothing to do with the basic issue.

On the other hand, a few accept their character flaws and deal successfully with their weight problems, while the others continue to make excuses and consume excess calories.

I know that controlling weight can be very difficult even for the average person unafflicted with organic illness, but that's no excuse for letting it become a lifelong problem, a hazard to health, and an obstruction to productive socialization. Overcoming entrenched laziness (the source of most weight problems) is not easy, but it must be done if a person wants a good life, in much the same way that most of us get up every morning and go to work even when we don't feel like it.

Posted by: Endor | December 9, 2009 3:58 PM

Carlie - you never fail to wow me. You rock.

Posted by: Jockaira | December 9, 2009 4:01 PM

3500 calories of intake over total metabolic necessity is equal to one pound of stored fat in the human body. This is a "basic truth."

Posted by: Jockaira | December 9, 2009 4:09 PM

It works for me...I guess you haven't given it a shot.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 4:13 PM

But it doesn't matter if your doctor would consider you obese or not. Obese IS a term that is defined by a BMI over 30. If that data is in your record, your insurance company can use it to force you to pay higher premiums. Lincoln University tried to use it to force students to enroll in more health classes. And the more people link "obese" with "800 pound guy" in their minds, the easier it is for companies to do that, because of course it makes sense to charge those people more.

I see what you're getting at Carlie.

That's really unfortunate, since BMI on its own is generally a poor indicator of much of anything, and is only really useful when used in conjunction with a host of other measurements, and for insurance companies to use it as a basis for denying coverage or requiring higher premiums is incredibly devious.

On the other hand, a few accept their character flaws and deal successfully with their weight problems, while the others continue to make excuses and consume excess calories.

Yeah! Thank goodness there are a few ounces of integrity (see what I did there?) among those lazy fucking fatties! So, Jockaira, how much do you bench? What's your best triathlon time? do you consume your one glass of red wine with dinner and no more? What's your resting heart rate? Blood pressure? Cholesterol level?

If any one of those measurements isn't dead centre in the healthy range for your sex and age, I'm going to be very disappointed.

By the way, I wonder if you consider a tendency to gross (I kill me!) generalisation a character flaw?

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 9, 2009 4:16 PM

It's also worth mentioning that BMI is not a particularly accurate or useful measure of health-related obesity. BMI, being a crude calculation based on height and weight, fails to take into account factors such as musculature, gender and build. Someone who does a lot of weight-training, for instance, can be in the "overweight" BMI category yet have very low body fat. So saying "everyone with a BMI over 30 is obese" is medically nonsensical (though I don't doubt it's the preferred definition of insurance companies).

There are several measurements which are much more useful. Body fat measuring equipment, which is available at many gyms and most health centres and doctors' offices, can tell you what percentage of your bodyweight consists of fat. A body fat percentage over 27% for men, or 32% for women, is usually considered overweight. Another useful measurement is waist size, since excess fat in overweight people tends to be stored around the abdomen.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 4:20 PM

It works for me...I guess you haven't given it a shot.

What, is Hyperon sockpuppeting now?

Well, if we're talking self improvement, have you ever considered reading or interacting with other people as a means to not being an idiot?

Works for me. You might consider giving it a shot once you're done blasting your quads.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 4:27 PM

3500 calories of intake over total metabolic necessity is equal to one pound of stored fat in the human body. This is a "basic truth."

Mmm-hmmm.

I'd just like to point out that what I was trying to do was mention the implications of using obese as a descriptor in a sense that appears to be gratuitously negative, and of what kinds of cultural/economic implications the recurring use thereof can have, with my viewpoint being that those implications are often negative for an awful lot of people.

I find it fascinating that whenever obesity is discussed, no matter what aspect of it is being presented, even to the esoteric extent of the word and its usage, there are people will descend to make sure that everyone knows that fat people are fat fatties from Fattersville who are lazy dumbasses who don't know that food has calories and don't know how to walk and all you need to do is stop eating so much, Mr. Fatty McFatterson. It's like a dog whistle.

Posted by: aharleygyrl | December 9, 2009 4:32 PM

It's nice to know that I am not the only one attacked for something stupid.

poor uneducated people have a higher chance of obesity, so i don't see why people think it didn't fit. go to any discount food store and you will see this. it ain't rocket science.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 4:51 PM

I don't bench, (too lazy)...Wine gives me headaches, beer makes me sleepy, so I am an essential teetotaler.

Fuck your excuses. What part of the 'basic truth' that at least one ounce of alcohol per day increases health don't you want to face?

Posted by: CanonicalKoi | December 9, 2009 4:53 PM

According to another article here - http://www.wyff4.com/news/21663697/detail.html Webb's mother called Emergency Services. She also told reporters:

"She told deputies that her son was hospitalized with a knee injury in March. He came home from the hospital, sat in the chair and “had not moved since,” the report stated. She said he had been urinating and defecating on himself since then. She also said she had no idea her son was in such bad condition."

So he had been hospitalized and diagnosed with the ACL tear. Further, his wife told reporters that neither of them had medical insurance, so Webb was transported by ambulance back home. That clears up why he thought it was an ACL problem. It, of course, leaves the problem with not having some form of national healthcare hanging in the breeze.

Posted by: Endor | December 9, 2009 4:56 PM

"most fresh fruits and vegetables are between $1 to a $1.25 a pound, and a few - like potatoes - are between $0.10 and $0.20 to the pound"

Wow. Whatever fantasy world you live in, I want to live there to! it would be awesome to buy a few apples, but around here, they're $4+ a pound.

WNY, in case you're wondering.

Posted by: Jockaira | December 9, 2009 5:06 PM

Hey! It's been a slice, nice afternoon of pleasant talk. Gotta get to the bank now, I'm outa cash. See you guys later.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 5:16 PM

llewelly,

I'm glad you know how to cook. So do I. I'm neither poor nor obese (seriously, fuck BMI), but a lot of people are, and I'm simply advancing a few of the hypotheses put forth by those in public health who study such issues.

As mystified as I am by people who open a fridge and haven't the foggiest idea of what to do with what, I'm not going to claim that they don't exist just because I'm not one of them. Sure, even Comfort can peel a banana. How many bananas does it take to fill you up? When's the last time you went to a restaurant and had a fucking meal of bananas?

I'm assuming that unless you're some kind of freak, you probably supplement your bananas with some other starches, grains, and proteins. Where'd you learn to do that? Who taught you to cook, or do you honestly think meal preparation is a human instinct? Fuck, we toss around Dunning-Kruger all the time here, do you honestly think there isn't a contingent of people who can follow instructions enough to boil up a pot of KD ($0.33-$1.25/box to feed two to three people, one if they're a college student) and think they're doing just fine cooking-wise so no need to crack a cookbook?

I'm glad you're such a savvy shopper; would it break a neuron for you to realise that's not the case for everyone?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 5:19 PM

Am I allowed to be different than you?

Only as much as your fat friends are allowed to be different from you, Jockaira.

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 5:27 PM

most fresh fruits and vegetables are between $1 to a $1.25 a pound, and a few - like potatoes - are between $0.10 and $0.20 to the pound.

Now if you're talking about one of those fucking hell-holes, like Chicago, or Detroit, where fruits and vegetables are simply not sold at all (as far as I could tell, anyway), that's a different issue, but in general, where they are available, fruits and vegetables are not that expensive, and not difficult to prepare.

Posted by: kopd | December 9, 2009 5:44 PM

Where I'm from, even the cheapest knockoff cola brands are massively more expensive than tap water. Is this not true in the US?

Tap water? Yes.
Bottled water? No.

Unfortunately we have one hell of a strong soda culture here. I'm trying to break free of it myself. I just don't enjoy drinking water. I have to force myself to do it. But I have no problem drinking three or four sodas (diet, at least) a day at work where both soda and filtered water are free.

Posted by: destlund | December 9, 2009 5:46 PM

Andreas Johansson, but cheap knockoff cola costs 1/3 of what bottled water costs, and we all know the story on tap water.

Posted by: llewelly | December 9, 2009 6:06 PM

Brownian, OM Author Profile Page | December 9, 2009 5:16 PM:

As mystified as I am by people who open a fridge and haven't the foggiest idea of what to do with what, I'm not going to claim that they don't exist just because I'm not one of them.

I am not claiming such people do not exist. What I am claiming, is their existence is not a result of the difficulty of microwaving a potato. Nor is it a result of the cost of fruits and vegetables.

In my view - it is far wiser to look to the effectiveness and ubiquity of the advertising of entertainment foods, which train people to habitually feed on calorie-dense foods (most of which are not really cheap, when judged in terms of price per pound). I think there is a lot of evidence that advertising is much more effective, and habits are much harder to break, than most of us realize. If anyone wants to lose weight - I will give them all a tip - cut out the fucking advertising. Are there ads on your TV? Throw the fucking thing away. Ads on the internet? Install adblock, and use it for everything. I guarantee that if you avoid ads like the plague, you'll spend far less time thinking about calorie-dense foods, and it will be easier (but not easy) to avoid eating them, and to eat fewer calories overall (which is what really matters). There's no such thing as losing weight quickly and easily, but I promise you, this tip will help a lot.

When's the last time you went to a restaurant and had a fucking meal of bananas

Right now I'm poor, so I don't go to fucking restaurants at all, unless someone else is footing the bill. As for the bit about bananas, that's cherry picking, as I mentioned plenty of other foods, and spent much more of the post on potatoes. (Yes, before you ask, I have lived on nothing but potatoes and butter for months at a time, and skipped the butter when I was really poor.) People who are obese should avoid restaurants like the plague; most restaurants in the US serve entrees that will easily feed two or even three healthy people.

Fuck, we toss around Dunning-Kruger all the time here, do you honestly think there isn't a contingent of people who can follow instructions enough to boil up a pot of KD ($0.33-$1.25/box to feed two to three people, one if they're a college student) and think they're doing just fine cooking-wise so no need to crack a cookbook?

$0.33 to feed 2 people? Well, that's more expensive than potatoes, so I don't believe cost is the issue, although I must admit I have no clue what "KD" (kiloDalton? Kentucky Derby? Kruger-Dunning?) is. Furthermore - if they have to boil anything, whatever they're making is more difficult than a microwaved potato, so I don't believe difficulty is the issue either. If you want to claim that people eat poorly because they don't know what is healthy and what is not, or because they don't know that potatoes are cheaper than "KD" - that I can easily accept. It is far more likely for people to fail to do something important because they simply don't know, than because the task is difficult. Many things are easy if you know how - but if you don't know how, it doesn't matter how easy it is.

I'm glad you're such a savvy shopper; would it break a neuron for you to realise that's not the case for everyone?

Posted by: Paul | December 9, 2009 6:17 PM

Well, that's more expensive than potatoes, so I don't believe cost is the issue, although I must admit I have no clue what "KD" (kiloDalton? Kentucky Derby? Kruger-Dunning?) is.

Kraft Dinner, I would assume, Brownian being Canadian. We call it Kraft Macaroni and Cheese south of the border.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | December 9, 2009 6:40 PM

Kraft Dinner, I would assume, Brownian being Canadian. We call it Kraft Macaroni and Cheese south of the border.

I was dismayed to learn that Canadians are the biggest per capita consumers of Kraft Dinner in the world*, though the Kids in the Hall made that fact somewhat funny.

*This may not be true, though repeating it as if it were has become part of Canadian cultural identity.

Posted by: Paul | December 9, 2009 6:47 PM

I was dismayed to learn that Canadians are the biggest per capita consumers of Kraft Dinner in the world*

Well, Canadians consume more of it than people in the US, seeing as there is no such named product in the US. I am unsure which branding they use wherever else they may sell it. I only recognize the name "Kraft Dinner" due to marrying into a Canadian family.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 9, 2009 6:55 PM

My father's people were Chicago Swedes, and they all called it Kraft Dinner.

Posted by: Paul | December 9, 2009 6:58 PM

But these hippies sing an ode to "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese."

I can only speak from the perspective of someone that has lived in California for two and a half decades, but I've only heard the "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" variant.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 9, 2009 7:11 PM

Polar residents: Please clarify. What is Kraft Dinner? Is it Mac and Cheese? Is it like vegemite (howeverthehell that's spelled)? I'm originally from OH, but clearly this is not northerly enough to have this reference in my cultural sack o' nuts'n aphorisms.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2009 7:18 PM

boxed mac and cheese is the definition of evil

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 9, 2009 7:29 PM

Annie's^TM organic shells & white cheddar in not evil, repeat, not evil.
You can get it in whole wheat or rice pasta too, if you're hardcore.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 9, 2009 8:53 PM

Annie'sTM organic shells & white cheddar in not evil, repeat, not evil.
You can get it in whole wheat or rice pasta too, if you're hardcore.

But it costs like 4 times as much!
I prefer my mac and cheese mixed with peas and tuna.
Mmm.

I only know Canadians call it Kraft Dinner because of BNL; Missouri, Illinois, and central Ohio call it mac and cheese.

I will tell you that strangers feel perfectly comfortable walking up to me (outside, 25 or more feet from and door or window) and telling me how unhealthy I am and how much my cigarettes hurt their health. I've never seen a stranger actually walk up to someone who is very overweight and tell them how unhealthy their eating habits are.

I guess YMMV. I've seen it happen. I was trying to get more at the idea that with smoking it's the behavior that's criticized, but with fat it's the person themselves. Smokers only get the stinkeye when actively smoking or buying cigarettes, but fat people are fat all the time and can get heckled for it anytime and anywhere. And the war on smoking was at least mostly a war on smoking; the war on obesity doesn't address food availability or corn subsidies etc., it's aimed straight at fat people and what's wrong with them.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 9, 2009 9:09 PM

Carlie,

I can see that, though I would say society is increasingly moving toward vilifying smokers as people. It's a change I've noticed in the last couple of years.

You're right, though. I can hide my smoking (though it would take quite a bit of effort) but you can't really hide obesity.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 9, 2009 9:17 PM

I only know Canadians call it Kraft Dinner because of BNL; Missouri, Illinois, and central Ohio call it mac and cheese.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 9, 2009 9:26 PM

destlund

Congrats on quitting smoking. I'm trying now, mostly because of the cost since they raised the taxes on loose tobacco some months back.

One thing I do think is important is that many of us are thin because we (apparently) won the genetic lottery. Most people who have never had a problem with their weight have a hard time understanding the difficulty of losing weight in our culture. The constant bombardment with cheap, easy, tasty, nutritionally worthless foods is a big hurdle.

Posted by: skeptifem | December 10, 2009 12:59 AM

wow, I can't believe how many people are piling on 'obese' like it is such a good descriptor. It says nothing about how much is muscle or fat or anything. It is only weight.

There are a lot of projects online that show pictures of people and then their BMI categories; weight is a really crap measure of health. You would never guess how many healthy looking people are obese (and not slightly).

I also don't know where anyone got the idea that skinny folks are less likely to get infections that get out of hand. That is a complex issue and it happens plenty at the hospital I work at. There is so much else at work here and none of us are doctors. Unfortunately overweight and obese people who have health problems automatically get told "oh, it is because you are fat" for many problems that have nothing to do with weight. Things get overlooked this way. It should be considered a factor but not the only one. It is perhaps the only relevant piece of his medical history that we can know about, but that isn't enough to assume that he didn't have some kind of immune system problem or disease that contributed to the infection.

Mikecbraun- oh jeez. Yes, let me pretend to see this issue from the point of view of a person without a lot of money. Where i drive my CAR to the stores with all the fresh vegetables. Do you see a problem here?

A lot of people rely on public transportation or walking to get around because they can't afford a car (or because they live somewhere urban enough to make it a better option). This tacks on a LOT of extra time for getting to and from work, and this is for people who may or may not be working multiple jobs because their jobs pay so little. Single moms are the poorest group of people in the country, so they really don't have a lot of extra time to shop between children and working. In reality what ends up happening is that a lot of food ends up coming from places like corner stores, and they have much higher prices for everything. the fruit selection at places like that are dismal, bananas seem to be what i see the most often. And jeez, do you know how many people don't have real kitchen appliances to work with? Its like you think being poor is like living your life now, but on a budget. it is a lot harder than that.

And I don't know if you have looked around at grocers in poorer areas, but they don't get very good produce most of the time.

Posted by: shatfat | December 10, 2009 4:15 AM

I keep reading this, and I keep wondering where the fuck you people shop. At every grocery store with 5 miles of me (I live in an ugly suburb of Salt Lake City), most fresh fruits and vegetables are between $1 to a $1.25 a pound, and a few - like potatoes - are between $0.10 and $0.20 to the pound. Ten pounds of potatoes will go a long way, and there are only a few essential nutrients potatoes do not have - nearly all of which are in eggs.

First, potatoes vary in glycemic index, but pick the wrong potato and you will have something that will make your blood sugar spike faster than white bread. A lot of your "essentials" are in the skin which many do not (and will not) eat. However, in my region potatoes are not the staple anyway; sweet potatoes and dry beans as well as [maize] grits are the starch. Dry beans are WAY up since 2005.

Huh. Well, I live in an agricultural region (North Central Florida). Veggies from out of state run $2/lb and up (especially the nutritious ones), potatoes are 40-50c/lb. I recently got a damn good deal on apples (1.99 for 5lbs), but they're in season. We can sometimes get local cabbages for, oh, 25c/lb, which is about as cheap as it gets. (& those suckers is TUFF! about 35c/lb on much more civilized GREENS) Strawberries are local and can be under $2/lb in season.

In this region with a little pocket change you can actually do pretty well for fruits and veggies, and that's not counting what you can do with a backyard meter square plot (this started catching on a year or two ago and now everyone is talking about them, especially for tomatoes, which are local, but overpriced, especially compared to the price of growing your own).

However, most of the poor people here are quite overweight. Food stamps are not geared towards veggie purchases, for one thing, and schools have no interest today in teaching life skills (incl. nutrition). Also, children are being set out on the wrong foot (literally--childhood obesity leads to podiatric problems) by becoming obese during the summers due to enforced indoor (lack of) activity. In the one-parent or both-parents-working household, the child is kept inside for safety/oversight--often babysat for small change by a relative who plunks them in front of tv/games. (Also, it's frickin' hot out.) There's a lot of evidence now that obesity in childhood leads to a life-long condition.

And then there's the traditional Southern diet. It actually used to be "worse" but then again we're talking a scrounge diet for cotton pickers, so I think back then it was barely adequate. I had some "soul food" last year ... spread the damn plate over three meals and STILL got the Itis each time. The whole idea is to mix grease into grease to put some meat on yo' bones. Yeah! But they don't send 14 y.o.'s out to do hard farm labor any more (eh, usually--maybe this is why some rednecks are so skinny--they're still in the agricultural field. the construction rednecks have faaaaat kids.)

The Southern diet puts sugar in EVERYTHING; that plus the fried food and high sodium is a lethal combination. Life expectancy in the rural South is shockingly poor.

Posted by: shatfat | December 10, 2009 4:31 AM

Install adblock, and use it for everything. I guarantee that if you avoid ads like the plague, you'll spend far less time thinking about calorie-dense foods, and it will be easier (but not easy) to avoid eating them, and to eat fewer calories overall (which is what really matters).

Hahahahaha! Now that's rich! It's not evolution that leads us to crave calorie-rich foods, it's Madison Avenue! Of course! How could I--a non-TV-owning, non-popular-magazine-bothering-with, bicycle-riding (avoids those highway Perkins ads) nerd--have missed this?

Posted by: shatfat | December 10, 2009 4:48 AM

Spoken like a non-smoker. I don't think the vilification of smokers is as bad as the vilification of the obese, but I will tell you that strangers feel perfectly comfortable walking up to me (outside, 25 or more feet from and door or window) and telling me how unhealthy I am and how much my cigarettes hurt their health. I've never seen a stranger actually walk up to someone who is very overweight and tell them how unhealthy their eating habits are.

Spoken like someone without asthma or cigarette smoke allergies. I don't have asthma (I can only imagine) but I do have allergies, and I can tell you from great experience that even being buck naked with an obese person does not induce wicked, 48-hr, vomit-inducing, head-splitting migraines, but a cigarette, 25 ft away, most certainly can. Especially when you're outside my window and that nasty ashcan fodder is being swept right inside.

Also, multiple studies have shown that public smoking raises risk of heart disease in non-smokers. I can't think of any biologically plausible way in which being in the company of obese people would raise my risk of heart disease.

And to think, I was actually sympathetic to your argument (GPP was being harsh on smokers, as if it's easy to quit, which it certainly isn't) for about two seconds there. Then you had to open your big mouth and ruin it.

Posted by: shatfat | December 10, 2009 5:02 AM

252

The thing that struck me was one or the other of the articles mentioned they'd driven somewhere. If there was ever a time to sell the car, I would have thought that would be it, to sort out this knee.

I agree--IF that wasn't the car the wife was using to get to work.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | December 10, 2009 5:46 AM

Heh, for those who think that obesity is an easily treatable condition, I have a challenge.

Find me ONE properly peer-reviewed study of ANY diet and/or exercise program, designed to produce weight loss, that has a success rate of greater than 5% after 5 years. Just one. Go on. If it's that easy, this should be a doddle. Warning - I won't accept one year success rates. All calorie-restriction diets work in the short term.

I would actually agree that someone who's super-duper morbidly obese (whatever that means exactly) probably does have a "character flaw". Like a mental illness. It's a bit cruel to call that a character flaw, but I guess it's technically true. I don't think it's possible to get so badly overweight without something being seriously wrong with you. Just like you can't accidentally starve yourself to death, and also be mentally healthy.

Regular BMI obese, well, a lot of that is plain old genetic and cultural luck. Did you know that weight is more strongly heritable than height?

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | December 10, 2009 10:05 AM

Isn't there some evidence that morbidly obese people have different gut bacteria than do thin people?

I have a friend (yeah, I know, anecdote does not equal data) who is morbidly obese, and knows it. She practically lives on salad, and does water-aerobic exercise. She has a very bad back and bad knees, and knows it, and does her best to stay active - and she's still morbidly obese.

I'm on medication that has unexplained weight gain as a side effect. My weight is higher than I like it, but with a good and careful diet I'm at least keeping myself from gaining any more weight. My cholesterol is higher than either I or my doctor like, also due to the medication, but at least the ratio is good.

so there's more than one reason other than "personal failiings" for people to be overweight.

Posted by: Dianne | December 10, 2009 11:19 AM

Sorry if this post is a repeat...my last attempt said fail because I wasn't signed in. Anyway...

I don't think that religion is the root cause of the failure to seek treatment here: the patient did seek treatment and only turned to prayer as a treatment when he found he could not obtain standard treatment. A reasonable public health system might have saved him. Certainly, he'd run around telling everyone how god had led him to the orthopod who saved him, but he'd be doing it on a repaired knee.

Concerning obesity: Morbid obesity is a health problem but it is not a moral failing. Long term weight loss is extremely difficult to achieve. Bariatric surgery has been successful in some cases. Treatment of secondary causes (hypothyroidism, brain tumors, sleep apnea, etc) can help in some cases. Diet alone...probably not going to do much. For one thing, you're asking people to starve (you don't loose weight until you're using more energy than you're taking in: aka starving) in the midst of plenty. That takes superhuman self control to even attempt. Millions of years of evolution tell people to EAT when they're hungry already. Plus it doesn't work all that well, even if you can manage it: too many enzymes that can be down regulated during famine. On the other hand, attempts to help people who are obese stop gaining weight and improve their health have been moderately successful (though follow up is thus far short term).

Posted by: destlund | December 10, 2009 1:38 PM

@Richard Eis

First, I didn't say that I ate the stuff, at least not currently. And it's not a distribution problem per se. For $10 worth of ingredients, I can produce a delicious, healthy meal on par with what would cost $40 and upwards in a fine dining restaurant. The problem is that industrially produced processed food is very satisfying and very cheap. McDonald's has figured out how to turn $.25 worth of ingredients into $1 worth of "food," and this "food" is very shelf-stable and easy to efficiently transport, assemble, and serve quickly to a lot of people. The massive dose of fat, salt, and sugar people get from it leads them to become habitual "users" (McDonald's term, not mine), and creates or exacerbates metabolic/glycemic problems.

It's not a distribution issue; it's a buying power issue. A poor person cannot buy a 50lb sack of flour, nor can they buy entire crops of produce, herds of cattle, etc., and the processed food industry has no investment in anyone's health.

Posted by: Diane G. | December 10, 2009 4:38 PM

For a group of atheists, there sure are a lot of Puritans chiming in. This couple's problems started long before the knee injury, no doubt long before they met & married. For cripes sake, the husband had a mother who knew what was going on and also wouldn't/couldn't act for some reason the whole 8 months...What is her life like?...was her childhood like? How entrenched is the poverty, ignorance, obesity, etc., on both sides of the couple's extended family? In the general "neighborhood?"


As uneducated as they are, we can still be pretty sure they were well aware of how society regarded them, well aware that their appearance registered negatively with just about everyone not so beset with problems. (Wrong as I think it is, I'm the first to think 'wow, how huge' when I see the morbidly obese...)


It probably took extreme effort to visit & sit through the first encounter with the medical system; only to be sent home unhelped for lack of money. How easy can it be to know that everyone around you is looking down on you & judging you?


IMO their problems are way beyond fixing by the idea that they should have bought more vegetables...


Religion was probably the only thing telling them they were worthwhile people, that someone loved them, that there was hope for the future, however unlikely those platitudes really were. It's ironic that despite their professed belief, they didn't seem to be deeply enough involved to have any relationship with a caring congregation that might have stepped in and helped them. Their social isolation seems to have been profound. One wonders just what kind of a job, what co-workers the wife had that they did not know of what was going on & take steps to help.


I agree with those who've said the egregious state of health so-called care in the US was the main proximal cause of this appalling story. Ultimately it was a failure of humanity.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 10, 2009 7:20 PM

shatfat,

Spoken like someone without asthma or cigarette smoke allergies. I don't have asthma (I can only imagine) but I do have allergies, and I can tell you from great experience that even being buck naked with an obese person does not induce wicked, 48-hr, vomit-inducing, head-splitting migraines, but a cigarette, 25 ft away, most certainly can. Especially when you're outside my window and that nasty ashcan fodder is being swept right inside.

If being 25 ft away from a smoker, outside, is enough to trigger a two day reaction from your allergies, how in the world do you walk down the street or through a parking lot filled with cars emitting toxic exhaust? Also, why in the world would I be smoking outside an open window?

And to think, I was actually sympathetic to your argument (GPP was being harsh on smokers, as if it's easy to quit, which it certainly isn't) for about two seconds there. Then you had to open your big mouth and ruin it.

About that vilification of smokers, I rest my case.

You're a jackass. The law around here says I can't smoke indoors except in a private residence. I supported the laws to ban indoor smoking because of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. I will, however, smoke outside away from doors and windows. You will not suffer heart disease from inhaling cigarette smoke for the time it takes you to walk past a smoker.

Posted by: SerenAur | December 11, 2009 9:12 AM

Here's a story of a guy from the UK with a similar problem. Doesn't look like religion is making things worse in his case - the Saints logo on his wall refers to Southampton football club. Not that supporting them will help him any more than an invisible magic friend.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8396438.stm

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2009 9:33 AM

SerenAur @273: Yes, I think this illustrates clearly that the UK's health system does not make these problems disappear, contrary to what many on the American left seem to believe.

Posted by: bibliophilebullpen | December 11, 2009 6:23 PM

If you are 550 pounds you are obese in the bad and unflattering way. so stop trying to pretend obese doesn't enter into it.

obviously these people were and are completely crazy and certainly should have qualified for some sort of medicaid. Their lack of self preservation skills is sad but not sympathetic.

Posted by: Dianne | December 14, 2009 9:44 AM

the gut flora issue

If altered gut flora is a contributor to obesity, then I can think of a method of treatment that might work: give enough antibiotics to sterilize the gut then give a stool transplant (yep, they do exist and are used on rare occasions like intractible C diff infection) from a non-obese person. Then start dietary maneuvers to help lose weight and improve fitness (which might also incidentally keep the gut flora normal: maybe gut flora alters depending on what sort of food is eaten.)Anyone know any gastroenterologists or primary care physicians looking for a study?