Just browsing the BBC site and came across this, New Zealand don't mess about
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23475583
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23475583
Last edited:
Get out fatty!
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
Unless they can prove that man won't live long and happy life it is nothing more than misguided observation by a single or a group of bigoted employees who deserve to be fired for mistaking their own prejudice with immigration policy.
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,481
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
We really are just sticking our head in the sand and ignoring a real problem, by just saying it's "will power you need fatty" I really think 'we' are missing something really very wrong, 79% of America is overweight (BMI above 25) and 66% of the UK, something is very very wrong and making it into a joke is just ignoring it.
The sooner everyone faces up to it the sooner it'll be solved or mitigated, it can't just be the individual if we had 33% overweight in 1980 and today it's doubled...
The sooner everyone faces up to it the sooner it'll be solved or mitigated, it can't just be the individual if we had 33% overweight in 1980 and today it's doubled...
There might be, you see - for example Journal of the American Medical Association now thinks fatties actually live longer.
You don't know what the immigration policy is.
You don't know who made this decision or why.
You're lashing out rather than making a rational argument against the decision (and there is a rational argument against the decision), which is a good idea if you're more interested in a fight than anything else.
This isn't simple bigotry and prejudice. It's a policy based on relevant causal factors - obesity is a cause of expensive medical problems. It's much better than, for example, charging men more for car insurance because that is at best solely correlation (and may well be at least partly simply pandering to prevailing prejudice).
I disagree with it for several reasons:
1) It's still partially correlation (obesity doesn't always cause expensive medical problems), so it's still applying averages for a group to an individual and that's not fair.
2) It's applied unreasonably. He's been legally resident for 6 years. If the obesity policy is to be applied, it would be reasonable to give people already resident in the country a reasonable amount of time to conform to it.
All of which are just as likely in unhealthy slim people on a poor diet, or who smoke, or drink excessively or are just genetically predisposed to such conditions.
Being overweight doesn't automatically make you unhealthy. Anyone, slim or not with high levels of visceral fat are just as likely to suffer diabetes etc....
What are they going to do, send all immigrants and their descendants for screening each year and then chuck them out if they find they are predisposed to something that may, in the future, create a burden on their health service....
Von is right (to a point) in my opinion, a decision that appears made from bias and supposition rather than the individual's actual health status at the point of application...illustrated by the fact that this chap actually weighs less today than when he was first granted immigration status and as far as we know he doesn't actually have any health issues currently, being overweight doesn't automatically mean being unfit or that he will develop any chronic disorder that would be an undue burden on their health service (which I assume he is contributing to, through his taxes as he is employed and contributing to society)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19474239
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
In this mans case it is extremely unfair, he has been in the country already for 6 years working and now they deny him that ability. How are him and his wife suppose to survive without being able to work...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Its the government, plus industry plus bad parenting and bad advice.
Once you gain weight its harder to lose it, you can't eat less while needing more nutrients to burn body fat, because at "normal" weight eating a normal amount would be giving your body what it needs. When you want to lose weight you are asking your body to burn more fat, you're asking it in one area to do more than usual, but with less nutrients it requires to do it. Fat is on hand, calories are on hand, but the various mechanisms your body uses to turn stored fat into usable energy aren't on hand in plentiful supply. Eating the right things to let your body burn fat well to lose weight is essential. The low fat "healthy" options you find in supermarkets are usually significantly worse for you in every single aspect. They have good fats removed, good nutrients removed, replaced by sweetener, salt, cheap fats, cheap carbs... its a nightmare. You want to eat higher quality foods in smaller amounts to make sure you get what you need but less overall intake, not get rid of all the good parts of food and only eat the crap parts.
So you get a bit overweight(I'll be honest, this is 90% of the time the parents fault, but also not easy to get right) but after that you have unbalanced hormones making it harder to lose weight, you feel less healthy making it harder to exercise, you have usually(again parents) learned a particular way of eating that isn't very healthy and most places telling you how to lose weight are just trying to make a buck off you.
You put on weight, you have more fat, your fat cells secrete substances that turn testosterone into estradiol which can easily kill your testosterone levels. What does low testosterone do in men, well kills energy, causes depression, makes it harder to shift weight, gain muscle, maintain muscle, generally low testosterone makes you feel like crap. So you have kids who start gaining weight usually because they are being taught bad habits from parents, often gaining weight before they have any control over what they eat. Then by the time they take over their own diets these kids both have been taught a very bad way of eating, an unhealthy way of eating and their hormone levels are usually fighting against them feeling better.
Its not simple, its clearly as above not down purely to the individual. I blame parents hugely for their ignorance, but also said its difficult because from 0 through 20 its fairly natural to over eat, gain weight before going through a growth spurt, denying the body food when it decides to grow is also bad... its a fine line between letting your kid gain a bit of weight to grow healthily, and curbing their eating to not get fat and create what are usually life long problems.
Once you gain weight its harder to lose it, you can't eat less while needing more nutrients to burn body fat, because at "normal" weight eating a normal amount would be giving your body what it needs. When you want to lose weight you are asking your body to burn more fat, you're asking it in one area to do more than usual, but with less nutrients it requires to do it. Fat is on hand, calories are on hand, but the various mechanisms your body uses to turn stored fat into usable energy aren't on hand in plentiful supply. Eating the right things to let your body burn fat well to lose weight is essential. The low fat "healthy" options you find in supermarkets are usually significantly worse for you in every single aspect. They have good fats removed, good nutrients removed, replaced by sweetener, salt, cheap fats, cheap carbs... its a nightmare. You want to eat higher quality foods in smaller amounts to make sure you get what you need but less overall intake, not get rid of all the good parts of food and only eat the crap parts.
So you get a bit overweight(I'll be honest, this is 90% of the time the parents fault, but also not easy to get right) but after that you have unbalanced hormones making it harder to lose weight, you feel less healthy making it harder to exercise, you have usually(again parents) learned a particular way of eating that isn't very healthy and most places telling you how to lose weight are just trying to make a buck off you.
You put on weight, you have more fat, your fat cells secrete substances that turn testosterone into estradiol which can easily kill your testosterone levels. What does low testosterone do in men, well kills energy, causes depression, makes it harder to shift weight, gain muscle, maintain muscle, generally low testosterone makes you feel like crap. So you have kids who start gaining weight usually because they are being taught bad habits from parents, often gaining weight before they have any control over what they eat. Then by the time they take over their own diets these kids both have been taught a very bad way of eating, an unhealthy way of eating and their hormone levels are usually fighting against them feeling better.
Its not simple, its clearly as above not down purely to the individual. I blame parents hugely for their ignorance, but also said its difficult because from 0 through 20 its fairly natural to over eat, gain weight before going through a growth spurt, denying the body food when it decides to grow is also bad... its a fine line between letting your kid gain a bit of weight to grow healthily, and curbing their eating to not get fat and create what are usually life long problems.
Last edited:
There might be, you see - for example Journal of the American Medical Association now thinks fatties actually live longer.
No, what that research said that there was correlation between mild obesity and longevity that would easily by explained by the actual ability to gain such weight and the lack poverty associated with that along with other correlated factors.
At no time did that article say someone who was 160kg would be expect to live longer than average.
No they are not as likely. Liver problems will be more likely in alcoholics and lung cancer more likely in those who smoke but the conditions they specifically targeted as long term chronic ongoing illness (requiring considerable amounts of funding) are not as likely.
Genetic tendency toward type 2 diabetes which is the one we are talking about (because it's the one they were mentioned) is a low ball event because the actual obesity itself will be both genetically loaded and environmentally driven - realistically you are looking at at a 10% figure. This is strongly supported by the increased incidence in people who move from groups with a strong disposition towards wealthier times or climes - the occurrence rate shoots up.
Unhealthy slim people present with different disease groups which are not as costly. Which is the argument here. Lifestyle induced type 2 diabetes is a known quantity. For people who have the incapacity to control their weight to then go on and not control their insulin levels is a known quantity. Failure to control insulin levels and cause kidney failure at around $30000 per annum is a known quantity. You see they mentioned the hypertension too - they can;t manage the resources for their own citizens without adding immigrants into the mix.
They want people who will be net contributors in all likelihood over time this man will not be. He is a chef he isn't going to be paying the amount if will cost to treat him. Our country could take a leaf out of their book - charity begins at home.
As usual, your posts leave me gobsmacked. Is there no subject where you don't have a cracked brained position on?
Not according to research quoted in the articvle I linked...it was dependent upon their level of metabolic fitness rather than their weight level.
And again, research shows that Type2 diabetes is increased not only in those that are visually obese, but those that carry visceral fat as well...some of the other factors which also significantly increase you risk of type2 diabetes are if you are high blood pressure, are over 25 and from a Black/Asian ethnic group, you have IGT, according to the CDC, 15% of young people contracting type2 diabetes are not, nor have ever been overweight nor are they genetically predisposed to it. Sedentary lifestyles, yo-yo dieting, and according to researchers in the Cleveland Diabetic Clinic, what they term as TOFI (thin outside, fat inside) is when visceral fat builds up around the organs without the individual realising it, outwardly they are slim, this visceral fat is according to Dr James Bell and Dr Betul Hatipoglu a high risk factor in developing type 2 diabetes, greater than having a bit of a belly on you. Yo-yo dieting also because as you lose weight you lose muscle, but when you gain it, you gain fat...this causes changes in your blood sugar and leads to type 2 Diabetes. That is not to mention stress and the production of Cortisol which has been found to elevate blood sugar and can lead to spikes in visceral fat production.
The point is that an overweight persons lifestyle, if active and the person is metabolically fit, they are no more likely to develop obesity related diseases than a slim person.
How do you know how much he earns, or how much he is going to cost the health service in the future?
You may as well bar any group who have a risk of any disease, be it lifestyle or genetically predisposed. They had better stop the Asians coming in for a start:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779072
If you are thin and contract Type2, they better be booted as well, the risk of heart disease is twice that of an overweight person with type2:
http://www.health24.com/Medical/Diabetes/News/Thin-people-with-diabetes-have-heart-risks-20130210
Not to mention gene sequencing everyone, just in case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8...ple-could-be-less-healthy-than-the-obese.html
This is why it is daft....all they need do is base their decisions on the actual health of the person at each application, not assume that someone will be a burden simply because of their appearance...or simply ensure that a condition of immigration is the acceptance of private health insurance.
Last edited:
I would ask for every $ I paid in tax that went to any kind of health service back if I were him considering there's no mention he's used the health service before. If they're kicking him out because he might cause strain on their health service in the future then surely he's perfectly entitled to ask for the money he paid towards a service he never used.
You've stretched that point so far that it has become invisibly thin.
I'm fat. I'm genetically predisposed to it (a doctor's opinion after extensive testing, not just an excuse from me) and I'm poor (another risk factor) and I work varied shifts (another risk factor) without proper breaks (another risk factor, as I am forced to snack on whatever is available quickly on short notice)...and it's still mostly my fault because I could do more about it and I don't. Well, I do now (and I'm less fat than I used to be, more muscular than I used to be and back into normal range for other risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels) but I didn't for years.
The food industry doesn't help, but they're not lacing Hobnobs and suchlike with addictive substances. This isn't The Space Merchants. Not yet, anyway.