Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: Jochem Huhmann on 24 Dec 2009 03:20 dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes: > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who > don't lack, then it is a big factor... Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy, does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight? I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight. I have no doubt that there is a strong tendency for humans to enjoy eating and to shun labor. This can be neutralized by having learned to enjoy *doing* things instead of consuming things and also to enjoy things that involve effort and moving around. Reducing this to "diet" and "exercising" is not a solution, but part of the problem. Seeking happiness in consuming and looking for security in comfort is very much a cultural thing. That the age of the consumer and the age of the machines is the age of the overweight is not really surprising. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
From: Nick Naym on 24 Dec 2009 03:36 In article 1jb8nsk.dzpb3s1s6fkfzN%jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz, Jamie Kahn Genet at jamiekg(a)wizardling.geek.nz wrote on 12/24/09 1:21 AM: > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article 0001HW.C756766F0045CC13B01029BF(a)News.Individual.NET, TaliesinSoft >> at taliesinsoft(a)me.com wrote on 12/22/09 2:13 PM: >> >>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:58:02 -0600, Robert Haar wrote (in article >>> <C75680EA.481FEC%bobhaar(a)me.com>): >>> >>>> On 12/22/09 1:31 PM, "Nick Naym" <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> [responding to the following comment made in the preceding posting in this >>> thread] >>> >>>>> Compared to the US, _everybody_ has better healthcare. >>>> >>>> No _everybody_ but at least all the people in the developed nations of the >>>> world. >>> >>> What comes to mind is that within the United States we have one of the >>> world's foremost problems with obesity. Given that whether or not one is >>> obese is something almost completely under control of the individual I would >>> think that the overall position of health care in the United States would >>> likely be better than it is if only more persons in this country took better >>> care of themselves. >> >> That's _health_ -- a different issue than health _care_. The latter is a >> service which many -- if not most -- (developed) countries consider an >> essential service, akin to police, fire, sanitation, etc. In the US, it's >> treated as an unregulated market, driven solely by shareholder profit, not >> social need. IMNSHO, if health care is allowed to be totally unregulated -- >> free, even, from the basic monopoly and antitrust restrictions and >> regulations imposed on virtually every other industry -- then why don't we >> farm out police, fire, sanitation, etc. to the private sector? > > I wouldn't give them any ideas, IIWY. The irony of it all is that many police, fire, sanitation, etc. employees are politically quite conservative (but not, of course, when it comes to the economics of the markets for the services that _they_ provide). -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: dorayme on 24 Dec 2009 04:13 In article <m27hscn5pd.fsf(a)revier.com>, Jochem Huhmann <joh(a)gmx.net> wrote: > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes: > > > It is hard to know what you are thinking of as big or small factor. It > > is a big factor as far as I can tell from the science known and > > indicated strongly. So I will tell you what I mean by big. If millions > > of people have ample opportunity to eat as much as they like and all > > have equal opportunity to exercise and the millions that do grow really > > fat almost overwhelmingly have a genetic factor that the millions who > > don't lack, then it is a big factor... > > Still, this is all semantics. If there are genetic factors that lead > people to look for happiness and satisfaction in eating (and generally > consuming) and other genetic factors that make them passive and lazy, > does this mean there is a genetic factor for being overweight? > Semantics are an important part of any argument. Imagine if all the words we are using now meant different things; the argument would be quite different. it might be about sheep or something. So that is the first point. The second is that, given what we mean by our words, is it the case that there is tension between admitting a genetic factor that makes it difficult to control some activity and saying that those with that genetic factor have less control. The answer seems plain enough to me in this particular case, it is yes. The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is big. There is a link and a tension here. > I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating > and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight. > That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting differences but they would not be gross. -- dorayme
From: Kurt Ullman on 24 Dec 2009 05:59 In article <doraymeRidThis-75F98B.18412024122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Because if you are thinking the genetic factor is significant, this puts > pressure on the folks with it to exercise *more control* than those > without the genetic factor. Food is a big part of normal daily living > and pleasure (it is not really something extra to life). You cannot at > the same time be comfortable about the control while being impressed by > the genetics. It is a logical matter. I see no problem with the logic. The hardness of the control is beside the point, it is the that it CAN be done. Heck I have that problem being a yo-yo dieter. When people ask me how much I have lost, it is probably 900 or more pounds. But the fact remains that the upward yo is ALWAYS accompanied by my actions of starting to graze again, deciding I can't get around to exercising, etc. > > > There is a genetic component to alcoholism and yet the > > indulging part is under the person's control. VERY hard to control, but > > under the control none the less. The genetic component is also a > > TENDENCY toward obesity. What you take in and how much exercise you do > > is very much under a person's control. Haven't yet seen any kind of > > study indicating otherwise. > > It is not the studies you should be concentrating on but the logical > relations here. The logical relations don't exist, as my own experience shows. -- To find that place where the rats don't race and the phones don't ring at all. If once, you've slept on an island. Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
From: Jochem Huhmann on 24 Dec 2009 06:42
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes: > The main point is that people with genetic factors to obesity need much > more self control. So telling them to exercise it is to tell them to do > something that is the more difficult, the more the genetic factor is > big. There is a link and a tension here. Of course they need more self control because eating and consuming is more important to them than doing and moving. Restricting that is like trying not to breathe then. What you have to tell them is not "eat less" but "do other things that make you feel satisfied and in control". >> I think a real genetic factor would be if it would lead to people eating >> and move around as much as others and still gain much more weight. >> > > That is not the crucial test, it is a simple fact that by and large, if > people of the same weight eat exactly the same and exercise exactly the > same, they will differ not that much. There are probably interesting > differences but they would not be gross. OK, you agree then that what this genetic factor does is not to directly cause overweight but to cause enjoy eating too much and enjoy moving too less (which then causes overweight)? And don't forget about the cultural reasons for that. Passively consuming and at the same time avoiding any kind of exertion is enticing and can become a life-long habit if learned early enough. Eating can become an addiction, exactly like driving even the smallest distances instead of walking, and using power tools for everything. Happy holidays, by the way. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |