Obesity To Be Classed As A Disabiity

Richie-from-the-Boro

Thread title : Obesity To Be Classed As A Disabiity

Is about morbidly obese, I use the term fat people as it was intended in this thread title - meaning those who are morbidly obese, not a bit, or a even bit more fat, but actually morbidly obese. This group tend to die much earlier than those of normal weight and can and frequently do have years of disabled and miserably mobility restricted life before death. Indeed overweight but not morbidly obese individuals can have a longer lifespan than people with clinically normal body weight usually because they are already 'on the radar' and get better medical care & screening for chronic diseases arising from their weight. Diabetes and / or or heart problems would be an example.

The EU Justice ruling on the Karsten Kaltoft case specifically said "under particular conditions" fat people can be construed as disabled, where one's fatness hinders one's participation in common activities, including work compared to other people"

- that to me is a medical model not a social model, each individual case judged on its medical facts
- not then a case for social discrimination, ie car parking or other reasonable adjustments
- this medical framing of 'fat' does little to assist anyone using the ruling to protect against social discrimination

I assume the legal profession are 'spinning it', we will wait and see after its been referred back to the Danish courts and then see if a 'test cases' in the UK can discriminate between a being as a result of an underlying disability, the side effect of a medication, poor lifestyle choices or the abuse of the hole in your face. In a community of disabled people who already suffer extreme social marginalisation, adding the costs of support for this ridiculously vague EU ruling when the disabled are already fighting hard this GOV's commitment to cutting social funding, could bring about an even more corrosive experience of disability in our communities.

tomtom256

Well this topic has given me some food for thought.

Angry_Bear

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Thread title : Obesity To Be Classed As A Disabiity

Is about morbidly obese, I use the term fat people as it was intended in this thread title - meaning those who are morbidly obese, not a bit, or a even bit more fat, but actually morbidly obese. This group tend to die much earlier than those of normal weight and can and frequently do have years of disabled and miserably mobility restricted life before death. Indeed overweight but not morbidly obese individuals can have a longer lifespan than people with clinically normal body weight usually because they are already 'on the radar' and get better medical care & screening for chronic diseases arising from their weight. Diabetes and / or or heart problems would be an example.

Quite, but the thread title is incorrect. It is a misinterpretation of an EU ruling that said that some conditions caused by obesity may be classed as a disablity that is covered by the equality act.

Much of this isn't new, some conditions caused by obesity are already classed as disabilities (mobility issues caused by obesity can make people eligible for blue badges).

And I stand by what I said, especially about those who are morbidly obese. I suspect that for every single morbidly obese person, their issues with food and diet are more complex than can just be solved by repeating "eat less" at them. I'm not sure of the purpose of the rest of your post, I don't think anyone would disagree that obesity and morbid obesity is a Bad Thing.

[Deleted User]

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Fat[ness] is also too much food when applied to for example to a true physiological condition such as lack of mobility or a thyroid issue .. .. its still too much food for the 'condition' in the same way that Stephen Hawkin is not fat because he is not fed too much food.

This is the point, it's a bit like pulling the trigger on the petrol pump until it overflows all over the garage forecourt, and then blaming the car for not using enough petrol. Even if you only have a small car that doesn't need much petrol the same still applies.

I've been forced to do less exercise because of health problems, but my calorie intake has gone down from about 3500kcal/day to 2500kcal/day.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Which came first - the chicken or the egg ?

Quite, but the thread title is incorrect

- the thread title is not incorrect, you may not like it but the O/P chose it, and that's what I'm working with
- you can choose to respond or refuse to respond to the title, but you can not respond by inventing your own interpretation of the title

And I stand by what I said

- which came first - the chicken or the egg ? what did the original post say before you edited it ?
- no one here has a clue what you said, .. .. revisionist posting is like having a conversation with a time machine
- how would people reading this know what you initially said and intended, we would have to goto the 'google cache' and read the original timestamp !

Which came first - the chicken or the egg ?

Angry_Bear

Sorry, I can no longer make sense of what you're trying to say (except that I think you object to me fixing grammar and typos). I'm out.

Richie-from-the-Boro

jack_pott wrote: »

This is the point, it's a bit like pulling the trigger on the petrol pump until it overflows all over the garage forecourt, and then blaming the car for not using enough petrol. Even if you only have a small car that doesn't need much petrol the same still applies.

I've been forced to do less exercise because of health problems, but my calorie intake has gone down from about 3500kcal/day to 2500kcal/day.

HiYa jack_pott,

Becoming clinically or morbidly obese as a direct result of an accident or intervention is not what I intended to speak to. It was more those who begin the obesity perhaps even at childhood long before even little kids go to school, perhaps that's the beginning of the '0oops loo late' that is now the world developed country norm. Mothers who work, don't work tend to make fewer meals at home, their kids are more likely to eat higher-calorie 'chicken nuggett' meals prepared in fast food restaurants or in cheepo processed packages, while heavier parents may pass on obesity-related genes to their children. Yet no child is born predisposed to obesity and one that has for the reasons above become clinically or morbidly obese can when they are aware of their impending ill health cut their intake if they choose to.

The disabled should take care of their own backyard, anyone reading this can if they choose take one whole meal out per day by eating 20% less per meal, they will not die, they will not become ill, they might be unhappy for a month or so till their stomach and appetite shrinks but they will be the better and fitter and more mobile for it. No one is actually stuck with no options, no one is frozen into morbid obesity its largely a lifestyle addiction to too much of the wrong food for your condition.

Don't be a victim, do something about it, one or even two decades of lousy mobility and bad heath, feeling pain, anger, shame, guilt, fear, loss of that something you once had is partially reversible, you can eat less and feel better for it, eating less will not make you die.

calorie intake has gone down from about 3500kcal/day to 2500kcal/day

Good for you, continuing with 3.5kcd for just a couple of years can quickly lead to serious health issues regardless of age or disposition. You made a concious decision to do something because you could do something, every one can do something by simply eating less, but many addicted to food choose not to.

[Deleted User]

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

HiYa jack_pott,

Becoming clinically or morbidly obese as a direct result of an accident or intervention is not what I intended to speak to........

That's fine, I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I'm not obese, my BMI is 18. If I'd spent the last four years overeating by 1000kcal/ day I'd have put on 29 stone by now.

It does raise the issue of eat less, exercise more, though. They're usually presented as equivalents in debates like these, and I'm not at all convinced that they are. On the basis that the body has had millions of years of evolution to enable it to adapt to it's environment, it seems eating less and exercising more are opposites.

If you exercise more, that's an incentive for your body to maintain or even increase your metabolic rate in order to power the exercise, whilst burning fat to fuel any shortfall in the energy supply.

On the other hand, if you eat less whilst doing no exercise, that's an incentive for your body to cut your metabolic rate as much as possible first, and defer burning fat for as long as possible in order to be able to survive the impending famine for longer. You have just made yourself less fit, more lethargic, and more inclined to give up. What's worse, is that if you go back to eating the same as before, the lower metabolic rate will mean that you now gain weight even faster than before.

I think it should be far easier for people to lose weight by exercising than by dieting.

Richie-from-the-Boro

jack_pott wrote: »

That's fine, I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I'm not obese, my BMI is 18. If I'd spent the last four years overeating by 1000kcal/ day I'd have put on 29 stone by now.

It does raise the issue of eat less, exercise more, though. They're usually presented as equivalents in debates like these, and I'm not at all convinced that they are. On the basis that the body has had millions of years of evolution to enable it to adapt to it's environment, it seems eating less and exercising more are opposites.

If you exercise more, that's an incentive for your body to maintain or even increase your metabolic rate in order to power the exercise, whilst burning fat to fuel any shortfall in the energy supply.

On the other hand, if you eat less whilst doing no exercise, that's an incentive for your body to cut your metabolic rate as much as possible first, and defer burning fat for as long as possible in order to be able to survive the impending famine for longer. You have just made yourself less fit, more lethargic, and more inclined to give up. What's worse, is that if you go back to eating the same as before, the lower metabolic rate will mean that you now gain weight even faster than before.

I think it should be far easier for people to lose weight by exercising than by dieting.

I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of what you are saying, quite the reverse I agree with most of what you say .. .. however I have avoided mentioning exercise in any of my posts. Its an unrealistic expectation that those who are already in a clinically / morbidly obese situation to think that they could or would even begin to take exercise. You are looking through the 'prevention' window, I'm looking at the end result of decades of inactivity and poor diet, no energy, no muscle left, no motivation to do anything.

The mind set and capacity for exercise really only comes as an after-result of first losing weight. It is usually only after the mind and body loses the weight. Having the capacity to lose weight, to self-prove that a can do attitude, will beginning from the very first day, bring about weight loss is an critical milestone in taking ownership of the problem. The capacity after many years, maybe 20 or more to arrive at clinically / morbidly obese, of any meaningful physical inactivity often needs a guided and medically supported structure.

The tangible and immediate resulting benefits of cutting the amount of food people throw down their neck on the other hand needs no intervention other than will power. Just put 20% less on your 3 meals a day and in a month you might feel like exercise, in three months your diabetes may be controllable by diet instead of chemical intervention, your barbaric surgery with all the risks that entails might not be necessary to prevent a risk to your life. You no longer feel a victim of your own self-imposed reduced quality of life - suddenly you are in charge and did so by your own effort.

Best of luck to you jack_pott !

Better_Days

I have very limited mobility and am unable to exercise. For years my weight has been stable at a healthy level, but last spring I realised that weight had been slowly creeping on, and I'd gained nearly a stone. My Dad died of a heart attack at 66 and my mother has been overweight for years and has type 2 diabetes and these things (along with my favourite trousers not fitting ) focused my mind.

I am unable to exercise but I could restrict my calories. And this is what I did and a couple of months ago I got back to my 'normal' weight'. I can highly recomend 'My Fitness Pal' for calorie counting - for me the problem wasn't so much portion size, but snacks. Grazing on sweeties and biscuits increased my calorie intake beyond what I need. My weight fluctuates a little now - but I keep it within a range of a kilo or so.

Changing eating habits isn't easy and it is so tempting to 'treat' yourself with comfort food when things are stressful. Chocolate remains my weakness , but now I keep a closer eye on my weight and awareness is the key.

What I think is so sad is the increasing percentage of overweight and obese children, and the problems that are being stored up for them for the rest of their lives.

It is interesting how some people seem to be in denial about diet. My brother, SIL and 3 nephews stayed with us for 12 days in the summer. One of my nephews gets dreadfully constipated and my brother and SIL can't understand why. Oh they say, the boys eat lots of fruit and veg and fibre. What I noticed is that my brother and SIL bought fruit etc but the boys didn't actually eat it (the chickens were very happy during those 12 days). I never actually saw the boys eat one piece of fruit apart from a couple of slices on their breakfast, and they had very little veg. My brother and SIL are totally and genuinely convinced that they give the boys a healthy diet, but I'm not convinced it is the case. It must be very difficult for HCP's to address problems like this.