The issue with the actors and 300 is that you're starting with people who have a relatively healthy base (despite Hollywood's proclivity for nose candy). There's an incredible difference between training someone who's just sedentary and out of shape and training someone who is morbidly obese. Airway issues, blood pressure issues, mobility issues all come to mind.
Another question: Being underweight is associated with health problems. Many people, however, deliberately choose to be underweight and engage in unhealthy activities, often on a professional level. Should Kate Moss and Portia de Rossi be exempted from health care? I don't have a problem with trying to motivate lazy people. It's just that it's...telling...that this discussion is revolving around fat when it really should be revolving around people who refuse to help themselves despite chronic medical conditions. It's also pretty hazy as to what we're even talking about. Being fat isn't the same things as being obese, and being obese isn't always dangerous. I'm not sure the fact that a group of professional stuntment using a team of trainers were able to get in shape for a movie proves anything about long-term weight loss goals.
Almost every healthcare problem is related to life style. Should people that exercise too much and blow out their ACL be exempt from health care? What about drivers that drive too fast and crash their car? People who get cancer from working somewhere dangerous?
Yes, those will be issues at first - but it just means that they are starting from a lower point on the mountain and have that much farther to climb - it doesn't mean that they aren't capable of climbing all the way and reaching the top. I don't think anyone is arguing that being underweight can also be unhealthy, but that slides under the radar because underweight people cost the healthcare system much less in emergency treatment and lifetime costs. Also, I'm pretty sure that being obese is always dangerous. I'm still sticking with Twight's motto, despite the unrepresentative control group in the given sample.
The last two, obviously not. The first one, yes, if they're stronger and can lift more than me. So...yes. His motto doesn't really have anything to do with fat, though.
It's been a while since I changed my health care but the last time I did I remember the doctors grilling me pretty hard about what I did when I said I lifted weights. They factor lifestyles in pretty hardcore. The fact that I road dirt bikes was a concern. Should people be exempt? No, should there be a fair assessment of your risk and you should pay a rate that represents those? Yes. Fatties and the health problems that arise from that should be charged more if the dangers of weight lifting and dirt biking are factored into mine.
It has everything to do with fat; someone who is fat simply cannot perform the same kind of physical exertion that a fit person can. Someone who can to the Iron Cross on the gymnastic rings has the physique to prove it. Likewise, you'll never see someone as thin as Kate Moss attempting to squat her own bodyweight. Sumo wrestlers and strongmen are BIG, but I don't think anyone would really classify them as 'fat' in the way we are discussing it.
I'm regularly called a fat hater. Fat people slide under my radar pretty regularly, because I dismiss them. Thing is people rarely notice that I dismiss any lazy person. I have a coworker who, if I could, I would fire immediately. Not because he's obese, but because he's fucking lazy and doesn't do his goddamn job and therefore makes it harder on me to do mine. Being fat doesn't make anyone subhuman...Being too lazy to NOT be fat is what makes the difference. My climbing and weightlifting is taken into consideration when my health is assessed. They're considered risk factors, along with the fact that I like to ride The Guy's motorcycle and horses. If my lifestyle is to be taken into consideration because it's active, why wouldn't a fatbody's lifestyle be taken into consideration, when ultimately, the fatbody will cost more taxpayer money?
Why don't sumo wrestlers and strongmen count as fat? Don't you see that that's my exact point? Fat is a terrible word to use to describe the phenomenon we're talking about, because there are fat people who are lazy and in terrible shape, fat people who are in moderate shape, and fat people who are in great shape. There's nothing wrong with being fat per se. I think that's where the crux of the issue is for me, because it seems like people here are assuming that people should want to lose weight.
Underneath that mountain of a man is an athlete, and I would love to watch what happens to the person who tells him otherwise.
Honestly I see this more as a health insurance issue. Should people who need medical care get it even if they don't have insurance? That is what this topic boils down to. It's not an easy question to answer, but let's agree that being fat doesn't mean you deserve fewer rights than anyone else. Hell, I find it amusing that I'm better covered by health insurance than most fatties because my blood pressure is a perfect 120/80, despite the fact that I have been in the ER multiple times a year for almost 7 years in a row as a result of snowboarding, soccer, kayaking, weightlifting, and martial arts. (And that doesn't even account for high-risk factors that haven't landed me in the ER yet, like rock climbing and motorcycles.)
So you've agreed that fat people can be athletes -- Like offensive lineman, for an obvious example. I'm probably repeating myself to the point of annoyance, but this clearly shows that "fat" is not actually what we're discussing here. You're defining fat as lazy and unathletic, which makes your argument a useless tautology.
That's the point. You can be fat, and still be strong, coordinated, and have good cardio. When I was playing rugby, I was 5'8", 230lbs. I looked like a prop, but played inside centre. I was the third fastest guy on the team and could usually chase down other teams' wingers, who were 80-100lbs smaller than I was. I worked out lots, and biked everywhere. I was in great shape, but was fat, because I drank like a drunk, ate carbs all day, and am addicted to chocolate ice cream. Sure, if you're fat, you're not ideally healthy, but it also doesn't mean you're a bedridden sloth either.
Obesity is most assuredly a personal fault (with rare exceptions of course). You're getting fat? Stop eating so much and exercise. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to comprehend. I have no respect for anyone who blames anybody but himself for getting fat. That being said, I firmly believe that the American culture perpetuates obesity in its population. Just watch some TV and you'll see it in action; every other fucking commercial is about food. Our consumerism most assuredly cultivates fatties; couple that with the fact that advancement in technology is decreasing the need for manual labor and the average American's lifestyle is becoming more and more sedentary and you've got a problem on your hands. However, I don't believe technology advancement is the main factor because you don't see this kind of obesity in other first-world countries. I also went to London and Rome a couple years ago and I was amazed at the general fitness of the population. I did not see one person I would consider fat the entire time I was there either, which suggests the American consumerist culture is the main catalyst for the rampant obesity in this country. But you can blame society all you want, if you're fat you either fix it or you shut the fuck up. Nobody besides you is shoving food down your throat.
Do they not see the irony in this? If reducing stomach size and suppressing hunger is enough to make her lose weight, THEN YES, ALL SHE NEEDS IS DIET AND EXERCISE! If she can lose weight by eating less then just fucking eat less without the surgery. Fuck, I just ate a whole box of mac and cheese for breakfast. But you know what I'm going to do after I post this? Not sit on the couch, that's what. I'm going to go exercise and keep my lean, 160lb, sculpted, rock hard, chiseled, sexy body. I work in a restaurant and therefore tend to notice people's eating habits. One thing the vast majority of obese people that come in there have in common is that they just eat too god damn much. It's not uncommon for a couple to request a table because they can't fit in a booth, then each order an appetizer, a high calorie dinner, and dessert. They never share an appetizer, order a salad, and skip dessert. NEVER. I'm speaking strictly of obese people who can barely walk. Not about your everyday, overweight person.
Are there legitimate medical conditions that warrant being fat? Hypoglycemia? Or is it Hyperglycemia? It's my belief that unless someone has a disease where they are unable to lose the weight, they need to get off their ass. I know that losing weight it hard, but that doesn't mean you should give up. Fucking try harder. Anything worth doing is going to be difficult. Saying "it's too hard" is bullshit. In high school, I weighed 160 lbs and I'm 5'2. I was uncomfortable in my own body, so i did something about it. I stopped weighing myself (because the scale was my worst enemy, and I knew focusing on the numbers would make me feel hopeless) and focused on feeling better. At first, it was fucking hard. My legs ached, I got out of breath easily, and the workouts made me lightheaded. But I worked the fuck through it. I know this might offend people, but if you are overweight and want to do something about it, don't be such a fucking pussy. Weight loss is 50% head games. Edit: I would also like to add that, if you need medical help in order to lose weight, I have no problem with that. If you are too fat to walk (although I think if that's the case, it's a situation you got yourself into) then go ahead with the surgery. But after you have it, get your shit together. Talk to a nutritionist. If you can't afford it, there are websites you can go to that give great weight-loss tips. There is free internet in your local library. There is just no excuse not to be at a healthy weight if you really want it.
You've brought up some interesting food for thought in this thread, but I think this may be a bridge too far. Fat is not a good proxy for laziness and general levels of activity, I agree. But I think it's a fairly safe assumption that someone who comes to weigh 400 lbs, is plain lazy when it comes to taking care of themselves. I mean, 400 lbs isn't a muffin top, or a set of A-cup man boobs, it's an extra adult human being wrapped around your waist. I think your points are quite valid for people who may be carrying a bit of extra weight, and perhaps people who are just fat. But once you cross the line of morbid obesity -- and I think it's clear it's been crossed here -- the discussion really changes. Sure, there are some people out there who can probably put in 100 lbs in a 3 month fit of post-breakup binge eating, and thus cross the line into morbid obesity and get classified as lazy, etc. unfairly, but for 95% of the sample, I think drawing the conclusion that they are lazy is completely fair, justified, and supported by the evidence.
Basically. The best way I can describe it is using the inheritence concept from computer science. "Lazy" is the class, and "Fat" is the subclass. You can be lazy and not be fat, but you cannot be fat without also being lazy. It's all semantics, but I honestly don't consider linebackers or sumo wrestlers to be fat. While having a large amount of fat in their body, to me they are just big.