Being Fat is Now Illegal in Japan

[RatioFitness]

I don't think it's talking about taxing foods (like Denmark's tax of fat...) But taxing the obese person. So losing weight to combat the weight gain would help them pay less.

In the U.S. the debate is mostly around taxing or subsidizing food.

I am totally against that.I thought it was about the Japan one. Theirs is something I agree with.

So you agree that measuring peoples fatness is the best public health policy?

That's unfairly discriminatory against fat people, who aren't necessarily less healthy then normal weight people.

Long-term effects of changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and body mass index on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in men: the aerobics center longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND:

The combined associations of changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and body mass index (BMI) with mortality remain controversial and uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

We examined the independent and combined associations of changes in fitness and BMI with all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in 14 345 men (mean age 44 years) with at least 2 medical examinations. Fitness, in metabolic equivalents (METs), was estimated from a maximal treadmill test. BMI was calculated using measured weight and height. Changes in fitness and BMI between the baseline and last examinations over 6.3 years were classified into loss, stable, or gain groups. During 11.4 years of follow-up after the last examination, 914 all-cause and 300 CVD deaths occurred. The hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of all-cause and CVD mortality were 0.70 (0.59-0.83) and 0.73 (0.54-0.98) for stable fitness, and 0.61 (0.51-0.73) and 0.58 (0.42-0.80) for fitness gain, respectively, compared with fitness loss in multivariable analyses including BMI change. Every 1-MET improvement was associated with 15% and 19% lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality, respectively. BMI change was not associated with all-cause or CVD mortality after adjusting for possible confounders and fitness change. In the combined analyses, men who lost fitness had higher all-cause and CVD mortality risks regardless of BMI change.

CONCLUSIONS:

Maintaining or improving fitness is associated with a lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality in men. Preventing age-associated fitness loss is important for longevity regardless of BMI change.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22144631

[Philip Chubb]

I might lose all credibility with this statement and that is absolutely fine to me. But I don't read studies anymore. You can pull out all the studies you want and I can go find five to refute it and vice versa. If you really think being fat isn't any less healthy and being lean then there is no way I can even discuss this any further.

[Ian Legrow]

philip if no one else say it, i don't care. You get my props buddy

[RatioFitness]

You can pull out all the studies you want and I can go find five to refute it and vice versa.

Ok, I challenge you to find 5 studies that refute this one.

[Philip Chubb]

philip if no one else say it, i don't care. You get my props buddy

Thank you,my friend. I am too old for internet debating anymore. When you hit a certain level of training, you realize the cortisol rise isn't worth it.

You can pull out all the studies you want and I can go find five to refute it and vice versa.

Ok, I challenge you to find 5 studies that refute this one.

I have a better idea. You go on a Poliquin or Bowden website and find five studies. As I made it clear in the last post, there is no way I can discuss this further with you.

[Ian Legrow]

I am too old for internet debating anymore

love it. I know people who are over forty and still do it! HAHAH i am 22 and i don't!

respect, my friend, respect

-Ian

[RatioFitness]

I have a better idea. You go on a Poliquin or Bowden website and find five studies. As I made it clear in the last post, there is no way I can discuss this further with you.

Can you give me one link on their site to get me started, at least? I don't visit those sites so I'm much less familiar with them.

[Ian Legrow]

People don't like to have to change their lifestyles.

A person shouldn't "have" to change their lifestyle because some person or government wants to say it is illegal for you to be overweight or other people criticizing the way one lives their life

Don't piss off the fat population...they are rapidly becoming the majority :wink:

I do not want to ruffle any feather's i cannot stress this enough. but i feel as if this is a cop-out. I feel that saying a person shouldn't have to change their life style because people or the government want to say its illegal, is the wrong way to say it maybe. Because the government and people CERTAINLY have made meth illegal and people who still do it usually only surround themselves with the only people who will truly accept them; other meth addicts. And even then there is no trust in those relationships.

That aside, fat people are also in jsut as much healthy risk. I mean forget abou the heart and arteries for a second, think about the joints! What am about to say next i have only HEARD i am not saying its true, but if it is i stand by it. Metabolism is one of the utmost unique things in our body. i read a study that once said if we understood our metabolism's we could theoretically cure cancer, but nobody really understands what metabolism is. People are going to do what they want nop matter what, but i feel that if kid's can't buy cigarettes, and no one can buy them until they are 18, why are we doing something just as bad, with no age restriction?

Just my opinion.

-Ian

[Philip Chubb]

I have a better idea. You go on a Poliquin or Bowden website and find five studies. As I made it clear in the last post, there is no way I can discuss this further with you.

Can you give me one link on their site to get me started, at least? I don't visit those sites so I'm much less familiar with them.

I am not sure about how accepted it is to post links to other training websites here and I don't want to post anything if it is against forum rules, but if you look up "poliquin belly fat lose it" it is the first article on google.

I am too old for internet debating anymore

love it. I know people who are over forty and still do it! HAHAH i am 22 and i don't!

respect, my friend, respect

-Ian

The sad part is I am only 20. You are smart not to, my friend. I will take this advise .

People don't like to have to change their lifestyles.

A person shouldn't "have" to change their lifestyle because some person or government wants to say it is illegal for you to be overweight or other people criticizing the way one lives their life

Don't piss off the fat population...they are rapidly becoming the majority :wink:

And another person shouldn't "have" to pay for the first person's medical bills when they treated their bodies like crap unlike some of us who force time for exercise and spend money on quality food and supplementation. Do you understand what I am saying now? I could care less how someone looks. I simply shouldn't have to pay for them. They should pay for them. If they want to be unhealthy, then tax them so that when they are in the hospital a few years later, they have money saved up for their surgery. Not from my paycheck though.

I don't mean to sound cold. If someone from this board needed a kidney transplant and was raising money for it, I would donate. But I wouldn't be happy to if it was someone who had been eating in a way that made them need this transplant. "Oh I got myself into trouble, now you bail me out". I would probably still help. But should my money automatically go to someone who can't even take decent care of themselves? Maybe that is the real violation.

[RatioFitness]

I am not sure about how accepted it is to post links to other training websites here and I don't want to post anything if it is against forum rules, but if you look up "poliquin belly fat lose it" it is the first article on google.

Ok. How does that article disprove what I am saying? Did that article discuss associations between changes in fitness and BMI on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality?

[Philip Chubb]

I am not sure about how accepted it is to post links to other training websites here and I don't want to post anything if it is against forum rules, but if you look up "poliquin belly fat lose it" it is the first article on google.

Ok. How does that article disprove what I am saying? Did that article discuss associations between changes in fitness and BMI on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality?

I am just finding an article for you off the top of my head. It leads to his site where you can browse the articles and see for yourself. If you truely believe that being fat can be just as healthy as being lean, once again, I am unable to discuss this with you. That sort of thinking is simply too radical. Once again as well, show me all the studies you want to show, I don't take them as solid evidence for a reason. Just because you find a study that proves your point doesn't mean there aren't other that show opposite. Now if you want to wait for science to prove something on this, go ahead. Personally, I am not wasting my time here anymore.

[RatioFitness]

Ah, my bad, I thought you meant to show me an article looking at the same thing.

I think it's painfully obvious that the person that can't be talk to is not me, but you.

What I'm saying is that one can be "fit but fat." It's not a radical idea, and it's been around for a few years. Maybe it's wrong, but throwing up your hands refusing to discuss a topic when someone presents evidence that isn't in your favor is childish. Rational people who are concerned with the truth discuss things with others who don't agree with them to get other points of view, and be exposed to other ways of thinking and evidence. It's a great way to learn.

Fact is, you're a 20 year old kid and you don't know as much as you think you do. It's unfortunate that you've dragged this conversation down.

[Philip Chubb]

Ah, my bad, I thought you meant to show me an article looking at the same thing.

I think it's painfully obvious that the person that can't be talk to is not me, but you.

What I'm saying is that one can be "fit but fat." It's not a radical idea, and it's been around for a few years. Maybe it's wrong, but throwing up your hands refusing to discuss a topic when someone presents evidence that isn't in your favor is childish. Rational people who are concerned with the truth discuss things with others who don't agree with them to get other points of view, and be exposed to other ways of thinking and evidence. It's a great way to learn.

Fact is, you're a 20 year old kid and you don't know as much as you think you do. It's unfortunate that you've dragged this conversation down.

I simply backed out of this disagreement because I think I don't lik debating over the internet anymore. And it isn't just this one. It is a couple I am involved with. And it isn't just you so please do not think that I am upset at you. You are entitled to your opinion as well. So I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if I was upset.

However, you're saying I'm bringing the conversation down when you just called me a kid and said I don't know as much as I think? Not once, did I attack you personally. This is the exact reason I wanted to leave the conversation. I find people on the internet tend to go to this level. As you just did.

Edit: In hind sight, I did come off as very upset. I didn't mean talking was actually a waste of time. Bad choice of words on my part on a forum where emotions can't really be read. Once again, I apologize if I came off as upset.

[RatioFitness]

Ah, my bad, I thought you meant to show me an article looking at the same thing.

I think it's painfully obvious that the person that can't be talk to is not me, but you.

What I'm saying is that one can be "fit but fat." It's not a radical idea, and it's been around for a few years. Maybe it's wrong, but throwing up your hands refusing to discuss a topic when someone presents evidence that isn't in your favor is childish. Rational people who are concerned with the truth discuss things with others who don't agree with them to get other points of view, and be exposed to other ways of thinking and evidence. It's a great way to learn.

Fact is, you're a 20 year old kid and you don't know as much as you think you do. It's unfortunate that you've dragged this conversation down.

I simply backed out of this disagreement because I think I don't lik debating over the internet anymore. And it isn't just this one. It is a couple I am involved with. And it isn't just you so please do not think that I am upset at you. You are entitled to your opinion as well. So I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if I was upset.

However, you're saying I'm bringing the conversation down when you just called me a kid and said I don't know as much as I think? Not once, did I attack you personally. This is the exact reason I wanted to leave the conversation. I find people on the internet tend to go to this level. As you just did.

Edit: In hind sight, I did come off as very upset. I didn't mean talking was actually a waste of time. Bad choice of words on my part on a forum where emotions can't really be read. Once again, I apologize if I came off as upset.

I didn't think you were mad but I perceived your comments as an attack on my character. I felt that your comment, "I am unable to discuss this with you," implied that I am too stupid and/or close minded to have a discussion with. Which would explain why you felt it was a waste of time to talk to me.

If that wasn't your intention then I apologize for taking it that way. My comments were a reflection of the fact that I felt you were slighting me.

Let's just let bygones be bygones.

[Philip Chubb]

No not at all. I simply don't use studies so if that is the main thing you need for proof, I seriously can't debate it with you. Someone else could if they wanted to. But since I don't use studies, for me that wouldn't be possible. People don't tend to take that seriously. I don't think anyone here is stupid or overly closed minded.

[Edward Smith]

It actually mentions BMI as opposed to fat PHILLIP.

BMI being a much more economical way to test people, of course that comes at the expensive of being accurate/valid.

[Joseff Lea]

I'm sorry if this comes across as condescending, but you have to be very careful with the conclusions that you draw from isolated studies and how you read those conclusions, to me this this study sounds fairly well conducted (however from the way it's designed you cannot draw a direct cause affect conclusion, only an association), and I am happy to accept the conclusion which is "Preventing age-associated fitness loss is important for longevity regardless of BMI change"

However this tells you nothing about the many other risks associated with being overweight, nor does the study investigate the associated fitness loss over time with increased BMI.

Personally I'm all for this type of legislation. I believe in national healthcare and as part of a national system everyone has a responsibility to minimize (within reason) the risks they expose themselves to. which is why as soon as I am able I will take out my own health insurance as I partake in some extreme sports and I don't see why others should pay for my care if I break my back and need 24/7 care for the rest of my life. And after drinking and Smoking, diseases associated with Obesity are the responsible for the largest number of hospital admittances and this is set to grow dramatically.

Plus I think in the long run it will make people happier and have a better quality of life and I like seeing people being happy.

[RatioFitness]

No not at all. I simply don't use studies so if that is the main thing you need for proof, I seriously can't debate it with you. Someone else could if they wanted to. But since I don't use studies, for me that wouldn't be possible. People don't tend to take that seriously. I don't think anyone here is stupid or overly closed minded.

Ok, we're definitely cool then.

If I may something in closing I would note that obviously you believe you know things about subjects that science studies. The "scientific method" is a method for gaining knowledge about the natural world. In stating that you don't look at scientific studies but you still know things about natural phenomena, you are implying that the "Philip method" of knowing is superior to the scientific method. Are you absolutely sure that is true? Is it true in principle? Or just in practice? Or in both? Do you even have a method?

You can respond if you like, or not. If you chose to do so, I will not respond back as you've already made it clear you don't wish to debate me. I'd just be interested in hearing what you have to say.

[Philip Chubb]

No not at all. I simply don't use studies so if that is the main thing you need for proof, I seriously can't debate it with you. Someone else could if they wanted to. But since I don't use studies, for me that wouldn't be possible. People don't tend to take that seriously. I don't think anyone here is stupid or overly closed minded.

Ok, we're definitely cool then.

If I may something in closing I would note that obviously you believe you know things about subjects that science studies. The "scientific method" is a method for gaining knowledge about the natural world. In stating that you don't look at scientific studies but you still know things about natural phenomena, you are implying that the "Philip method" of knowing is superior to the scientific method. Are you absolutely sure that is true? Is it true in principle? Or just in practice? Or in both? Do you even have a method?

You can respond if you like, or not. If you chose to do so, I will not respond back as you've already made it clear you don't wish to debate me. I'd just be interested in hearing what you have to say.

I am happy to converse all you want. I don't want to debate as in I won't try to convince you otherwise anymore. But I do welcome any opinion. I just won't argue it (not simply because of you, but in all online forums, I am not arguing anything anymore. Or any matter for that)

I find studies to be very opposite from experience. The only study I really care about is ones of myself and the people I train. I have never found a "perfect" study so I don't believe them. I base it more on the exact results I have seen from most people. (From taking a class of making and reading studies to be able to find flaws.) For example, cardiovascular risk and BMI. BMI is already flawed because very musclar people often have a "bad" BMI. I myself do because I am short but am shaped like a yield sign.

[RatioFitness]

It actually mentions BMI as opposed to fat PHILLIP.

BMI being a much more economical way to test people, of course that comes at the expensive of being accurate/valid.

Actually, body fat% if also measured in the study. See figure 1.

[RatioFitness]

I'm sorry if this comes across as condescending, but you have to be very careful with the conclusions that you draw from isolated studies and how you read those conclusions, to me this this study sounds fairly well conducted (however from the way it's designed you cannot draw a direct cause affect conclusion, only an association), and I am happy to accept the conclusion which is "Preventing age-associated fitness loss is important for longevity regardless of BMI change"

However this tells you nothing about the many other risks associated with being overweight, nor does the study investigate the associated fitness loss over time with increased BMI.

I would say that all-cause mortality and CVD mortality are most salient risks associated with being overweight. I don't understand your second statement, "nor does the study investigate the associated fitness loss over time with increased BMI." Increasing BMI does not necessarily cause a loss of cardiovascular fitness. Those who gained both BMI and fitness were not at an increased risk of mortality.

Personally I'm all for this type of legislation. I believe in national healthcare and as part of a national system everyone has a responsibility to minimize (within reason) the risks they expose themselves to. which is why as soon as I am able I will take out my own health insurance as I partake in some extreme sports and I don't see why others should pay for my care if I break my back and need 24/7 care for the rest of my life. And after drinking and Smoking, diseases associated with Obesity are the responsible for the largest number of hospital admittances and this is set to grow dramatically.

Plus I think in the long run it will make people happier and have a better quality of life and I like seeing people being happy.

Which type of legislation are you for? The food taxes/subsidies or taxing fat/circumference?

Research such as I have shown lends credence to the position that targeting the person is unfairly discriminatory, since you would be taxing a fit fat person but not a unfit skinny person. The latter is at an increased risk of death and therefore they would probably cost more in medical spending.

That's no different that racial discrimination.

[RatioFitness]

I am happy to converse all you want. I don't want to debate as in I won't try to convince you otherwise anymore. But I do welcome any opinion. I just won't argue it (not simply because of you, but in all online forums, I am not arguing anything anymore. Or any matter for that)

I find studies to be very opposite from experience. The only study I really care about is ones of myself and the people I train. I have never found a "perfect" study so I don't believe them. I base it more on the exact results I have seen from most people. (From taking a class of making and reading studies to be able to find flaws.) For example, cardiovascular risk and BMI. BMI is already flawed because very musclar people often have a "bad" BMI. I myself do because I am short but am shaped like a yield sign.

Well, I'm no sure how we could have a conversation about this without debating, since we disagree with eachother.

I don't think studies need to be "perfect" in order to learn anything from them. That's an impossibly high and unreasonable standard. By that standard, you cannot learn anything from experience either. Experience is not perfect, it is full of bias. There are a myriad of ways in which your experience can lead to faulty conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Of course, our knowledge of cognitive bias is based on scientific studies, so you probably don't believe anything that on that page.

Another nice article on why personal experience often is not enough can be found here:

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/onli ... ed-science

[Joseff Lea]

I would say that all-cause mortality and CVD mortality are most salient risks associated with being overweight. I don't understand your second statement, "nor does the study investigate the associated fitness loss over time with increased BMI." Increasing BMI does not necessarily cause a loss of cardiovascular fitness. Those who gained both BMI and fitness were not at an increased risk of mortality

Probably true but were not just talking about mortality here, as has been said on this thread there are increased risk of many things with being overweight e.g arthritis which is not terminal but does lower the quality of someones life and can require treatment.

Yeah I should have made this clearer, what I'm saying is: is there a link between having an increased BMI and becoming less fit as you age? i.e is someone who is overweight more likely to become more unfit as they age than someone who is not overweight? And thus suffer from an increased risk of CV diseases? I haven't read any studies which show this association but I suspect that it is true.

Which type of legislation are you for? The food taxes/subsidies or taxing fat/circumference?

A good question and one that I think requires very careful consideration. Personally I would like to see something like this tackled gradually so as not to discriminate against people too much. I like the idea of promoting activities in the workplace as shown in the video, this coupled with unhealthy food being taxed more and dropping the tax on fruits and vegetables would be a good start. Ideally you want to create a culture of being active in the society where everyone goes to do a sport after work instead of vegetating in front of the tv.

Promoting cycle routes in major cities would be good idea, a congestion charge could help with this but I'm not sure that I like that idea too much.

I don't think measuring waist sizes is the best route to go, but it's a start and it is a massive problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Unfortunately there are always going to be people who are discriminated against in society, sad fact but true, however your weight is something you have control over and can change (in the vast majority of cases with some notable exceptions), in a way it's a choice maybe not a conscious one but you can argue that a heroin addict feels like they have no choice either. I know that's a extreme example but I'm just using it to illustrate my point.

[Philip Chubb]

I am happy to converse all you want. I don't want to debate as in I won't try to convince you otherwise anymore. But I do welcome any opinion. I just won't argue it (not simply because of you, but in all online forums, I am not arguing anything anymore. Or any matter for that)

I find studies to be very opposite from experience. The only study I really care about is ones of myself and the people I train. I have never found a "perfect" study so I don't believe them. I base it more on the exact results I have seen from most people. (From taking a class of making and reading studies to be able to find flaws.) For example, cardiovascular risk and BMI. BMI is already flawed because very musclar people often have a "bad" BMI. I myself do because I am short but am shaped like a yield sign.

Well, I'm no sure how we could have a conversation about this without debating, since we disagree with eachother.

I don't think studies need to be "perfect" in order to learn anything from them. That's an impossibly high and unreasonable standard. By that standard, you cannot learn anything from experience either. Experience is not perfect, it is full of bias. There are a myriad of ways in which your experience can lead to faulty conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Of course, our knowledge of cognitive bias is based on scientific studies, so you probably don't believe anything that on that page.

Another nice article on why personal experience often is not enough can be found here:

http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/onli ... ed-science

Quite true. Now, I also have the experience of people before me. Like Poliquin etc. These are people I trust and choose to learn from. I still confirm everything through my own experience but like I said, there's only one important study and that is the one that affects me or the person I'm working with. Or you if you're thinking of your case. So you could basically get fat and see if you are still healthy. Not just about cardiovascular risk, but also other issues that come along with overweight. The best part is you control the experiement and there's no companies paying to alter data. Kind of like those high fructose corn syrup commercials that say hfcs is just as okay as any other type of sugar.

[RatioFitness]

Probably true but were not just talking about mortality here, as has been said on this thread there are increased risk of many things with being overweight e.g arthritis which is not terminal but does lower the quality of someones life and can require treatment.

If you waved a magic wand and eliminated all this extra medical spending among the obese, I doubt you would eliminate .2% of medical spending. It's totally superfluous in the grand scheme of medical spending.

Yeah I should have made this clearer, what I'm saying is: is there a link between having an increased BMI and becoming less fit as you age? i.e is someone who is overweight more likely to become more unfit as they age than someone who is not overweight? And thus suffer from an increased risk of CV diseases? I haven't read any studies which show this association but I suspect that it is true.

You can read a study about this... the one I posted.

In the study, people who gained weight tended to lose fitness, moreso than people who lost weight or maintained weight.

But so what? Some people gained weight and fitness. They were better off than people who lost weight and lost fitness.

Unfortunately there are always going to be people who are discriminated against in society, sad fact but true, however your weight is something you have control over and can change (in the vast majority of cases with some notable exceptions)...

Sure, people are always going to get discriminated against, but that isn't an excuse to institutionalize discrimination. We can't stop citizens from discriminating in their personal lives, but we can stop or prevent the government from doing so.