Drudge says they’re “treated like animals”
Apr 5, 2007 Americana
An odd complaint considering that it is they who treat themselves like animals — by eating like animals (and probably eating quite a few animals as well):
“Rio’s obese treated like horses”:
Rio de Janeiro hospitals have been sending obese people to share medical test equipment with horses at the local race track, drawing complaints from activists who say the practice is humiliating.
Believe me, if these “activists” were actually “active,” they wouldn’t have this problem.
I am overweight — in fact, according to the (dubious) technical definition, I will admit that I am borderline “obese” (I am a “tall 5′ 10″ and should weigh about 180; I weigh 215 so my BMI is 30.8 — 30 or more is “obese”) — and pretty much always have been. But I have no sympathy for people who turn themselves into human garbage cans — and the percentage of people over 300 pounds who are that heavy because of unusual medical conditions must be minuscule; correct me if I’m wrong — and then expect the rest of society to make up for their… well, deficiency would hardly be the word. Here’s a classic from last November:
The [New York] City Council has revived a proposal to buy special “jumbo” ambulances for the morbidly obese, officials told The Post. The idea for the ambulances – which can easily transport people over 500 pounds – has languished in the council for years, but now lawmakers plan to hold a hearing on the issue on Tuesday.
It was spurred by the plight of labor leader, 420-pound Mark Rosenthal, who suffered a stroke in 2003.
The District Council 37 representative was forced to lie strapped on an ambulance floor, because the stretcher couldn’t fit him.
“We have to ensure that no one has to ride on the floor of an ambulance again; we would not stand for it for any protected group,” said Councilman James Sanders Jr. (D-Queens), the bill’s sponsor.
“I’m insisting that the city has one so if there is a call we know that we can save someone’s life. We read of these cases where we have to cut a wall to save someone’s life then we don’t have a way to transport them.”
Miguel Martinez, chairman of the council’s Fire and Criminal Justice Committee, added that the council wants to ensure the Fire Department is equipped for every New Yorker, morbidly obese or not.
. . .
Rosenthal said the ambulances would prove to be cost-effective for the city and could come in handy for transporting multiple people in a catastrophic event.“There is a use for them,” he said. “The only difference is they are lion-size.”
Rosenthal said he believed that buying the supersized ambulances would “end the last vestige of discrimination.”
“It’s going to save lives,” he said. “You can’t put a price on that.”
But it appears city officials aren’t eager to buy jumbo ambulances just yet. FDNY spokesman Frank Gribbon said the agency had in the last few years been acquiring stretchers that could lift people up to 700 pounds and are used in regular ambulances.
“We have more than 164 ambulances equipped with these stretchers,” Gribbon said.
Ambulances had been equipped with stretchers that could lift people up to 400 pounds.
“We feel this is adequate for now,” Gribbon added.
For now, sure. But in the long run? Fat chance.
“Lion size”? There’s a euphemism to end all euphemisms. Believe me, I understand human frailty and the desire for pleasure, as well as the other needs that make people overeat. But that’s a long way from saying that if I do it, it should be your problem. I want to fit into that (inevitable) ambulance? Eat a salad.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:11 am
“It’s going to save lives,” he said. “You can’t put a price on that.”
Actually, you can. Insurance companies do it all the time.
I hate it when people use this argument because to accept this line of reasoning, we would also have to accept that there should be no automobiles on the road (except of course fat-person ambulances.) Automobiles as they are currently configured contribute to thousands of deaths per year. According to this guy’s logic, automobiles need to be eliminated to save us from ourselves.
If a morbidly obese person requires a fat-ambulance, he or she and other interested persons should undertake responsibility for paying for one to be available when the inevitable heart-attack or other related emergency occurs. Otherwise, swallow your pride and lay on the floor of the ambulance.
April 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Oh, yes, I couldn’t pick apart all the absurdities in that article or the post would have been unwieldy. Whenever you hear that argument, it’s time to reach for your slide-rule — it’s always fallacious. Everything could be designed to be risk free, but it isn’t and shouldn’t be. When I had Dan Polsby in law school (before he moved to George Mason) he used to point out that no major skyscraper is built without several fatalities among the construction workers. If we believed “you can’t put a price on that,” there wouldn’t be any buildings above four stories, probably — if that.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:37 am
As of this morning, I’m down to 243.5 pounds from 260 two months ago. There is something to be said for Dean’s argument. My metabolism has been getting more efficient as I get older. For example, even though I cycle-commute to work most days, and put in an average of 65 miles of cycling a week, and have done so for the last six years, my BMI is currently 28.9 (I’m 6′5″). And I never eat candy, soda, desserts, snack foods, or fast food.
Atkins seems to be the only way to get my weight down. And I need to get to 210 lbs to qualify as a healthy BMI.
April 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Ah, yes. Atkins.
April 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Okay, I’m worse than you both. I try to exercise daily, and do most days, but once you enter the 40’s, at least I’ve found that it gets much harder.
Atkins makes me ill and very cranky, not in that order. I just have to do the old “eat less” exercise more. That seems to work as I’ve toned down some, but still have a long while to go.
April 5th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Ron, your remarks about Atkins can be applied to any diet, including learning to eat less (it works until you stop doing it, then you gain weight again). But low-carb diets have a higher rate of long-term success than most diets because people feel less deprived while on it.
At least that’s what I tell myself while chowing down on butter sticks topped with mayo.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Deprivation is the word. The success rate for long term weight loss is pathetic. In the face of cheap, tempting food, few can deny themselves for long. Even rats that stay slim on rat chow get fat when given tastier fare.
A low carb diet that includes a generous proportion of colorful, nutrient-rich vegetables seems best for health, but even then, you can’t get away from the need for strict portion control.
And age. If you think it gets harder at forty, wait ’til you hit sixty.
April 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Another thing: we always talk about weight loss, but what we really want is fat loss. Pound for pound, successful low carb dieters lose more fat than successful higher carb dieters.
This was confirmed for me recently by a friend who has gone on Atkins, yet again. He said he isn’t losing pounds so much as inches. That reflects a loss of low density fat offset by a growth of higher density muscle. He works in a warehouse and spends eight hours a day on the move.
Beer and pizza will be his downfall. It always is. Me, too.
April 5th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I’m often amazed that people don’t seem to read what I say carefully.
No one says that you can just eat whatever you want and act however you want and blame it on your genes.
Rather, let me repeat, with precision:
An efficient metabolism (one that conserves every calorie) is a metabolism that encourages overweight and obesity. And you cannot help it if you have this genetic inheritance. We no longer live in a world where being “poor” means you don’t have enough to eat. So there are now more fat people as a result.
This does not mean that if you’re overweight you excuse every behavior you have to that. But it does mean that it’s cruel to just suggest that if you’re overweight you’ve got a deep character flaw. To put it on the flip side, it also does not mean that if you are slender it means you are more virtuous than others.
It’s really that simple.
Except I will repeat that if you look at the research, while watching what you eat and exercising (which is what you should do if you want to be healthy anyway) will help prevent weight problems from getting worse–and they will–there is precious little evidence that you can actually BE 300 pounds and get yourself down to a healthy 180 just by suddenly “finding religion” and getting “more disciplined.” Most of the data we have suggests that if if you do get that heavy, your metabolism does funky thinks and reversing it is damn near impossible unless you spend the rest of your life in constant hunger and misery.
Put it this way: a smoker gets cancer. Do you tell him if he’d just stop smoking the cancer would go away? Same thing for the chronically obese.
This doesn’t mean society needs to completely reorganize itself around such principles, but a bit of humility and a bit of human decency is surely in order.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I agree with you, Dean. Who said otherwise?
April 5th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
You liberal, you.