login
Obesity (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-10-17 5:46 PM in reply to: mrbbrad |
Member 277  |  Subject: RE: ObesityIt wouldnt be a problem if this didnt cause the person diabetes, heart disease and all sorts of nasty problems, which puts people in hospital beds and the nurses (including me) have haul their 400 lb body up the bed because they cant move Increase airfare because now the average wait of the passenger on plane has gone up. Puts them and emergency personal in danger because they cant get out of emergency situations (ie fire) because of immobility. Your insurance rates are higher because of their health problems. Their children and family member suffer because they cant get out or show theit childen a healthy lifestyle All this could be prevented with a half as healthy diet and exercise. It a BIG problem |
| 2013-10-17 6:15 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 1366  PNW | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by Kido Until they start jacking up rate JUST for the obese, or cut mine for having lower BF, I will have some concern. Agree. At my company, that's where they started two years ago. This year, they are now taking baseline measurements. Next year, you only get the discount if you improve (or maintain healthy) your numbers. And they aren't just using BMI or a quick finger stick - full fasting blood draw, BMI and waist circumference. It's a pretty sizable discount, so I think it's awesome. (rates for smokers are going up too, so changes are happening all around...) The initial few years of this were partly for information gathering and that's how they 1) determined how to best measure 'healthy' and 2) realized how bad off we were. My company is actually WORSE than the national average and that really shocked us all into making the changes I mentioned above. Edited by GLC1968 2013-10-17 6:18 PM |
| 2013-10-17 6:28 PM in reply to: GLC1968 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by GLC1968 Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by Kido Until they start jacking up rate JUST for the obese, or cut mine for having lower BF, I will have some concern. Agree. At my company, that's where they started two years ago. This year, they are now taking baseline measurements. Next year, you only get the discount if you improve (or maintain healthy) your numbers. And they aren't just using BMI or a quick finger stick - full fasting blood draw, BMI and waist circumference. It's a pretty sizable discount, so I think it's awesome. (rates for smokers are going up too, so changes are happening all around...) The initial few years of this were partly for information gathering and that's how they 1) determined how to best measure 'healthy' and 2) realized how bad off we were. My company is actually WORSE than the national average and that really shocked us all into making the changes I mentioned above. So, they're trying to deny you due to a pre-existing condition? |
| 2013-10-17 7:01 PM in reply to: pitt83 |
Master 1366 PNW | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by GLC1968 Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by Kido Until they start jacking up rate JUST for the obese, or cut mine for having lower BF, I will have some concern. Agree. At my company, that's where they started two years ago. This year, they are now taking baseline measurements. Next year, you only get the discount if you improve (or maintain healthy) your numbers. And they aren't just using BMI or a quick finger stick - full fasting blood draw, BMI and waist circumference. It's a pretty sizable discount, so I think it's awesome. (rates for smokers are going up too, so changes are happening all around...) The initial few years of this were partly for information gathering and that's how they 1) determined how to best measure 'healthy' and 2) realized how bad off we were. My company is actually WORSE than the national average and that really shocked us all into making the changes I mentioned above. So, they're trying to deny you due to a pre-existing condition? They aren't denying anyone. You just don't get the discounts unless you are healthy or you are working on being healthier. |
| 2013-10-17 7:36 PM in reply to: GLC1968 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by GLC1968 Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by GLC1968 Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by Kido Until they start jacking up rate JUST for the obese, or cut mine for having lower BF, I will have some concern. Agree. At my company, that's where they started two years ago. This year, they are now taking baseline measurements. Next year, you only get the discount if you improve (or maintain healthy) your numbers. And they aren't just using BMI or a quick finger stick - full fasting blood draw, BMI and waist circumference. It's a pretty sizable discount, so I think it's awesome. (rates for smokers are going up too, so changes are happening all around...) The initial few years of this were partly for information gathering and that's how they 1) determined how to best measure 'healthy' and 2) realized how bad off we were. My company is actually WORSE than the national average and that really shocked us all into making the changes I mentioned above. So, they're trying to deny you due to a pre-existing condition? They aren't denying anyone. You just don't get the discounts unless you are healthy or you are working on being healthier. So, say that you have a family history of colon cancer. And the you have a polyp on your first colonoscopy. Are you OK with putting you into a high risk group? My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". |
| 2013-10-17 7:59 PM in reply to: pitt83 |
Expert 1263 Wendell, NC | Subject: RE: Obesity My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? |
| 2013-10-18 1:13 AM in reply to: La Tortuga |
New user 410 | Subject: RE: Obesity Wow, who knew? Being compassionate—tuning in to other people in a kind and loving manner—can reduce risk of heart disease by boosting the positive effects of the Vagus Nerve, which helps to slow our heart rate. All these lazy obese losers could actually benefit the fitter masses thru the opportunity they provide. |
| 2013-10-18 5:41 AM in reply to: La Tortuga |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by La Tortuga My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? IWhT I'm trying to say is: Obesity is easy to identify. Indeed it is a risk factor to poor health. But it's far more complex and difficult to control than just telling that obese person to get off the couch and step away from the twinkles. We should address it as a health problem, but to pool those afflicted into higher premiums or to consider them a bigger risk isn't simple or fair. People have risks for other conditions without outward symptoms. We don't punish them. Why is iit OK to consider obesity as one risk factor which we can? |
| 2013-10-18 5:46 AM in reply to: flip18436572 |
Extreme Veteran 550 Vine Grove, KY | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by flip18436572
I think your hospital administrators should be worried about the health of the patient, but they also have to be aware of how the money will continue to come in to pay for everything that is needed. |
| 2013-10-18 7:20 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by pitt83 I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? Originally posted by La Tortuga My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I completely understand your point, Dave, but should we IGNORE obesity just because we can't address underlying heart issues or genetic predispositions to cancer? ***why is the quoting here such a messsss*********** Edited by mehaner 2013-10-18 7:21 AM |
| 2013-10-18 7:54 AM in reply to: mehaner |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by mehaner IWhT I'm trying to say is: Obesity is easy to identify. Indeed it is a risk factor to poor health. But it's far more complex and difficult to control than just telling that obese person to get off the couch and step away from the twinkles. We should address it as a health problem, but to pool those afflicted into higher premiums or to consider them a bigger risk isn't simple or fair. People have risks for other conditions without outward symptoms. We don't punish them. Why is iit OK to consider obesity as one risk factor which we can? Originally posted by pitt83 I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? Originally posted by La Tortuga My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I completely understand your point, Dave, but should we IGNORE obesity just because we can't address underlying heart issues or genetic predispositions to cancer? ***why is the quoting here such a messsss*********** Basically; yes. It's only 1 risk and it's easily identifiable. But i feel it should be dismissed when setting premiums. Do we ask every policy holder to submit to 23andme.com genetic screening? Raise the premiums on BRAC-1 positive women? How Orwellian do we go to set rates? Just because obesity is outwardly obvious doesn't mean that data is the only one used to set rates. I believe, based on my time in research, that obesity isn't as simple as "stay away from the twinkies", isn't as deadly as it's professed to be and shouldn't be singled out and used as a discriminatory criteria for selection processes. It's a complicated biochemical set of pathways which are different in all of us. |
| 2013-10-18 8:06 AM in reply to: TriathletePT |
Master 2504 Southwest Iowa | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by TriathletePT Originally posted by flip18436572
I think your hospital administrators should be worried about the health of the patient, but they also have to be aware of how the money will continue to come in to pay for everything that is needed. The problem with that statement is that reimbursement is soon going to be partly based on patient satisfaction. You call them fat, they fill out their survey saying they didn't love your care, and you get a 20% reduction in your reimbursement. Its ludicrous and asinine but that's where the Feds think we need to go. Since I don't go to the doctor very often, I obviously don't know about any forms I have to fill out to send in to say my service by XXX provider was not up to standards and would like to only pay 80% or 70%? Maybe that is our future. That is just not how I am seeing patient care at this time. I know that patients can file complaints with state authorities, but those are usually rare, or so I would hope.
|
| 2013-10-18 8:34 AM in reply to: pitt83 |
Expert 1263 Wendell, NC | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by mehaner IWhT I'm trying to say is: Obesity is easy to identify. Indeed it is a risk factor to poor health. But it's far more complex and difficult to control than just telling that obese person to get off the couch and step away from the twinkles. We should address it as a health problem, but to pool those afflicted into higher premiums or to consider them a bigger risk isn't simple or fair. People have risks for other conditions without outward symptoms. We don't punish them. Why is iit OK to consider obesity as one risk factor which we can? Originally posted by pitt83 I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? Originally posted by La Tortuga My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I completely understand your point, Dave, but should we IGNORE obesity just because we can't address underlying heart issues or genetic predispositions to cancer? ***why is the quoting here such a messsss*********** Basically; yes. It's only 1 risk and it's easily identifiable. But i feel it should be dismissed when setting premiums. Do we ask every policy holder to submit to 23andme.com genetic screening? Raise the premiums on BRAC-1 positive women? How Orwellian do we go to set rates? Just because obesity is outwardly obvious doesn't mean that data is the only one used to set rates. I believe, based on my time in research, that obesity isn't as simple as "stay away from the twinkies", isn't as deadly as it's professed to be and shouldn't be singled out and used as a discriminatory criteria for selection processes. It's a complicated biochemical set of pathways which are different in all of us. It sounds like you're saying that everyone should pay a flat insurance rate for the same service regardless of risk factor. I agree. However, while we are penalizing people with identifiable risk factors (i.e. smokers, people with high cholesterol etc.) then obese should be in that group. BTW, my original point wasn't about premiums, it was about health and how political correctness is dictating who we diagnose, prevent and treat. |
| 2013-10-18 9:53 AM in reply to: flip18436572 |
Alpharetta, Georgia Bronze member | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by flip18436572 Originally posted by TriathletePT Originally posted by flip18436572
I think your hospital administrators should be worried about the health of the patient, but they also have to be aware of how the money will continue to come in to pay for everything that is needed. The problem with that statement is that reimbursement is soon going to be partly based on patient satisfaction. You call them fat, they fill out their survey saying they didn't love your care, and you get a 20% reduction in your reimbursement. Its ludicrous and asinine but that's where the Feds think we need to go. Since I don't go to the doctor very often, I obviously don't know about any forms I have to fill out to send in to say my service by XXX provider was not up to standards and would like to only pay 80% or 70%? Maybe that is our future. That is just not how I am seeing patient care at this time. I know that patients can file complaints with state authorities, but those are usually rare, or so I would hope.
I have received surveys each time I've been to the doc (2 out of 3 docs) in the past few years; I never correlated it with reimbursement. |
| 2013-10-18 11:16 AM in reply to: 0 |
Master 1366 PNW | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by La Tortuga Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by mehaner IWhT I'm trying to say is: Obesity is easy to identify. Indeed it is a risk factor to poor health. But it's far more complex and difficult to control than just telling that obese person to get off the couch and step away from the twinkles. We should address it as a health problem, but to pool those afflicted into higher premiums or to consider them a bigger risk isn't simple or fair. People have risks for other conditions without outward symptoms. We don't punish them. Why is iit OK to consider obesity as one risk factor which we can? Originally posted by pitt83 I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? Originally posted by La Tortuga My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I completely understand your point, Dave, but should we IGNORE obesity just because we can't address underlying heart issues or genetic predispositions to cancer? ***why is the quoting here such a messsss*********** Basically; yes. It's only 1 risk and it's easily identifiable. But i feel it should be dismissed when setting premiums. Do we ask every policy holder to submit to 23andme.com genetic screening? Raise the premiums on BRAC-1 positive women? How Orwellian do we go to set rates? Just because obesity is outwardly obvious doesn't mean that data is the only one used to set rates. I believe, based on my time in research, that obesity isn't as simple as "stay away from the twinkies", isn't as deadly as it's professed to be and shouldn't be singled out and used as a discriminatory criteria for selection processes. It's a complicated biochemical set of pathways which are different in all of us. It sounds like you're saying that everyone should pay a flat insurance rate for the same service regardless of risk factor. I agree. However, while we are penalizing people with identifiable risk factors (i.e. smokers, people with high cholesterol etc.) then obese should be in that group. BTW, my original point wasn't about premiums, it was about health and how political correctness is dictating who we diagnose, prevent and treat. Since it was my company policy that seemed to spark this, I feel the need to defend. It's ALL voluntary. If you do nothing, you don't pay more. You get the same premiums as before. If you CHOOSE to take the biometric screening and attempt improvement, you can get a discount. The point it to encourage action...not to penalize the obese. I don't see a downside here, I really don't. The smoking premium is a different story. Those rates are actually going up for smokers unless you are in a cessation program. Edited by GLC1968 2013-10-18 11:18 AM |
| 2013-10-18 1:42 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: Obesity [ Discrimination! So the smokers have to put dowm the cigs or their rates are going up but the obese don't have to put down the twinkies for their rate to stay the same? Outlandish Edited by Goggles Pizzano 2013-10-18 1:43 PM |
| 2013-10-18 4:54 PM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by Goggles Pizzano Since it was my company policy that seemed to spark this, I feel the need to defend. It's ALL voluntary. If you do nothing, you don't pay more. You get the same premiums as before. If you CHOOSE to take the biometric screening and attempt improvement, you can get a discount. The point it to encourage action...not to penalize the obese. I don't see a downside here, I really don't. The smoking premium is a different story. Those rates are actually going up for smokers unless you are in a cessation program. [ Discrimination! So the smokers have to put dowm the cigs or their rates are going up but the obese don't have to put down the twinkies for their rate to stay the same? Outlandish I agree. It is a slippery slope when we start pro-rating insurance based on risk. The 'sick, lame and lazy' crowd will get screwed (without getting kissed). There are some people who catch every bug de jour that comes thru the office. There are people predestined to get diabetes. There are those that have a huge predisposition to heart attack. I'm an extremist....all or nothing, b&w kind of person. If you start singling out behavior as a risk for health insurance, where do you stop? Promiscuous sex is high risk. Gays are more prone to aides. Alcoholics prone to all sorts of illness. Smokers. Over eaters. Couch potatoes. Bungie jumpers. Motor cyclists. Triathletes who bike on the road listening to their iPod with no mirrors and wearing black.... |
| 2013-10-19 8:01 PM in reply to: lisac957 |
Expert 1456 Central New Jersey | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by lisac957 Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by La Tortuga That's funny Obesity is a huge health problem in this country but we are afraid to address it. My hospital administrators frown on me diagnosing people as obese because it reduces patient satisfaction ratings. I correlate obesity with smoking, equally dangerous and destructive. 20-30 years ago, we all knew smoking was dangerous but no one wanted to offend anyone. We have to put anti-obesity on the same level as we now have anti-tobacco. Or we could avoid hurting peoples feelings and just build more dialysis clinics. We could put Surgeon General's warning on boxes of donuts, "Warming, the Surgeon General has determined that eating donuts will make you fat." Or on the sides of bottle of Coke, "The surgeon general has determined there is absolutely zero nutritional value in this beverage. Consumption of this beverage will lead to diabetes, heart disease and death." Or, people could take personal responsibility for what they put in their pie hole.
Your comment is seriously uncaring and obviously from someone who doesn't care to understand. Once you've been obese and change you understand that most overweight people don't eat JUST to eat - they are eating to avoid dealing with the pain in their lives. Heartless comments like yours send them straight for donuts not away from like you think it would. Until the underlying problem is addressed and dealt with and ignorant people stop making stupid comments the problem won't change -  Really broke my heart that you wrote what you did - I thought more highly of you |
| 2013-10-19 8:21 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by Left Brain I couldn't care less if people are fat. Until you're flying solo somewhere and stuck in a middle seat :D |
| 2013-10-20 8:07 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by wwlani Originally posted by lisac957 Your comment is seriously uncaring and obviously from someone who doesn't care to understand. Once you've been obese and change you understand that most overweight people don't eat JUST to eat - they are eating to avoid dealing with the pain in their lives. Heartless comments like yours send them straight for donuts not away from like you think it would. Until the underlying problem is addressed and dealt with and ignorant people stop making stupid comments the problem won't change - Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by La Tortuga That's funny Obesity is a huge health problem in this country but we are afraid to address it. My hospital administrators frown on me diagnosing people as obese because it reduces patient satisfaction ratings. I correlate obesity with smoking, equally dangerous and destructive. 20-30 years ago, we all knew smoking was dangerous but no one wanted to offend anyone. We have to put anti-obesity on the same level as we now have anti-tobacco. Or we could avoid hurting peoples feelings and just build more dialysis clinics. We could put Surgeon General's warning on boxes of donuts, "Warming, the Surgeon General has determined that eating donuts will make you fat." Or on the sides of bottle of Coke, "The surgeon general has determined there is absolutely zero nutritional value in this beverage. Consumption of this beverage will lead to diabetes, heart disease and death." Or, people could take personal responsibility for what they put in their pie hole.
Really broke my heart that you wrote what you did - I thought more highly of you her comment was in response to the suggestion that the government should control what we eat - that individuals have to be responsible for what they eat. you shouldn't just take comments out of the context of the conversation. Edited by mehaner 2013-10-20 8:07 AM |
| 2013-10-20 8:08 AM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by La Tortuga Originally posted by pitt83 It sounds like you're saying that everyone should pay a flat insurance rate for the same service regardless of risk factor. I agree. However, while we are penalizing people with identifiable risk factors (i.e. smokers, people with high cholesterol etc.) then obese should be in that group. BTW, my original point wasn't about premiums, it was about health and how political correctness is dictating who we diagnose, prevent and treat. Originally posted by mehaner Basically; yes. It's only 1 risk and it's easily identifiable. But i feel it should be dismissed when setting premiums. Do we ask every policy holder to submit to 23andme.com genetic screening? Raise the premiums on BRAC-1 positive women? How Orwellian do we go to set rates? Just because obesity is outwardly obvious doesn't mean that data is the only one used to set rates. I believe, based on my time in research, that obesity isn't as simple as "stay away from the twinkies", isn't as deadly as it's professed to be and shouldn't be singled out and used as a discriminatory criteria for selection processes. It's a complicated biochemical set of pathways which are different in all of us. Originally posted by pitt83 Originally posted by La Tortuga IWhT I'm trying to say is: Obesity is easy to identify. Indeed it is a risk factor to poor health. But it's far more complex and difficult to control than just telling that obese person to get off the couch and step away from the twinkles. We should address it as a health problem, but to pool those afflicted into higher premiums or to consider them a bigger risk isn't simple or fair. People have risks for other conditions without outward symptoms. We don't punish them. Why is iit OK to consider obesity as one risk factor which we can? Originally posted by pitt83 My point is that obesity is over-stigmatized as an easily identifiable and controllable risk factor to god health. Neither is true; it's WAY more complex that "step away from the twinkles". I don't understand your point. Obesity is A) a complex disease; B) easily identifiable; C) Controllable and D) a significant risk factor. So what's "over-stigmatized" about that? Do you feel we shouldn't address obesity and over-weight as a health problem? I completely understand your point, Dave, but should we IGNORE obesity just because we can't address underlying heart issues or genetic predispositions to cancer? ***why is the quoting here such a messsss*********** Fixed it for you. You guys are seriously quote challenged. Do I get a discount since it does not run in my family? Edited by powerman 2013-10-20 8:16 AM |
| 2013-10-20 8:14 AM in reply to: #4878992 |
Expert 1456 Central New Jersey | Subject: RE: Obesity Nope...she wrote or you could watch what you put in your piehole. Shows true feelings not what govt warning shoild go on label. Its attitudes like that that will send an overweight person straight to the donuts. Tough love will not help when they dont alreasdy feel loved it just confirms their feeling |
| 2013-10-20 8:18 AM in reply to: wwlani |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Obesity OOOHHH OOOHHH OOOHHH... I KNOW... what if we classified it as a disease!!! Maybe that would help. What do you guys think?
Somebody should really run this by the AMA. |
| 2013-10-20 8:54 AM in reply to: wwlani |
Master 2167 Livonia, MI | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by wwlani Nope...she wrote or you could watch what you put in your piehole. Shows true feelings not what govt warning shoild go on label. Its attitudes like that that will send an overweight person straight to the donuts. Tough love will not help when they dont alreasdy feel loved it just confirms their feeling It's interesting to hear how a seemingly simple comment can affect some people. It gives someone like me who has always felt that obese people need tough love a different perspective. Out of curiosity, were you overweight at one time? I kind of assumed so since the comment bothered you so much but perhaps it's for a different reason. |
| 2013-10-20 9:02 AM in reply to: noelle1230 |
Expert 1456 Central New Jersey | Subject: RE: Obesity Originally posted by noelle1230 p> Out of curiosity, were you overweight at one time? I kind of assumed so since the comment bothered you so much but perhaps it's for a different reason. Yup - I lost 73 1/2 pounds - comments like the one made were made to me by my father "thinking" if he was "up front" with me it would help me "see the problem" seriously? You think I'm lugging around 75 pounds of extra weight and I hadn't noticed????? I needed to address the reasons WHY I ate (other than food tastes good) I needed to address the "issue" that I despite the fact I was happily married and had 1 healthy kid my husband didn't want anymore (we had talked about 2+ when we got married) he LOVES our son and is an AWESOME dad but found parenthood much more challenging than he imagined so he worked long hours to support us (but I knew it was to come home after our son went to bed). I wasn't happy - I was tired, I felt alone - so I ate - it didn't fix anything but it did make me feel good in the moment - it wasn't until I went to talk to someone professionally and "owned" my feelings that I was able to do anything about it. Take care of ME. I work for Weight Watchers and have since I lost the weight. You want to hear reasons why people eat? Come sit behind the desk with me for just 1 day and you will quickly realize that while some (very few) just eat because it tastes good there are some really deep unresolved issues (I have to work 3 jobs and take care of my sick mother - my husband has a brain tumor and is dying in front of me) crying doesn't fix that - can't change the situation so they eat. Just like some kids need tough love and others need a compassionate person overweight people are the same. And no I don't think we should classify it as a medical disease - it is very much a mental health issue. And yes - this is MY soapbox - sorry but it's a very personal issue |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Obesity shows comming our way Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
 | Childhood obesity causes: A poll Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| Is Obesity a Disease? Pages: 1 2 |
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK