But yes, type 2 is wholly genetic with triggers. If you don't have the gene, you can eat to the point of giving yourself a coronary and never develop diabetes.

I find this whole "romantic love also gets people to do crazy stuff" to be so laughably absurd when you compare it to drug use. I already explained that, you know, with romantic love comes the upside of "sustaining civilization"? Hello? Also, it's part of the human experience, because of the way human beings evolved. Drugs aren't. I can't even begin to describe how blatantly stupid I find the comparison.

*News flash*

http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2946792/productie-van-opium-in-azie-verdubbeld.html

see translate.google.nl

More good news for the world, rising opium production in south east Asia! Who cares that the land could be used to grow crops that feed poor people, let's all get a joint in celebration!

Being obese most definately raises your chances of contracting so many diseases; for example diabetees, heart disease, osteoarthritus etc....I am happy to admit that, as with Draug's example, not all people who are obese are gluttons. Likewise not all obese people contract some or any of these diseases. Surely, however, this is a matter of increased likelyhood, and if you grossly consume more calories than you expend you are more likely to be on the receiving end of these pathologies. A good comparison can be made with lung cancer. Not all of the victims are/were smokers and not all smokers get the disease, it is just that their lifestyle increases the chances of them so doing.

"Being obese most definately raises your chances of contracting so many diseases;"

Yet the supposed 'link' between "obesity" and these diseases keeps getting exposed as being a hoax. More than half the people who are obese do not have diabetes of any form, which makes your comparison to smoking and lung cancer completely bogus.

But keep looking for a scapegoat.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Obesity/34819

Not that you'll read the link, since you hate science.

You are obviously in denial about something, quite frankly I don't give a dam what it is. You are, however for whatever stupid reason you might have, spreading dangerous lies and untruths. There is a myriad of evidence connecting the diabetes epidemic to the obesity explosion. Here is a study from Finland in 2003 which has already received 560 citations in the peer reviewed corpus: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14633807

You make no mention of heart disease, osteoarthritis etc. so I guess you must accept that these conditions are proportionately more prevalent among the obese than the general population. Just to reinforce this point we have this from the UK Department of Health:

Being obese or overweight brings significant risks at a range of different points throughout life. The health risks for adults are stark. We know that, compared with a healthy weight man, an obese man is:

five times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes
three times more likely to develop cancer of the colon
more than two and a half times more likely to develop high blood pressure – a major risk factor for stroke and heart disease

An obese woman, compared with a healthy weight woman, is:

almost 13 times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes
more than four times more likely to develop high blood pressure
more than three times more likely to have a heart attack
http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/04/obesityfacts/

Whatever is at the root of your denial please do everyone else a favour and keep it to yourself.

"Whatever is at the root of your denial please do everyone else a favour and keep it to yourself."

Keep your fat hating junk science to yourself.

"http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050602/cdc-obesity-is-still-epidemic"

Anti-fat hysteria led government agencies to willingly admit that they were grossly exaggerating the links of obesity with diseases.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-jama-study-challenges-cdcs-400000-obesity-deaths-figure-54349482.html

"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14633807"

What is this study supposed to show exactly? That physically active people are healthier? I wasn't denying that. You seem to be under the impression that obese people are all inactive. People come in different body sizes. Get over it.

As for heart disease.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245809.php

''What is this study supposed to show exactly? That physically active people are healthier? I wasn't denying that. You seem to be under the impression that obese people are all inactive. People come in different body sizes. Get over it. ''

Surely even someone from a soft ''science'' background aka Political ''Science'' can compehend this:
RESULTS:

The intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in each intervention goal. After 1 and 3 years, weight reductions were 4.5 and 3.5 kg in the intervention group and 1.0 and 0.9 kg in the control group, respectively. Measures of glycemia and lipemia improved more in the intervention group.
CONCLUSIONS:

The intensive lifestyle intervention produced long-term beneficial changes in diet, physical activity, and clinical and biochemical parameters and reduced diabetes risk. This type of intervention is a feasible option to prevent type 2 diabetes and should be implemented in the primary health care system.

As for heart disease.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/245809.php

Again even someone soft on science should be able to read this and glean that obesity is a major risk factor in the development of heart disease. Just as with smoking, not all smokers get lung cancer.
Obesity is often a lifestyle choice which prejudices one's health. Sticking your fingers in your ears, pretending it isn't happening and assuming the foetal position maybe fine for you, but not for society as a whole.

@ful - No one is debating that weight and overall health don't have inter-related factors. The debate is causation versus correlation and, in fact, evidence shows that diabetes is a genetic condition often *triggered* by weight, but more often *triggered* by diet, even weight control diets.

And as far as weight loss programs go. Many, many people have glandular issues (like my hypothyroidism) that damn near make losing weight impossible. For me, 245-255 seems to be where my body hovers. When I went to Canada I hardly ate. Almost no fats and carbs/sugars were virtually none. I was eating some scrambled eggs and a piece of sausage with a whole wheat english muffin for breakfast. A grilled chicken and spinach salad (or equivalent) for lunch. And skipping dinner altogether. In one weeks time, I managed to lose 6 pounds. Same regimen the second week, but no weight loss. I tried for three more weeks after the trip eating very similar and still no additional weightloss.

I know I am anecdotal evidence, but I'm not unique. Hypothyroidism is a major factor in weight gain. And many "overwieght" diabetics suffer from it because it wasn't even tested regularly for many years. People just said "oh he's a fat slob" (doctor's included) instead of looking at the cause of the weight gain. It took going to an endocrinologist to discover my real problem and I promptly fired my doctor for never mentioning this to me as something to have looked at. In fact, it was my attempts to *lose* weight that triggered my diabetes. I was doing the citrus (especially grapefruit) diet and the excessive carbs triggered my diabetes. Notice, I said triggered, not caused. Diabetics are born with the gene. This is undeniable. Whether it is triggered or not is the question. I can almost guarantee that Halle Barry's was triggered by some kind of carb-based diet to maintain her awesome figure.

Not enough is known about the genetics of diabetes at this point to help wanr people who are at risk before they start showing signs, and fad diets like the grapefruit diet are actually horrid for diabetics.

Even Adkins is crap. If you look at how that system counts carbs, it isn't realistic. Realistically, one should only deduct half of the carbs in fiber or sugar alcohols as some of these still get converted to glucose inthe end. And one needs to look at the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load of foods to truly decide what is and isn't safe to eat. For instance white bread is bad, whole wheat is OK, whole multi grain is good.

Oh, and I will say one more little thing. Until you have a disease and health issues, you can't pretend to have done near the research as someone truly vested and interested in trying to stay healthy while dealing with their medical issues has. The research I have done into diabetes, maintaining proper bloodsugar, and healthily losing weight (low carb foods often are high fat, and low fat foods often are high carb) in the last year I guarantee is far more than your little google searches. My research is also backed by empirical evidence with my wn body (the only way to tell what foods do and don't react is to try them in controlled testing).

Putin you aren't actually trying to suggest that obesity doesn't have major health risks, are you?

Argh, I small quip to try personalize Draug's opposition to healthcare really derailed this thing.

Just waiting for that part of the debate to end :-)

How did this turn from a debate about drugs to an argument about whether it's cool to be fat?

My mind wondered of during President Eden's insane fantasy world without speed limits and I haven't really gotten back into it again.

*off

@Yonni - I don't oppose healthcare to those who need it. I oppose *free* healthcare to those who could have avoiding needing it and, in the case of drugs, that means making them pay up front. Hard drugs (my only opposition) have a serious detrimental affect on the mind and the body such that most hard drug addicts reach a point where not only are they physically destroyed, but mentally unable to hold down a job to pay for anything.

I hear the "we have recourse" line but when there is zero income and the law prohibits indentured servitude as a means of paying off a debt (no more pound of flesh), you have no recourse to collect. So, should a drug addict still be maintaining their job and have a means to pay for their care, by all means they should get it. But drug addiction is not an involuntary illness or even one brought on by everyday activity like diabetes. I would even be in favor of early intervention being covered by society because they are less likely to become a burden to their famioly, friends, and society as a whole later on with early intervention and care. But if they don't seek it out until they are that fargone, then they don't deserve it. Same with smokers. I'd be more in favor of covering "stop smoking" intervention care than paying for their care for lung cancer when the link can be clearly shown. Even with diabetes, cover early and ongoing care if the diabetic shows he is clearly putting forth the effort (meal journal, regular taking of medication and testing/monitoring) but if the person is a junk food freak and it takes a 2x4 upside the head (like my eyesight problem) then it is up to them to foot the bill.

The only reason I hold a job is so I can pay my drug bills, inlcuding internet, as webdip hundy a hard drug.

@ Draug I do not think there is as much between us as you think. If you do have a genetic predisposition to diabetes and are obese it is a recipe for disaster. Obesity is also linked to many other conditions, so as a lifestyle choice rather than the result of, for example, untreated hypothyroidism, it is not a good one. I think we can agree on that.

On diabetics themselves many are very conscientious. I know someone who takes it very seriously and has been on metformin for 20 years thereby avoiding insulin injections. Others, I have known, do not take the same responsibility for their own health. For example, I strongly suspect that some have varied their insulin intake so as to control their weight, rather than their glucose levels. Again I would describe this as a poor lifestyle choice. So in summary, and returning to the subject of the thread, most of us at some point make lifestyle choices which impinge on our health. The question is where should society draw the line in health service provision. It is a toughie I am afraid and I don't think that there are any easy answers.

"My mind wondered of during President Eden's insane fantasy world without speed limits and I haven't really gotten back into it again."

You make Fox News look like a land of intellectuals.

You make North Korea sound like home.

Draugnar, these fools are fatphobes, plain and simple. They pick and choose whatever evidence conforms to their bigotry. Next thing they'll tell us that being tall is a 'dangerous lifestyle choice' and we should stop providing tall people healthcare, since they die sooner.

The only reason I hold a job is so I can pay my drug bills, inlcuding internet, as webdip hundy a hard drug.