Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
njtosd
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
Just curious, SK – is your brother an identical or fraternal twin? In any event, I completely agree with you. I can’t tell whether people are more interested in patting themselves on the back for their good habits or in condemning those who they believe have bad habits. (And who knows which is which? My mother traded in butter for margarine in the 70s because it was supposed to be a healthier alternative, and it’s full of trans fats.)[/quote]
We’re fraternal twins. I have the hereditary things that my parents had. Hypertension, type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol (all of them very well controlled with low doses of drugs, and a reasonably good diet). He doesn’t have any of those things. Just a shitload of other things that aren’t very hereditary.[/quote]
Okay, now I’m really curious about the reason for njtosd’s asking this question. NJ, have you heard that there is an increased risk for melanoma among sets of twins?[/quote]
There is definitely a genetic component (and genetic factors are easiest to see in identical twins). See: http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/familial-malignant-melanoma
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=njtosd]I can’t tell whether people are more interested in patting themselves on the back for their good habits or in condemning those who they believe have bad habits. [/quote]
I really think that people are afraid of reality — they don’t want to consider the fact that death and dying are a reality for all of us, and we do NOT get to decide when or how it will happen. A religious belief in certain health-related rituals (eating only organic/vegetarian/vegan/calorie restriction, etc.); extreme exercising; refraining from drinking or smoking, etc. is like carrying around a “good luck” charm. If they believe in it strongly enough, they think it will become reality.
While trying to engage in healthful activities and refraining from bad habits will, in the aggregate, offer more people a better chance at living longer, healthier lives, it is still nowhere near a guarantee that they will do so.[/quote]
Amen to that :).Participant[quote=SK in CV]
You’re lucky you’re healthy. I’m sure you like to attribute it to your healthy lifestyle. It’s still just luck.……
So be happy and count your blessings. But don’t for a minute think that your good health is just because you took care of yourself. So do a lot of other people who aren’t near as lucky as you.[/quote]
Just curious, SK – is your brother an identical or fraternal twin? In any event, I completely agree with you. I can’t tell whether people are more interested in patting themselves on the back for their good habits or in condemning those who they believe have bad habits. (And who knows which is which? My mother traded in butter for margarine in the 70s because it was supposed to be a healthier alternative, and it’s full of trans fats.)
If anyone has had the bad luck of inheriting bad genes (such as defective p53) they’ve got a good chance of developing a number of cancers (and other things), irrespective of diet and exercise. There are no guarantees of health or longevity in this life . . .
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
Children conceived during famine had much higher rates of all kinds of things, including obesity. Maybe all of these women on diets are doing their offspring a disservice.[/quote]How about children conceived by overweight parents?
They could be predisposing their kids to diseases.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/251885-you-are-what-your-grandpa-eats/
No question about it. I happen to think that the current weight issues have much more to do with changes in activity level vs. people becoming “weak” or whatever you think it is.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908185228.htm
In short, the Amish, who are very active, carry a gene that predisposes people to obesity at the same rate as the general population. However, the ones carrying the gene are generally not obese. The hypothesis is that somehow the activity counteracts whatever the gene is doing.
Something like working dogs – if they don’t get exercise, they can get mean. Maybe in humans a lack of exercise results in overeating.
I attribute very little to free will. People are driven by millions of years of genetic selection. The environment has changed (and I don’t mean that in the trees and rivers sense) and it has resulted in, among other things, an obesity epidemic. Pima tribe is a perfect example.
Here’s the cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8422781
And here is the conclusion: The high prevalence of obesity and NIDDM in the Pima Indian community might be the consequence of a “thrifty genotype.” The increasing evidence that obesity cannot always be attributed to gluttony and sloth forces us to consider obesity as a “real metabolic disease” that needs to be treated as such, using new behavioral and pharmacological therapies.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
Nobody is born into a fat adult.
There’s a 20 years process to grow up into adulthood, then there’s another 20 years to get to middle age.[/quote]
Brian, you keep spouting opinions and self congratulatory remarks, but provide no data. Your point about how people are born brought to mind this study of children conceived in the Netherlands during the WWII blockade (1944-45).
http://www.hongerwinter.nl/item.php?id=32&language=EN
Children conceived during famine had much higher rates of all kinds of things, including obesity. Maybe all of these women on diets are doing their offspring a disservice . . .
People like you and joec want to believe that there are simple answers (i.e. people have problems because they are weak). I agree that self control is an issue, but I do not believe that it is the only issue.
I am happy that there are well educated, creative people out there who have open minds who will help the world find answers to its problems. You are welcome to ignore them if you like.
Participant[quote=CA renter]I’ve seen it with my own eyes in my own family. I’ve known what all of these people eat and what they do on a daily basis. We have an endomorphic line and a more mesomorphic/ectomorphic line. There is NO QUESTION that there are far more important factors than diet and exercise.
And chemicals and hormones don’t cause food addictions that I know of; they affect how the body holds onto calories.
http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/is-your-medicine-cabinet-making-you-fat
It’s easy to be judgmental when you’re the one with a fast metabolism and a naturally high energy level; not so easy for those whose bodies store all of their calories as opposed to converting them to kinetic energy right away.
You know those studies showing that people who bounce their legs and squirm around a lot tend to be lighter? They’re not lighter because they move around; they move around because their bodies *automatically* convert the calories to kinetic energy…they can’t keep themselves from moving. OTOH, there are others who have to intentionally focus on making every movement, with every limb feeling exceptionally heavy and every movement requiring exhausting, deliberate action (those who some ignorant types might call “lazy”). This isn’t because some people are choosing to be “lazy,” their bodies are trying to store those calories, instead of burning them off![/quote]
It’s hard to tease out causation in this issue. However, I think an interesting and tragic case proves that brain anatomy, and by extension, brain signaling is involved. Girl who was previously thin and adorable had a small benign brain tumor removed. Apparently hypothalamus was injured. During the next two years she gained 151 lbs – metabolic syndrome, fatty liver, diabetes, etc. theoretically she is on a strict exercise routine and diet. I’ve got to believe that’s true because I’m sure the parents were desperate. Assuming facts are as stated, it is clearly not a matter of calories. And even if her choices have changed, it is brain driven. Interestingly, gastric bypass is helping, thank heavens.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Capitalism is all about maximizing profits, and nothing else. That’s why we need to regulate it. Personally, I believe in capitalism for the wants, as long as it doesn’t pollute the environment or use up scarce natural resources; we need socialism for the needs, and for the allocation of scarce natural resources, IMHO.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in a for-profit healthcare system. What’s best for patients (prevention, a healthy life with the least intervention) is not at all what’s best for the medical industry.[/quote]
One of the biggest roadblocks is medical malpractice/product liability. In most places other than the US doctors, pharma companies, etc don’t have to worry much about lawsuits (contingency fee arrangements are not allowed in most countries and lawyers are VERY expensive). This changes the ultimate cost of healthcare. Would the average American be willing to give up the option of suing for malpractice or product liability if they were negligently harmed?
Participant[quote=TemekuT]My heart goes out to both of you – BG and CardiffBaseball. I have the same situation with my beloved baby sis, who has always been vigilant about diet, weight, exercise. She was diagnosed with stage IV cancer 2 years ago at age 47 and is fighting with all she’s got. Thankfully, when she was struggling financially in the prior 2 years, she did not cancel her PPO and now has many care choices and can be selective about her treatments. I believe my sis will benefit from Obamacare and I am fine with helping her and others similarly stricken.
On the other hand, I will now have to contribute to relatives, acquaintances, and strangers’ future medical costs due to their laziness, lack of discipline and bad choices. I have some relatives that take cholesterol meds and blood pressure meds, but indulge almost daily in bacon, egg, and donut breakfasts. I get to watch as the metabolic syndrome they obviously have transforms into diabetes. They regularly circle around parking lots to get the spot closest to the restaurant door, where they consume pizza or fried chicken, followed by sugary and fatty desserts. They have packed on the pounds around their middles, and it’s not attractive being 50 lbs overweight.
Now my sis, that’s just genetic bad luck, but I do resent paying for others’ preventable conditions.
BG – I also have an individual AETNA PPO and received the letter, and am confused about what to do. I take great care of myself, with a very healthy diet and lots of exercise. I am slim, and have no conditions at 55+. It’s not always fun to haul myself out of bed early like I did this morning, walk a few miles, and then breakfast on oatmeal, but I do it because I want to be a healthy oldster.[/quote]
TemkuT – you have a point, but you do not extend it far enough. There are very few bad things that happen to us that are completely out of our control. Genetic illnesses (including some forms of cancer) and being killed by a meteorite are a few. But let the person who never speeds, who never drinks, who manages their stress well, who stays out of dangerous situations cast the first stone.
There are some who would argue that quick cooking oatmeal (not instant – rolled) for breakfast is not the best choice in terms of it’s glycemic index. I ate it for years (and grape nuts) thinking these were very healthy (now I eat Old Fashioned Oats or eggs). Maybe these choices will end up harming me and costing you money (you seem to have an issue with eggs. . . .) But my guess is that you wouldn’t be resentful because my heart was in the right place. Does that make sense? Here’s another example – a friend of mine had a patient that almost died of liver failure due to some herbal tea she drank for a few months. That was a terrible choice – but probably her level of intelligence played into it (not smart to eat something from an unregulated source). The intelligence of our choices is largely influenced by our intelligence, which is largely genetic.
I feel like food morality is becoming the new religion. Obesity is indeed a problem – I thank my lucky stars that I have managed to avoid it. I know the food industry plays a part – but I’m not sure we know what the answer is. For years people thought ulcers were caused by stress alone. Now we know that they are caused by a bacterial infection. There is some evidence that gut bacteria play a part in obesity. Maybe all of our antimicrobial efforts are coming back to haunt us . . . .
ParticipantWhat worries me is that the lodger is 64. Does she gain any extra rights or protections when she turns 65? My guess is that evicting elders is more complicated.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
I have the greatest admiration for parents who can keep everything perfect all the time while raising several kids — clean house, make up beds, fold and put away laundry, cook healthy fresh meals at the dining table, tend a beautiful garden ….
It’s easier if you can afford to hire a maid and a nanny, but most families can’t.
I’ve wondered if messy people become more organized after they have children just to set a good example for their kids.[/quote]
The price of the neatness that you admire is too high, in my opinion, unless everyone is that way naturally. I have seen lots of studies like this one:
Basically – neatness and orderliness squelch novel thinking.
And since becoming a parent I’ve probably tolerated more mess (not less) so that my kids can, to give a recent example, tape straws to their doors to make a design that they like. My oldest made a nerf blow dart gun with PVC tubing (it’s impressive but we found nerf darts everywhere for weeks). They also mixed glow stick “juice” with dish soap to make glowing bubbles (Pinterest). Living in perpetual neatness would kill me, and I think the kids would suffer.
Just in case you misinterpret, we don’t have a dirty house (no dishes and glasses hanging around, etc.) but we often have a cluttered house. And I think the kids will remember the fun stuff more than they would the tidy spaces.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Sounds like you’re going to be great parents, CE (but stay away from that soda!). I like your ideas here. Don’t worry too much about the food; you can make a hobby out of cooking with the family (that’s what we do, since we also love good food, unfortunately).
This will be such an awesome experience for you guys! :)[/quote]
OK – I have to agree that soda isn’t great. And maybe I am sensitive because I developed a morning Diet Pepsi habit in college before I started on (the more caffeinated) coffee. But why does this thread put so much more emphasis on soda than, say, alcohol and/or smoking? Plus, I feel like the biggest battle we face is not soda but staying fun and cheerful in the face of unfathomably messy rooms, mountains of laundry, homework, bills and (for example) my 12 year old’s incessant drumming. Sometimes I go to bed at night and realize I was a real buzz kill for most of the day. Staying positive in light of all the commotion is a daily challenge . . .
June 24, 2014 at 1:45 PM in reply to: OT: Pest control: is it necessary to get the yearly deal versus do it yourselve, how about do nothing ? #775655Participant[quote=sdsurfer]Thanks for chiming in! I definitely know ours are black widows with the hourglass red mark on the bottom. We are going to do a bit of research and perhaps I’ll post the outcome to this string.[/quote]
The brown widows also have orange-ish red hourglass markings. I read somewhere that they are almost impossible to distinguish by sight alone . . . Although I don’t want to get close enough to try :).
June 23, 2014 at 4:05 PM in reply to: OT: Pest control: is it necessary to get the yearly deal versus do it yourselve, how about do nothing ? #775630ParticipantIs it possible that what people are seeing are brown widows instead of black? The Brown W. is much more common in SD than Black, and are more visible (and are theoretically less aggressive and/or venomous). Since there are so many of them, infestations are more of an issue . . .
http://www.countynewscenter.com/news/brown-widows-what-you-need-know
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Blogstar][quote=scaredyclassic]http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80422119/
good summary of why the rodger memoir is compelling and meaningful…[/quote]
I agree with that summary. The boy had a terrible upbringing.[/quote]
That seems like a non sequitur. That summary didn’t say he had a terrible upbringing.
You seem fixated on his upbringing. Yes, his upbringing was far from perfect. But I’d say it was far from “terrible” also. I don’t think his upbringing was that much different from millions of other Americans. Which is to say not good, but not terrible, and maybe not as protected from all the “poison pill[s] our culture could throw at him” as it could and should have been.
His problems were a combination of his inborn mental issues, his upbringing, and our culture. To blame it all or even mostly on his upbringing seems, to me, to ignore the evidence and show a preexisting bias toward blaming it on his upbringing.
I think the clearest evidence of your bias is that you could read that article and somehow infer that it said he had a terrible upbringing. The article says almost nothing at all about his upbringing.[/quote]
+1 -
AuthorPosts
