when you are overweight through sloth and gluttony, your body is still functioning normally. any other conditions, eg heart disease, high blood pressure may be caused by obesity, but they are not the obesity itself.
No comment on disease question but its surely an epidemic or even endemic. Sadly spending a lot of time in hospitals at the moment (visits not treatment!) and can't get away from fact that so many staff are obese. Its not meant to be a rude comment, but staggering that so few health professionals seem to be in control of their weight. Then there is the snacking and smoking?!?Got back from this afternoon's visit and turned the tennis on, only to see some heavyweight line judges on the Murray match. what's going on?
Staying with older generation at the moment and there is one obvious sign - portion control. Every meal is 1/3 to 1/2 of my normal (sic) one. So lesson learnt for me - easy to have 1/2 current portions in my case!
Then there is the snacking and smoking?
If you know anybody who works as a Nurse in hospital, they will tell you why (the snacking anyway).
Their contracted hours are quite different from reality, due to being short staffed. 30mins lunch? Lucky if you get 10mins.
Hilarious watching the fatties trying to justify their 'disease'....
As others have said, if there isn't a medical cause for your obesity...if you just eat too much and do too little then you're fooling nobody, you're not 'unwell' and you don't have a disease.
Xiphon, I understand. But how about a banana or an apple rather than a packet of monster munch? We all make choices, good and bad, but health pros are in a better place to make the correct ones, surely?
[quote=teamhurtmore]Xiphon, I understand. But how about a banana or an apple rather than a packet of monster munch? We all make choices, good and bad, but health pros are in a better place to make the correct ones, surely?
I agree an apple would be a more healthy choice - I was just trying to explain the "snacking" culture of nurses.
deviant - MemberHilarious watching the fatties trying to justify their 'disease'....
I weigh 9 and a half stone. Interesting conclusion to jump to, though.
mickolas - Membersmoking is not addictive - nicotine consumption is. so quitting smoking by using them is not really quitting any addictive behaviour. studies showing that people will quit smoking more readily by using alternatives only prove the same thing as saying people could quit injecting heroine if only they could get it in pill form. it doesn't mean anybody has been helped out of their addiction.
Couple of points to pick up on here...
First, quitting smoking without nicotine doesn't kick the addiction, but is still highly beneficial to health. The main point of quitting smoking isn't to quit nicotine, it's to quit filling your lungs with poison. So even in the case of a smoker simply becoming a patch addict- which you don't hear much about, but probably does happen- it's still better than smoking.
Second, though, the point of nicotine alternatives isn't just to remove the smoking, and studies show it is effective in removing or reducing nicotine intake, not just in quitting smoking. To be honest I don't think you'll find many credible sources that suggests that nicotine alternatives aren't useful.
In case you're wondering Deviant, I don't smoke either 😉
The main point of quitting smoking isn't to quit nicotine, it's to quit filling your lungs with poison
nicotine is a highly effective rat poison.
studies show it is effective in removing or reducing nicotine intake, not just in quitting smoking.
which studies? What I read seems to indicate an inability to differentiate between the effects of NRT and those of counselling:
"Most of the evidence, however, comes from trials with regular behavioural support and monitoring and it is unclear whether using nicotine replacement therapy without regular contact would be as effective" - [url= http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1024 ]http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1024[/url]
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/nicotine-replacement-therapies/
"The results showed that, for each time period, almost one-third of recent quitters reported to have relapsed. The researchers found no difference in relapse rate among those who used NRT for more than six weeks,with or without professional counseling. No difference in quitting success with use of NRT was found for either heavy or light smokers." - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/nicotine-replacement-therapies/
I don't think you'll find many credible sources that suggests that nicotine alternatives aren't useful.
"Nicotine replacement therapies ... do not show any long-term effect on quitting even when combined with counseling," says researcher Gregory Connolly, DMD, director of the Center for Global Tobacco Control and professor of public health at the Harvard School of Public Health - [url= http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20120109/study-nicotine-replacement-treatments-may-not-work-long-term ]http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20120109/study-nicotine-replacement-treatments-may-not-work-long-term
[/url]
"This study shows that the likelihood of relapse among smokers who have quit smoking is unrelated to whether they used NRT, or for how long, in the process of quitting. This is not a surprising observation." - John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/09/nicotine-replacement-quitting-smoking ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/09/nicotine-replacement-quitting-smoking[/url]
University College London - "The authors comment: ‘This study provides the first evidence to date that NRT may help pregnant smokers to quit, but with the caveat that only combination NRT appears to confer a benefit.’" - [url= http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/therapy-areas/womens-health/combination-nicotine-replacement-therapy-beneficial-in-pregnancy/20003089.article#.Ucs8YZzMEpc ]http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/therapy-areas/womens-health/combination-nicotine-replacement-therapy-beneficial-in-pregnancy/20003089.article#.Ucs8YZzMEpc[/url]
So to conclude, NRT with counselling = somewhat effective. without counselling = no effect. Get your head right - as I said earlier.
In addition, they are talking about cessation of smoking. Not necessarily reduction of nicotine uptake.
Northwind - can you show a study which demonstrates that NRT, without counselling, effectively reduces nicotine intake?
Bet you can't, and you why? 'Cause it doesn't work!
And FWIW,
I DO believe in the 'World Without Cancer' theory. (See how the caps make it truer :wink:.) Not for any justifiable reason, though, and I certainly wouldn't try and impose my view on anyone else. It just 'feels' right. Maybe that opens me up for mocking, but it's the truth; sometimes we DO believe things for no good reason.
If I was forced to justify it (like at gunpoint or something) then I would argue that if it is a hoax perpetrated by the authors, then I fail to see what it would benefit them. There is no monetary value to the discovery, and the vid is available for free. Unless it is a conspiracy involving the underground peach-growers cartel?
On the other hand, if it were true, it would threaten the wealth of a lot of powerful people; so it is only natural to see it discredited - mogrim: are you a secret Pharmaceutical agent sent on STW to undermine "the truth"? 😉
Obesity seems to be contagious in Milton Keynes. Gunts everywhere, especially in the cake aisle at Morrisons.
And Northwind:
I hope I have not offended you (sometimes I can be a little abrupt). This is a topic I do feel very strongly about. I am an ex-smoker myself and do understand the pit of misery and despair that the smoker may find themselves in when trying to quit. I do genuinely believe that NRTs are just the next scam in line from the tobacco companies (you haven't proposed an alternative source for the nicotine content therein...) and hate to see others caught in the trap.
Cycling and getting fit has really helped me physically, but without the mental turnaround that enabled me to quit after years of failed attempts, I would not be the confident, fun-loving (if sometimes a little dour) person I am today.
And I really do have Allen Carr ("The Only Way to Stop Smoking Permanently" Author) to thank for it. No, I am not affiliated in any way. FWIW, he claimed a 95-99% success rate for his method. And it really does eliminate any need for willpower.
Peace out!
I'm not going to read all the posts but it's bloody easy to be overweight, I've put on a stone since giving up cancer tabs I would go as far as saying a have to put something in my mouth. Add that to the stealth sugar added to foods you might not check (chicken breast/chick pea salad) plus those meal deals where the sandwiches have 700kcals in them and the salads have a sugary sauce. All supermarket deals are on cadburys and haribo , you never get buy some beetroots and get a celery free!
I'm 5'9'' and 12.10st, I felt overweight at 12st I just can't shift it anymore. There is only so long you can eat chicken salad, most of it unfortunately comes from being over fed as a child.
Your Connolly study doesn't address stopping at all, it's solely about relapse. Nicotine replacement therapy isn't for relapse, so it's hardly surprising it's not effective at it. His study starts with a sample of people who have already stopped smoking and he's perfectly clear about its scope, it tells you nothing at all about stopping, only staying clean.
It does tell you something useful though, which is that it has no impact- positive or negative- on relapse. Which means that any benefit to the initial stop is valuable. For a long time there was a belief that quitting with gum/patches was a soft option and was less likely to stick.
mickolas - Memberwhich studies? What I read seems to indicate an inability to differentiate between the effects of NRT and those of counselling
Actually, the meta you quoted notes:
"Successful reduction was more common. In those receiving active nicotine replacement therapy, 21.8% had reduced consumption by more than 50% at final follow-up compared with 16.5% receiving placebo."
and
"This systematic review of randomised clinical trials in smokers not ready to stop found that with NRT support twice as many quitters achieve six months of sustained abstinence"
The comment which you've quoted doesn't say what you seem to think it does... It states that "it is unclear whether using nicotine replacement therapy without regular contact would be as effective"- not that it can't distinguish whether the benefit is from the therapy or the contact, only that the therapy [i]without[/i] the contact may not be as effective.
That might seem a small difference but it's actually huge- it's the difference between "this might not work" and "this works, but it might not work without the associated counselling"
So- you've posted one irrelevant study, and one metastudy which disagrees with you. Good job 😉
mickolas - Membernicotine is a highly effective rat poison.
Seriously? Warfarin is a highly effective rat poison, and a very useful medicine. Water is deadly if you drink enough. To overdose on nicotine you need to try very hard, in the doses used for nicotine therapy it's rated safe for 5 years.
However, even if it were significantly harmful, keeping the nicotine dose stable would be worthwhile if it gets rid of the far more harmful effects of smoking. Undervaluing replacement therapy because it doesn't immediately reduce nicotine impact ignores the majority of the benefit, so let's not do that.
mickolas - MemberIf I was forced to justify it (like at gunpoint or something) then I would argue that if it is a hoax perpetrated by the authors, then I fail to see what it would benefit them. There is no monetary value to the discovery, and the vid is available for free. Unless it is a conspiracy involving the underground peach-growers cartel?
What do conspiracy theorists ever gain? Some write books, some gain notoriety, but 9 times out of ten they just like conspiracy theories. Something in the human condition likes to believe we know better than experts. Sorry, "so-called experts" 😉
Stupidity maybe a disease, but calorie intake versus expenditure is proven science and resultant weight gain or loss an expected result.
Northwind - by your logic, every attempt to quit is successful! Hooray!
No matter if the quitter relapses.....I must be the most successful quitter ever (and here I thought I had only quit the one time).
No, Northwind, if the quitter relapses, they have failed to quit. Any method they used has likewise failed.
In making your point, you have failed.
Actually, it notes:"Successful reduction was more common. In those receiving active nicotine replacement therapy, 21.8% had reduced consumption by more than 50% at final follow-up compared with 16.5% receiving placebo."
they are talking about cigarette consumption here, not a reduction in nicotine intake (which was the challenge I set you). So failed, again.
The comment which you've quoted doesn't say what you seem to think it does... It states that "it is unclear whether using nicotine replacement therapy without regular contact would be as effective"- not that it can't distinguish whether the benefit is from the therapy or the contact, only that the therapy without the contact may not be as effective.That might seem a small difference but it's actually huge- it's the difference between "this might not work" and "this works, but it might not work without the associated counselling"
If it is
"unclear whether using nicotine replacement therapy without regular contact would be as effective",
then it is impossible to say that NRT without counselling works. Therefore it does not say, "this works" with reference to NRT alone. In fact I myself said
"So to conclude, NRT with counselling = somewhat effective. without counselling = no effect. Get your head right - as I said earlier."
The "without counselling = no effect" bit is based on
"do not show any long-term effect on quitting even when combined with counseling"
and,
"This study shows that the likelihood of relapse among smokers who have quit smoking is unrelated to whether they used NRT, or for how long, in the process of quitting. This is not a surprising observation.".
The only thing I will credit NRT with is the transfer of method used by victims from smoking to other means (that is the "somewhat effective"). And even that is shown by these studies to be a purely temporary effect.
Seems like you've got the Hatrick. Epic fail.
Now go and do your homework and find a study that actually supports your bluster, Northwind. And I'll no doubt find it to be sponsored by interested parties.
EDITED to try and make easier reading
And nicotine in your body doesn't have to kill you to be doing you harm.
And just to make it very simple for you: The Connolly study directly compares the relapse of those who used NRT and those who didn't. So it is relevant. A relapse is a fail. If you disagree with that, then we will have to end it there, because we are definitely singing from different hymn books.
Nobody is reading what you are writing.
😕 but you're right.
I guess should be content with your backpedal from "forget patches and gum etc, they are just the latest ploy by the tobacco companies to make money from you", and "it's patently nonsense and it's a travesty that it is supported on the NHS!" to admitting that it is useful as part of a proper quitting approach. It's hard enough for people to stop smoking without misinformation like that undermining them. There's other points we could flog but that's the job done really.
no backpedal whatsoever. patches and gum are worse than useless. never said otherwise. they give people the illusion of quitting, without helping one iota. since you haven't been reading what I've been saying, yet feel compelled to argue anyway - I'm out.
last words:
1 - you came into this very sure that replacements are A Good Thing. as a professed non-smoker, I do wonder what you base this confidence on. it certainly is not logic or case study.
2 - I hope you never choose to 'help' anyone you care about to give up smoking. you would be naught but a hindrance.
best wishes to you. goodnight.
mickolas - Memberno backpedal whatsoever. patches and gum are worse than useless. never said otherwise.
mickolas - Member"So to conclude, NRT with counselling = somewhat effective.
I don't need to argue with you, you argue with yourself.
mickolas - Member2 - I hope you never choose to 'help' anyone you care about to give up smoking. you would be naught but a hindrance.
I'll tell my mum, this'll give her a laugh, considering she just quit after 40 years. With NRT and my hindrance.
good luck to her, and I genuinely mean that. Peace.
Thanks man, I do appreciate that.
I DO believe in the 'World Without Cancer' theory. (See how the caps make it truer :wink:.) Not for any justifiable reason, though, and I certainly wouldn't try and impose my view on anyone else. It just 'feels' right. Maybe that opens me up for mocking, but it's the truth; sometimes we DO believe things for no good reason.If I was forced to justify it (like at gunpoint or something) then I would argue that if it is a hoax perpetrated by the authors, then I fail to see what it would benefit them. There is no monetary value to the discovery, and the vid is available for free. Unless it is a conspiracy involving the underground peach-growers cartel?
On the other hand, if it were true, it would threaten the wealth of a lot of powerful people; so it is only natural to see it discredited - mogrim: are you a secret Pharmaceutical agent sent on STW to undermine "the truth"?
That's me, 008, Secret Agent with licence to pill.
Thing about cancer cure conspiracy theories is that they all rely on the only source of information / cures coming for Evil Big Pharma, which is patently false. If there really were a panacea, doctors and public researchers would be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact they aren't is a pretty reliable indicator that it doesn't exist.
Maybe it's already been said, but people tend to think of obesity as being similar in kind to addiction. Well, that's one component of it.
Having known a morbidly obese person, it seems patently clear to me that it is a disease in that obesity is physiologically [i]global[/i].
Like anorexia, it most often originates in a psychological issue, affecting behaviour, appetite, outlook, social behaviour, and, most importantly, health. The co-morbidities involved in obesity are many, and the origins of the problem are plural.
It's certainly not as simple as saying that you are what you eat - to the obese, what you eat is a symptom [i]and[/i] a cause of the problem.
