A while ago, I had a discussion with someone about addiction. I said then that fatness will unsettle and has the potential to overthrow some citadels, whether we want it to or not. It so happens many of us don't. Then again others such as myself feel that just because a person is fat, doesn't mean they must be invested in ploughing the same troughs that others are. Out of some kind of weight based deference. Or urge to pacify upset as was the default position for fat people in the past.
Smoking's an interesting one. It has now become clear that the will be a pile up between the real/purported risk of fatness and those attributed to smoking sooner or later. It was okay when just smoking was the baddie, risks could be presented to best advantage for the intentions of health agitators, shall we say.
When fatness joins that, its obvious that some restraint has to occur in or fatness will overtake smoking in terms of risk and smoke yourself thin will become an openly viable idea. Now I'm sure not even the most rabid haters of fat want that.
So it's been interesting to contemplate enforced restraining of the urge to talk up fatness. It seems yet again though that I've underestimated the sense of reason of those involved in fat fighting. As they seem to be prepared edge the issue. The article takes the line of numbers, falling number of smokers versus the amount of fat people.
A lot of smokers have picked up on this blurring, already insisting to fat non smokers that we cost more than they and are more unhealthy.
It's easy to see the self saving aspects of that but the way the risks-or otherwise- of obesity have been sold makes this inevitable.
It will be interesting to see if anti-smoking activists are exercised by this potential sullying of the purity of their line of reasoning. the fact that obesity make put a stick in their shift, because increasingly it is being said that being fat is as harmful or more so than smoking.
So if you can show stopping puts you at great risk of a large weight gain, increasingly, it's becoming possible to claim that you'll be no better off either way. People could even state their preference, death by cigarettes or just, you know being. Mind you, it's no different than any other desicion about health, divorce, being lonely, living alone and oh so much more is pretty bad for your health too, but that doesn't stop people.
The article tells us that advances in health care, such as better nutrition may stem the flow of the obesity scurge, but if that is the case, why woudl that itself not see off obesity?
If approved nutrition can see off heart attacks and cancer, why can it not see off fatness if that is intrinsically a causal agent or factor of these and other things?
Now, when confronted with this sort of thing,
veracity and accuracy over the true health implications of weight have never been at a greater premium.
It threatens to give new meaning to the title of Julie's blog.
conditions and disease of longevity, not civilisation.
Conditions that tend to rear their head the longer you have to experience sufficient wear and tear, or