Just moving her onto the operating table required an additional team: the table was too narrow and the straps too small. One even dislocated his shoulder while performing a cesarean on a 400-pound patient.And blah, blah, we've heard you.
The deal's supposed to be, medical professionals desperately need the existence of fatness to cease, m'kay?
So what's this about?
But we should be managing obesity even more aggressively, as we do elevated blood pressure and diabetes.What this “managing obesity” Let alone ‘aggressively’ to consist of?
How can you "manage" what you only wish to get rid of?
There are two main ways of looking at the concept of treatment. A cure that takes time to implement, hence whilst you're receiving say a course of anti-biotics, you are receiving treatment- that is, the cure.
Then there’s when you have no cure and take substances and/or use techniques to palliate or suppress the symptoms of an ever present pathology.
The latter fits into "management," because, no cure so you have to manage the pathology, but what could this possibly translate into when it comes to the fiction of fatness as dis-ease? The issue is tissue- what would palliating or suppressing that after the fact amount to? You can only stop the formation of said tissue or reverse it.
Seeking to stem further gain, has never been an aim of the crusade and anyway, what's the method going to be? Calorie restriction. Using that to stem gain is a further admission of the impotence of that strategy.
The current situation has been arrived at in thrall to theoretically trying to stop formation of adiposity with dietary restriction or much more attempting to starve it out of existence after the fact.
Continual denial of this a continuation of the same delusion.
You cannot “manage” adipose "like blood pressure or diabetes," what's that going to be, yo-yoing everyday, from 400lbs to 200lbs? Do the authorities have a way to do that up their sleeve? Or how else to guarantee any lowered weight will be synchronized with need for medical attentions?
Managing risk of what people choose to link with fatness would not depart the advice given generally for diet and exercise. Medics issue is not with those association which they mainly use the threat of as a lever of influence, it’s with bulk.
Managing bulk aggressively is an oxymoron, you either stop or reverse, or you do nothing. That's has been up 'til now, aggression leads to aggressive fall-out. More weight gain for everyone overall, along with more eating disorders and neuroses too.
One of the sadder research and development aims of big pharma in recent decades is their propensity for rent seeking. Leaving pathological conditions in play in order to sell temporary relief/reversal-to maximize profit over the long term, if not a person's life time.
As bad as that is, at least it tends to be in the form of pills or some contraption or other. Expecting people to be on a perma diet, i.e. lifestyle anorexia is not a viable option. Hence the whining. And segregation of fat people? Seriously? Where will the dividing line be? How will you measure who goes to the normal or the fat hospital?
No, you actually have to do the work and find a way to get the body to cool its heels vis-a-vis storing lipids. That means you either deal with the mechanics or you don’t.There are no short cuts. No easy routes, no old faithfuls, this needs to break new ground.
White coats need to get it through their heads, fatness is too honest for the old sleights of hand. Their silly attempts to keep trying to pressing it into categories that give them scope for the usual mess around, neurosis, eating disorder, addiction, psychological booboo etc., aren't there.
Dream on or get on.