"Healthy" is not an emphatic tense. Outside of actual disease or sickness it doesn't fit an either/or categorisation. If one is well, health is by degree. The point about increased risk, real or imagined, is that is not a polar situation. Remember risk is not prognosis, whether heightened or otherwise and "obesity risk" bears hypothetical association as part of its equation.
It is also said to be the case that those who manage to reduce their weight using starvation still remain at heightened risk, raising again questions of direction of causality-to pander to this bankrupt framing.
As for the subsection "metabolically un/healthy". There is some kind of cross over between metabolic activity deemed 'unhealthy' for the purposes of fat/ter people and energy conservation. Fitness is not health, you can be healthy-free from disease- and unfit, you can be unhealthy-i.e. terminally ill-and be fit, as a woman who ran numerous marathons for charity whilst being terminally ill. Her weight would have been deemed "healthy".
Even if it is true that merely being fat/ter raises worsens outcomes in the long run, that just increases the urgency of being able to manipulate metabolic function in the right way. Something the 'obesity' exists to block.
Instead we have;
“The priority of health professionals should be to promote and facilitate weight loss among obese persons, regardless of the presence or absence of metabolic abnormalities.”"Promote" starvation, which just so happens to be metabolically deranging in every way stated under "metabolic ill health" as well as not fit for the purpose of [non-pathological] weight alteration and regulation. It can't be a co-incidence that these folks long for people to think of themselves as unhealthy and insist we do what has failed and actually makes us less healthy, metabolically and otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment