Should obesity be treated as a disability?

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:34 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:41 pm

Why not - everything else is?!

by Ben Reilly Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:46 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

I agree -- while we know that diet and exercise works for most people, there are also studies showing that only about 1 in 6 overweight people can manage to lose weight and not gain it back.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:10 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

I agree -- while we know that diet and exercise works for most people, there are also studies showing that only about 1 in 6 overweight people can manage to lose weight and not gain it back.

However such studies are firmly based in todays society of excess availability and treatment grounded in negative views on will power.

Which is simply an observation on my point the more you think the more complicated it gets.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:14 pm

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I agree -- while we know that diet and exercise works for most people, there are also studies showing that only about 1 in 6 overweight people can manage to lose weight and not gain it back.

However such studies are firmly based in todays society of excess availability and treatment grounded in negative views on will power.

Which is simply an observation on my point the more you think the more complicated it gets.

More and more people will of course become obese - our lifestyles are changing and i can't see anything stopping that.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:18 pm

OK if the focus of the court case is protection of employment rights

and present disability protection is around employers making reasonable adaptions

where an employer cannot introduce a medical treatment that will result in the disabled person no longer needing the adaptions

how will that work where an employer could offer treatment that would "cure" the disability?

(I am thinking on screen here by the way)

Also what implications would this have for such conditions as alcoholism?

Would we end up with employers not being allowed to get rid of the obese/alcoholic/drug addict but instead be expected to fund treatment every time they fall off the wagon?

Or would it be they are only expected to fund one course of treatment if the person falls of the wagon a second time they can be fired?

by Cobra Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:28 pm

If obesity is caused by a recognised medical condition then it should be viewed differently to someone who is a fat greedy glutton on burgers & booze.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:30 pm

Cobra wrote:If obesity is caused by a recognised medical condition then it should be viewed differently to someone who is a fat greedy glutton on burgers & booze.

How do you tell the difference?

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:39 pm

sphinx wrote:
Cobra wrote:If obesity is caused by a recognised medical condition then it should be viewed differently to someone who is a fat greedy glutton on burgers & booze.

How do you tell the difference?

I'm guessing a medical professional will decide.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

An awful lot of medical professionals are currently deciding that over eating is an addiction problem equivalent to drugs or alcohol (they still are not able to provide effective treatment for any but that is a different story)

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:49 pm

sphinx wrote:An awful lot of medical professionals are currently deciding that over eating is an addiction problem equivalent to drugs or alcohol (they still are not able to provide effective treatment for any but that is a different story)

Wouldn't it be easier for all concerned to say it's a medical problem - chuck em some dosh (hey, it aint my dosh, right?) and walk away?

We've not seen that before, have we?!

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:36 pm

Whether or not it would be easier it would definitely be cheaper.

Why do you think addicts and the mentally ill are allotted the bare minimum in treatment? It is cheaper to pay them benefits than it is to treat them properly and cure them.

That was the irony with the whole white Dee fuss - people were screaming about her being able to claim depression and claim benefits without realizing that the very solution to preventing false claims is also the necessary treatment for curing it in those genuinely affected. Only thing is effective treatment costs far more than the benefits do so we go down the cheapest route option.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:39 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

I agree -- while we know that diet and exercise works for most people, there are also studies showing that only about 1 in 6 overweight people can manage to lose weight and not gain it back.

That's because most people who lose weight start to eat too much again.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:42 pm

sphinx wrote:Whether or not it would be easier it would definitely be cheaper.

Why do you think addicts and the mentally ill are allotted the bare minimum in treatment? It is cheaper to pay them benefits than it is to treat them properly and cure them.

That was the irony with the whole white Dee fuss - people were screaming about her being able to claim depression and claim benefits without realizing that the very solution to preventing false claims is also the necessary treatment for curing it in those genuinely affected. Only thing is effective treatment costs far more than the benefits do so we go down the cheapest route option.

I think the issue with her is that she didn't appear to be depressed, and also that many people with depression manage to work.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sphinx wrote:Whether or not it would be easier it would definitely be cheaper.

Why do you think addicts and the mentally ill are allotted the bare minimum in treatment? It is cheaper to pay them benefits than it is to treat them properly and cure them.

That was the irony with the whole white Dee fuss - people were screaming about her being able to claim depression and claim benefits without realizing that the very solution to preventing false claims is also the necessary treatment for curing it in those genuinely affected. Only thing is effective treatment costs far more than the benefits do so we go down the cheapest route option.

I think the issue with her is that she didn't appear to be depressed, and also that many people with depression manage to work.

When you say did not appear to be depressed what you are saying is whatever depression she suffered from was not severe enough to be interfering with her ability to live normally.

Benefits decisions are not supposed to be based on diagnosis they are supposed to be based on impact of diagnosis on ability to carry out normal every day tasks. In fact in a few cases diagnosis is not even necessary.

So people do not get found unfit for work because they have depression they get found unfit for work because the depression is of such severity that it interferes with their ability to live normally.

The same would actually be applied to obesity.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:10 pm

sphinx wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think the issue with her is that she didn't appear to be depressed, and also that many people with depression manage to work.

When you say did not appear to be depressed what you are saying is whatever depression she suffered from was not severe enough to be interfering with her ability to live normally.

Benefits decisions are not supposed to be based on diagnosis they are supposed to be based on impact of diagnosis on ability to carry out normal every day tasks. In fact in a few cases diagnosis is not even necessary.

So people do not get found unfit for work because they have depression they get found unfit for work because the depression is of such severity that it interferes with their ability to live normally.

The same would actually be applied to obesity.

Put it this way. In my opinion, someone who is so depressed that they cannot work would not be able to get on a plane, go on holiday, and have a good time.

As for obesity, once someone is obese with all the ailments that go along with that, I daresay they can't work. However, they should not just have benefits chucked at them because the solution is in their own hands. It shouldn't be an excuse to never work. If someone who is obese had a job and had to give it up because they became obese, it could be said that they should not have allowed that to happen in the first place.

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:30 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

In cases of medically induced obesity e.g. overactive thyroid maybe but for those who simply eat too much because they find it too hard not to not a chance.

To do otherwise invites a huge raft of new claimants who simply can't be bothered. Indeed when I see these huge obese individuals who have become bedridden receiving multiple home helps and fed 10 thousands plus calories by "CARERS" it offends every sensibility.

These super obese end up costing hundreds of thousands to the health service if not millions.

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:44 pm

Fred I think you mean an under-active thyroid not over-active.

As for costs - it would cost less to put obese people on benefits than it would to give them effective treatment.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:46 pm

sphinx wrote:Fred I think you mean an under-active thyroid not over-active.

As for costs - it would cost less to put obese people on benefits than it would to give them effective treatment.

What treatment? They need to eat less and move more, and then they'll lose weight.

by Lone Wolf Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:51 pm

sphinx wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

IF it's the DM it's a load of f'ing shite anyway !!!

NOTHING "confusing" about the issues, at all..

THE one thing I know for certain about that DM cesspit is that it constantly prints those health/science/technical lies that are largely made up by it's own unqualified goons..

Obesity means that somebody has a bodyfat level over 40% ~ it DOESN'T simply mean that somebody is fat. 30% bodyfat can be grossly overweight, but it isn't quite technically "obese".
Equating being overweight with "obesity" is the domain of the usual suspect clueless airheads and 'pretty young things' in the rip-off advert's, braindead rags and TV gossip shows..

IF somebody is "Clinically obese" than it has become a serious medical problem...
IF it's bad enough to seriously impact a person's ability to lead a normal lifestyle, than it could be defined as a "disability"...

A "disability" isn't simply a health problem, nor is it an illness. Though both of these, and other factors (e.g. physical injuries, mental health, severe depression..) can often be the cause of a person's disability..

Having lived with couple of different minor "hidden" disabilities myself for most of my life (and not 'eight related' in any way or form..), I'm more than well aware of the differences in these terms ~ and that they're simply not interchangeable in their use...

AND it makes me quite well aware also when the likes of L'ilAndy and his perverted anti-welfare bumchums, or the likes of the RW 'populist' gutter press like the DM or the Daily Telegraph, start talking crap on behalf of the heartless anti-health service Tory toecutters !

SO, getting back on track with the O/P ~ YES, obesity can be considered a "disability" in it's more severe forms, but that's only a proportion ~ not all of it's sufferers, as it depends on how much it impacts on that person's life..

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:53 pm

Fred wrote:
sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2656063/Should-obesity-classed-disability-Debate-rages-25st-man-takes-employer-sacked-fat.html

Cant see this on a search so thought I would start it.

I think this is a difficult one - on first thoughts it looks simple but the more you think about it the more confused it gets.

In cases of medically induced obesity e.g. overactive thyroid maybe but for those who simply eat too much because they find it too hard not to not a chance.

To do otherwise invites a huge raft of new claimants who simply can't be bothered. Indeed when I see these huge obese individuals who have become bedridden receiving multiple home helps and fed 10 thousands plus calories by "CARERS" it offends every sensibility.

These super obese end up costing hundreds of thousands to the health service if not millions.

It's under active thyroid that makes you put on weight, over active makes you thin.

by Lone Wolf Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
OK if the focus of the court case is protection of employment rights

and present disability protection is around employers making reasonable adaptions

where an employer cannot introduce a medical treatment that will result in the disabled person no longer needing the adaptions

how will that work where an employer could offer treatment that would "cure" the disability?

.........................

SINCE WHEN has it been the employer's responsibility to "make reasonable adaptions", or even to "introduce a medical treatment.." or "offer treatment that would "cure".." ???

THE boss's responsibility is to provide a safe (and relatively healthy) workplace and work-practices so as to look after that employee's work-related welfare..

IT IS NOT to pander to that worker's outside lifestyle choices or personal problems.
IF a workplace offers extra health benefits, extra maternity leave, sabbaticals or study leave ~ than that should be considered as the extra bonus that it is, rather than some justified part of a normal job description !

IT should be remembered that the great majority of employees will never see such extras in the workplace out here in the real world ~ indeed, some 60%+ of businesses couldn't afford to even think of offering such extra non-work benefits ! Idea

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:45 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
sphinx wrote:
OK if the focus of the court case is protection of employment rights

and present disability protection is around employers making reasonable adaptions

where an employer cannot introduce a medical treatment that will result in the disabled person no longer needing the adaptions

how will that work where an employer could offer treatment that would "cure" the disability?

.........................

SINCE WHEN has it been the employer's responsibility to "make reasonable adaptions", or even to "introduce a medical treatment.." or "offer treatment that would "cure".." ???

THE boss's responsibility is to provide a safe (and relatively healthy) workplace and work-practices so as to look after that employee's work-related welfare..

IT IS NOT to pander to that worker's outside lifestyle choices or personal problems.
IF a workplace offers extra health benefits, extra maternity leave, sabbaticals or study leave ~ than that should be considered as the extra bonus that it is, rather than some justified part of a normal job description !

IT should be remembered that the great majority of employees will never see such extras in the workplace out here in the real world ~ indeed, some 60%+ of businesses couldn't afford to even think of offering such extra non-work benefits !

I am working from UK law.

Here an employer has a legal obligation to make "reasonable adjustments" to allow the employment of someone with disability - those adjustments can be anything from allowing home working to building an accessible disabled toilet or having lifts upgraded to retraining for another role.

However at the moment an employer cannot be expected to provide a line of treatment to cure or improve the problem (although some do in some cases)

Ignoring that I used a link from the DM the fact is a man who has been fired from his job because he could not perform it due to his weight has started a legal challenge to have obesity given the same employment protection as disability. This would mean that employers would have to make reasonable adjustments for the employment of obese individuals that in the case of the man bringing the case would probably mean training for a different role that did not involve bending down.

This is where the question of employers being expected to provide treatment lines comes in - because obesity is treatable would reasonable adjustment mean employers funding their obese employees to get weight loss treatment - and if so how many times? If the employer did not fund treatment but instead provided retraining or an adapted work station (bigger reinforced chair for instance) and the employee lost weight on their own could they demand their old role back or have to continue in the adapted work station? What if they then ballooned in size again? How much is the employer supposed to take here?

Those are just some of the questions being put on the table in the European courts right now.

by HoratioTarr Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:07 pm

Cobra wrote:If obesity is caused by a recognised medical condition then it should be viewed differently to someone who is a fat greedy glutton on burgers & booze.

There are a handful of medical conditions that affect the way our bodies burn calories. But that in itself doesn't make you fat. What makes you fat is what you put in your mouth. Making it a disability is ludicrous and appallingly myopic if it comes into being. It gives fatties carte blanche to just eat themselves to death which, if not for the expense that's likely to create for the nation and employers, will probably be a good thing.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:27 pm

I don't think that building a disabled toilet is very reasonable really. What if there's no room for it, or the existing toilets are upstairs?

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:29 pm

I wonder if this is why so many employers are offering temporary contracts these days. Perhaps they are fed up with having to spend money on catering for all these disabilities. If an obese person started making demands, could the employer not just sack them if they're on a temporary contract?

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:44 pm

So you have a good job, work hard, etc, are hit by a drunk driver and left needing a wheelchair. You can still do your job exactly the same as before because it does not require use of legs - but your employer is going to sack you because they dont want the hassle of building a toilet you can use - and you think that is absolutely fine?

by Guest Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:46 pm

sphinx wrote:So you have a good job, work hard, etc, are hit by a drunk driver and left needing a wheelchair. You can still do your job exactly the same as before because it does not require use of legs - but your employer is going to sack you because they dont want the hassle of building a toilet you can use - and you think that is absolutely fine?

How much you wanna bet Rags thinks it's fine?

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:48 pm

sphinx wrote:So you have a good job, work hard, etc, are hit by a drunk driver and left needing a wheelchair. You can still do your job exactly the same as before because it does not require use of legs - but your employer is going to sack you because they dont want the hassle of building a toilet you can use - and you think that is absolutely fine?

What if it's an old building? What if there's nowhere to put a disabled toilet? It's not a question of hassle, it's a question of practicalities and huge expense.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:49 pm

Sassy wrote:
sphinx wrote:So you have a good job, work hard, etc, are hit by a drunk driver and left needing a wheelchair. You can still do your job exactly the same as before because it does not require use of legs - but your employer is going to sack you because they dont want the hassle of building a toilet you can use - and you think that is absolutely fine?

How much you wanna bet Rags thinks it's fine?

Snidy cow.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:55 pm

I had half a cucumber, a tomato, some beetroot and two boiled eggs for combined breakfast lunch today, went for an hours cycle then stopped in shop near home and had a large twix, which was only filler but was 400 calories by itself.

Spoiling all The previous efforts.

Point being, eating more calories than you burn off equals increased fat.

Whatever way you look at it.

Eat less and move more is The only answer.

You should not expect special treatment cos you eat more and move less and become a fatty.

If this puts you in a position where you cannot perform properly filling requirements of your particular job, then get another different job or eat less and move more to reduce weight, then stick to it.

Getting thinner should not be rewarded by then just eating more and moving less again and then getting fatter.

Most fat people are in denial, kidding themselves that they only have a salad and A dry cracker all day while constantly smacking and eating burgers and crisps and drinking gallons of fizzy pop.

THe old saying is 'you are what you eat!'.

We have a programme here called secret eaters, with the people on it always claiming the salad and cracker bullshit.

Then found to be filling their faces every day with no end of rubbish.

by Fred Thu Jun 12, 2014 11:56 pm

I've just thought about another reason not to give benefits to obese people Sassy fat arse would be firs in the queue.

Her learning disability might be good reason to give her a few bob though and her chronic lying.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:01 am

DRINKY IS A MISOGYNIST, VILE, JERK OFF, WHO CAN'T PERFORM IN BED SO GETS HIS KICKS OUT OF TRYING TO PUT DOWN WOMEN.

MEN POINT AT HIM IN THE STREET AND LAUGH, DON'T THEY FRED/DRINKY

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:08 am

No it should be treated with a whip

by gerber Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:11 am

Obesity was not a health problem during W11 nor the the following years of rationing.

Question

had it been a problem until Mc Donalds appeared ?

by Ben Reilly Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:15 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Cobra wrote:If obesity is caused by a recognised medical condition then it should be viewed differently to someone who is a fat greedy glutton on burgers & booze.

There are a handful of medical conditions that affect the way our bodies burn calories. But that in itself doesn't make you fat. What makes you fat is what you put in your mouth. Making it a disability is ludicrous and appallingly myopic if it comes into being. It gives fatties carte blanche to just eat themselves to death which, if not for the expense that's likely to create for the nation and employers, will probably be a good thing.

Going to have to call bullshit on that one. I did fine until I hit about 32, then seemed to steadily gain weight even though I watched what I ate and exercised regularly.

Pretty soon I started having other symptoms and went to the doctor, where they did the tests and diagnosed me with hypothyroidism. Once I got my thyroid hormones regulated, diet and exercise started to work for me again -- but until I did, there was no way I could have lost weight, even working out hard every day and restricting myself to about 1,200 calories daily was only keeping me from gaining weight.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:24 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

There are a handful of medical conditions that affect the way our bodies burn calories. But that in itself doesn't make you fat. What makes you fat is what you put in your mouth. Making it a disability is ludicrous and appallingly myopic if it comes into being. It gives fatties carte blanche to just eat themselves to death which, if not for the expense that's likely to create for the nation and employers, will probably be a good thing.

Going to have to call bullshit on that one. I did fine until I hit about 32, then seemed to steadily gain weight even though I watched what I ate and exercised regularly.

Pretty soon I started having other symptoms and went to the doctor, where they did the tests and diagnosed me with hypothyroidism. Once I got my thyroid hormones regulated, diet and exercise started to work for me again -- but until I did, there was no way I could have lost weight, even working out hard every day and restricting myself to about 1,200 calories daily was only keeping me from gaining weight.

Absolutely true Ben, my hypothyroidism wasn't diagnosed for ages, I was living on 600 calories a day, spending all day digging the garden, swimming, aerobics etc and it was only just staying the same. Once they put me on thyroxine it was brilliant, then it lurched, they had to up the dose, now I have to take 250 micrograms Thyroxine and they dare not up it any more. Trying to balance that with the tiredness of the leukemia etc is no joke. Somedays I only have a meal a night and the doc gets really cross because I need a balanced diet for the leukaemia. Even though I had the chemo, it only takes it back a bit, doesn't get rid of it. Life is a perpetual balancing act.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:30 am

gerber wrote:Obesity was not a health problem during W11 nor the the following years of rationing.

Question

had it been a problem until Mc Donalds appeared ?

Exactly

Never saw a fat Jew at Auschwitz did we??

by gerber Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:31 am

Sassy wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Going to have to call bullshit on that one. I did fine until I hit about 32, then seemed to steadily gain weight even though I watched what I ate and exercised regularly.

Pretty soon I started having other symptoms and went to the doctor, where they did the tests and diagnosed me with hypothyroidism. Once I got my thyroid hormones regulated, diet and exercise started to work for me again -- but until I did, there was no way I could have lost weight, even working out hard every day and restricting myself to about 1,200 calories daily was only keeping me from gaining weight.

Absolutely true Ben, my hypothyroidism wasn't diagnosed for ages, I was living on 600 calories a day, spending all day digging the garden, swimming, aerobics etc and it was only just staying the same. Once they put me on thyroxine it was brilliant, then it lurched, they had to up the dose, now I have to take 250 micrograms Thyroxine and they dare not up it any more. Trying to balance that with the tiredness of the leukemia etc is no joke. Somedays I only have a meal a night and the doc gets really cross because I need a balanced diet for the leukaemia. Even though I had the chemo, it only takes it back a bit, doesn't get rid of it. Life is a perpetual balancing act.

OK we can all joke and take the proverbial . Am in same boat. Am about to sue Anglian water due to the calories the put in the fluoride tomake our teeth healthier. Great guns, good teeth no waste line........

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:31 am

So if someone becomes obese because of their thyroid, they take medication and it gets sorted, yes?

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:32 am

gerber wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Absolutely true Ben, my hypothyroidism wasn't diagnosed for ages, I was living on 600 calories a day, spending all day digging the garden, swimming, aerobics etc and it was only just staying the same. Once they put me on thyroxine it was brilliant, then it lurched, they had to up the dose, now I have to take 250 micrograms Thyroxine and they dare not up it any more. Trying to balance that with the tiredness of the leukemia etc is no joke. Somedays I only have a meal a night and the doc gets really cross because I need a balanced diet for the leukaemia. Even though I had the chemo, it only takes it back a bit, doesn't get rid of it. Life is a perpetual balancing act.

OK we can all joke and take the proverbial . Am in same boat. Am about to sue Anglian water due to the calories the put in the fluoride tomake our teeth healthier. Great guns, good teeth no waste line........

Great GUNS? My, the fluoride in your area is really strong! Wink

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:33 am

Just out of interest, what did your 1200/600 calories consist of every day....?

by Fred Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:34 am

Sassy it occured to me that just because someone doesnt like you doesnt mean they are mysogymist.

I mean come on you look like a tranny in that photo.

That said on topic someone earlier pointed out in the war there were very few fatties. That rather speaks volumes its simply stuffing too much in ones mouth and a lack of control.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So if someone becomes obese because of their thyroid, they take medication and it gets sorted, yes?

No, because the thyroid might be unstable, might develop a tumour, might be difficult to treat be because you can take the thyroxine but your body might not process it properly. Thyroxine is T3, that your body converts to T4, but it might not convert it. Very complicated and can change in a very short time and then change back again. Too much Thyroxine can damage your heart, too little can mean your system starts shutting down.

by gerber Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:38 am

Sassy wrote:
gerber wrote:

OK we can all joke and take the proverbial . Am in same boat. Am about to sue Anglian water due to the calories the put in the fluoride tomake our teeth healthier. Great guns, good teeth no waste line........

Great GUNS? My, the fluoride in your area is really strong!

I do try to water it down by taking ice with a slice...............in the water of course.

( Vodka and Gin both have the appearance of water in the glass.................perfect when needing medicinal rehydration if talking to a muppet in my kitchen )

by Fred Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:38 am

Sassys telling pork pies tommy again anyone can see she eats enough of them you dont get an arse thesize of a Zeppelin without consuming a few.

I am a stone and a half overweighht it isnt my glands its beer intake etc. With lefties it always someone elses fault and especially someone else should pay.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:39 am

Fred wrote:Sassy it occured to me that just because someone doesnt like you doesnt mean they are mysogymist.

I mean come on you look like a tranny in that photo.

That said on topic someone earlier pointed out in the war there were very few fatties. That rather speaks volumes its simply stuffing too much in ones mouth and a lack of control.

DRINKY, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LITTLE DICK DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE A PRICK AS WELL. BEING A PRICK IS WHAT YOU ARE, YOUR LITTLE DICK DOESN'T MAKE YOU ONE.

by Guest Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:40 am

Fred wrote:Sassys telling pork pies tommy again anyone can see she eats enough of them you dont get an arse thesize of a Zeppelin without consuming a few.

I am a stone and a half overweighht it isnt my glands its beer intake etc. With lefties it always someone elses fault and especially someone else should pay.

LITTLE DICK, LITTLE DICK, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN
HE'S BEEN ON HIS POOTER JERKING HIS BEAN

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:43 am

And 600 calories is......?

by gerber Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:46 am

Sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So if someone becomes obese because of their thyroid, they take medication and it gets sorted, yes?

No, because the thyroid might be unstable, might develop a tumour, might be difficult to treat be because you can take the thyroxine but your body might not process it properly. Thyroxine is T3, that your body converts to T4, but it might not convert it. Very complicated and can change in a very short time and then change back again. Too much Thyroxine can damage your heart, too little can mean your system starts shutting down.

Rags

Can I politely suggest you take advice and knowledge from someone who knows...............

We all have subjects etc close to our hearts. Often we have lived through trauma. When someone posts as Sassy has done take it as read. It will be precise, correct and without argument undeniably factual

by Sponsored content