ROFL. Is this how you try and argue your position?
I'm citing the US Center for Disease Control's policy statement, but you come
back and say I know zero about the topic.
I'm done with you until you can produce a shred of evidence that supports
your position.
We only want to see a *shred* at this point.
hno:
Once again you state stuff based on opinions of what society preaches yet deny that medical issues are a major part of the obesity crisis in this country along with some of what you post.
Research Atypical Antipsychotics as one of the major side effects from them is weight gain & changes in a person's metabolism as well as increase the risk of increased cholesterol & becoming diabetic. A good read to start with on this point is the September 2005 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in an article titled Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE).
Here is a beginner list of some Atypical Antipsychotics:
Abilify / aripiprazole
Clozaril / clozapine
Geodon / ziprasidone
Invega / paliperidone
Risperdal / risperidone
Seroquel / quetiapine
Symbyax / olanzapine (a combo of Zpyrexa & fluoxetine aka Prozac)
Zyprexa / olanzapine
Saphris / asenapine
[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][/FONT]Of those listed, the biggest culprits with major weight gain side effects are Zyprexa, Clozaril, Risperdal, & Seroquel.
The biggest reason for the weight gain from these drugs is due to it negatively affecting the levels of serotonin, histamine, hormones, & metabolism in one's body.
Bipolar disorder is also a major issue in this country & one of the most well known ways to treat it is with Lithium which you guessed it as weight gain as one of its major side effects.
Some more people you can look up their research include Norman Sussman, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine & personal psychiatrist who has stated that:
"The majority of the most commonly used medications for mental disorders are known to cause weight gain. That includes most antidepressants, most of the anticonvulsants/mood stabilizers and virtually all of the antipsychotics.”
Now most people who are any sort of mental medication is usually on it for long periods of time or for the rest of their life. The weight gain side effect really kicks in after prolonged use (6+ months out).
Another good starter read is a review in the 2003 Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine which takes a look at SSRI's & how weight gain usually is a major side effect, especially with use of 6+ months or more of use.
This is a topic that can go on for hours as this class of medicine is not the only one causing these issues. Another class of drugs with similar side effects include tricylics with examples of these being Elavil & Tofranil. Also I can't forget MAO inhibitor drugs like Parnate & Nardil.
Once again research some medical journals, textbooks, studies, etc... & then talk to me.
Your splitting hairs here with your anti depressants argument.. People who are depressed naturally dont feel like doing anything so they lay around the house do nothing arent active so naturally they are going to gain weight because of it.. Secondly It says weight gain. NOT obesity.... sure they MIGHT gain a few pounds. Not 100 to 200... Yeah all those people in line at Mcdonalds and Friendlys are all on anti depressants so I should feel sorry for them as they eat themselves into oblivion........
Laughable. I did not "say stuff on what society preaches," I cited the friggen
Center on Disease Control, is that not good enough for you?
So, yes a certain very small percentage of weight gain issues are exacerbated
by anti-depressants. But I still contend that the majority of obesity cases
in this country are not because of the drugs you listed. And, not because
of thyroid problems as you mentioned earlier.
In the majority of cases, people are simply eating to much, eating the
wrong things, and not getting enough exercise.
You did preach many of the stereotypes portrayed by society. Also you mention the CDC, an organization with some shady dealings in the past. Sorry but bring more to the table. Small percentage? Seriously you need to go look up facts on the amount of people on them in this country & realize that a large chunk of people are. We could even go into the research of these medications altering the amount a person eats as well. While some of your points are true, to outright say the majority of it is that alone is completely incorrect & science has proven that.
Looking beyond poor eating habits and a couch-potato lifestyle, a group of researchers has found a new culprit in the obesity epidemic: the American workplace.
A sweeping review of shifts in the labor force since 1960 suggests that a sizable portion of the national weight gain can be explained by declining physical activity during the workday. Jobs requiring moderate physical activity, which accounted for 50 percent of the labor market in 1960, have plummeted to just 20 percent.
The remaining 80 percent of jobs, the researchers report, are sedentary or require only light activity. The shift translates to an average decline of 120 to 140 calories a day in physical activity, closely matching the nation’s steady weight gain over the past five decades, according to the report, published Wednesday in the journal PLoS One.
Today, an estimated one in three Americans are obese. Researchers caution that workplace physical activity most likely accounts for only one piece of the obesity puzzle, and that diet, lifestyle and genetics all play important roles.
But the new emphasis on declining workplace activity also represents a major shift in thinking, and it suggests that health care professionals and others on the front lines against obesity, who for years have focused primarily on eating habits and physical activity at home and during leisure time, have missed a key contributor to America’s weight problem. The findings also put pressure on employers to step up workplace heath initiatives and pay more attention to physical activity at work.
“If we’re going to try to get to the root of what’s causing the obesity epidemic, work-related physical activity needs to be in the discussion,” said Dr. Timothy S. Church, a noted exercise researcher at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., and the study’s lead author. “There are a lot of people who say it’s all about food. But the work environment has changed so much we have to rethink how we’re going to attack this problem.”
The report shows that in 1960, one out of two Americans had a job that was physically active. Now it is estimated that only one in five Americans achieves a relatively high level of physical activity at work. Dr. Church notes that because the research does not factor in technological changes, like increasing reliance on the Internet and e-mail, many people in service and desk jobs that have always involved only light activity are now moving less than ever, meaning the findings probably understate how much physical activity has been lost during work hours.
While it has long been known that Americans are more sedentary at work compared with the farming and manufacturing workers of 50 years ago, the new study is believed to be the first in which anyone has estimated how much daily caloric expenditure has been lost in the workplace.
“It’s a light bulb, ‘aha’ moment,” said Barbara E. Ainsworth, the president-elect of the American College of Sports Medicine and an exercise researcher at Arizona State University. “I think occupational activity is part of that missing puzzle that is so difficult to measure, and is probably contributing to the inactivity and creeping obesity that we’re seeing over time.”
For years, the role that physical activity has played in the obesity problem has been uncertain. Numerous studies suggest there has been little change in the average amount of leisure-time physical activity, posing a conundrum for researchers trying to explain the country’s steady weight gain. As a result, much of the focus has been on the rise of fast-food and soft drink consumption.
Other studies have suggested that changing commuting habits, declining reliance on public transportation and even increased time in front of the television have played a role in the fattening of America. But none of those issues can fully explain the complex changes in nationwide weight-gain patterns.
Some earlier research has hinted at the fact that workplace physical activity is associated with weight and health. One seminal set of studies of London bus drivers and conductors showed that the sedentary bus drivers had higher rates of heart disease than the ticket takers, who moved around during the workday.
Dr. Church said that during a talk on the country’s obesity patterns, he was struck by the fact that Mississippi and Wisconsin both had high rates of obesity, despite having little in common in terms of demographics, education or even weather. It occurred to him that both states had waning agricultural economies, prompting him to begin exploring the link between changes in the labor force and declines in workplace physical activity.
A sweeping review of shifts in the labor force since 1960 suggests that a sizable portion of the national weight gain can be explained by declining physical activity during the workday. Jobs requiring moderate physical activity, which accounted for 50 percent of the labor market in 1960, have plummeted to just 20 percent.
The remaining 80 percent of jobs, the researchers report, are sedentary or require only light activity. The shift translates to an average decline of 120 to 140 calories a day in physical activity, closely matching the nation’s steady weight gain over the past five decades, according to the report, published Wednesday in the journal PLoS One.
Today, an estimated one in three Americans are obese. Researchers caution that workplace physical activity most likely accounts for only one piece of the obesity puzzle, and that diet, lifestyle and genetics all play important roles.
But the new emphasis on declining workplace activity also represents a major shift in thinking, and it suggests that health care professionals and others on the front lines against obesity, who for years have focused primarily on eating habits and physical activity at home and during leisure time, have missed a key contributor to America’s weight problem. The findings also put pressure on employers to step up workplace heath initiatives and pay more attention to physical activity at work.
“If we’re going to try to get to the root of what’s causing the obesity epidemic, work-related physical activity needs to be in the discussion,” said Dr. Timothy S. Church, a noted exercise researcher at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., and the study’s lead author. “There are a lot of people who say it’s all about food. But the work environment has changed so much we have to rethink how we’re going to attack this problem.”
The report shows that in 1960, one out of two Americans had a job that was physically active. Now it is estimated that only one in five Americans achieves a relatively high level of physical activity at work. Dr. Church notes that because the research does not factor in technological changes, like increasing reliance on the Internet and e-mail, many people in service and desk jobs that have always involved only light activity are now moving less than ever, meaning the findings probably understate how much physical activity has been lost during work hours.
While it has long been known that Americans are more sedentary at work compared with the farming and manufacturing workers of 50 years ago, the new study is believed to be the first in which anyone has estimated how much daily caloric expenditure has been lost in the workplace.
“It’s a light bulb, ‘aha’ moment,” said Barbara E. Ainsworth, the president-elect of the American College of Sports Medicine and an exercise researcher at Arizona State University. “I think occupational activity is part of that missing puzzle that is so difficult to measure, and is probably contributing to the inactivity and creeping obesity that we’re seeing over time.”
For years, the role that physical activity has played in the obesity problem has been uncertain. Numerous studies suggest there has been little change in the average amount of leisure-time physical activity, posing a conundrum for researchers trying to explain the country’s steady weight gain. As a result, much of the focus has been on the rise of fast-food and soft drink consumption.
Other studies have suggested that changing commuting habits, declining reliance on public transportation and even increased time in front of the television have played a role in the fattening of America. But none of those issues can fully explain the complex changes in nationwide weight-gain patterns.
Some earlier research has hinted at the fact that workplace physical activity is associated with weight and health. One seminal set of studies of London bus drivers and conductors showed that the sedentary bus drivers had higher rates of heart disease than the ticket takers, who moved around during the workday.
Dr. Church said that during a talk on the country’s obesity patterns, he was struck by the fact that Mississippi and Wisconsin both had high rates of obesity, despite having little in common in terms of demographics, education or even weather. It occurred to him that both states had waning agricultural economies, prompting him to begin exploring the link between changes in the labor force and declines in workplace physical activity.
- 1
- 2
Somebody needs to say it, so may as well put it out there:
I've noticed there's not a whole lot of fat people in photos of prison and concentration camps where food is kept to a bare minimum and daily physical work (read - "exercise") is mandated with literal execution the penalty for non-compliance.
I've noticed there's not a whole lot of fat people in photos of prison and concentration camps where food is kept to a bare minimum and daily physical work (read - "exercise") is mandated with literal execution the penalty for non-compliance.
Glad to see we see eye to eye on this one.... Hey, I was enjoying me some Rudy's BBQ for dinner tonight, and was reminded of our friendly wager.
I'm trying to think how I can practically send you some Texas BBQ if the Rays should (God forbid) finish ahead of the Sox. What do I do, send
it in dry ice?
Actually I think the underlying notion is that I might actually bust loose and visit my home state for first time since 2007 (not including the 48 hour jump into Dallas last year when my father passed)
Need to come into DFW, rent a good rig and then take the SheBar on a north/south tour all the way to South Padre and back so she can have a better understanding of Where I Came From
Rays' success could make for convenient free grub stop at the halfway point south of Austin
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fl...natory-actions/story?id=16271932#.T6M56sVpXeM
Too Fat To Fly' Passenger Sues Southwest Airlines For 'Discriminatory Actions'
Kenlie Tiggeman from New Orleans is suing Southwest Airlines for "discriminatory actions" after a gate agent told her she was "too fat to fly." (ABC News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fl...nes-discriminatory-actions/story?id=16271932#
More Sharing ServicesShare
Share on facebook_likeEmail
26 Comments
Print
Single Page
Text Size
- / +
BY JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) , ELIZABETH STUART (@elizabethstuart) , LAUREN EFFRON (@LEffron831) and SALLY HAWKINS
May 3, 2012
Kenlie Tiggeman, the overweight passenger who garnered national attention last May after she claimed a Southwest gate agent told her she was "too fat to fly," is now suing the airline.
Tiggeman, who lives in New Orleans and blogs about weight loss on her website, AllTheWeigh.com, filed an injunction against Southwest in district court on April 20, alleging that the Southwest agents "did not follow their company policy and chose to discriminate, humiliate and embarrass" her in front of "airport onlookers," and that the airline uses "discriminatory actions ... toward obese customers."
Watch the full story on "Nightline" TONIGHT at 11:35 p.m. ET/PT
Southwest currently has a Customers of Size policy, which requires passengers to buy a second seat if they can't fit between the armrests. Southwest's seats measure 17 inches across.
Tiggeman said she is not seeking monetary damages from the airline and filed the injunction application pro se, without legal representation. She said she wants an industry standard to be put in place for flyers who have to buy a second seat, including rules so that it is no longer up to gate attendants to decide whether or not an obese passenger has to purchase a second seat.
"If you're telling me I have to buy two seats, you should tell me at the point of purchase, not the day I'm flying when I check in at the terminal," she said.
Tiggeman said she was horrified last May when a Southwest Airlines gate agent told her to buy a second seat.
"The gate agent came up to me and he asked me how much I weighed, what size clothes I wore," Tiggeman said. "He said that I was too fat to fly, that I would need an additional seat, and he was really sort of crass about the whole thing."
At the time, Tiggeman said she weighed between "240 and 300 pounds."
"There was no privacy," she continued. "He didn't know what the policy was. So he actually brought in a supervisor as well who didn't know."
After the incident, Tiggeman said a Southwest executive contacted her to apologize, refunded her ticket and offered her flight vouchers, which she accepted. But last November, Tiggeman said she was again told by a Southwest agent that she was too fat too fly.
In a statement to "Nightline," Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said she was aware of Tiggeman's blog post describing the suit, but hadn't confirmed the filing with the airline's legal department.
"We realize that it's a sensitive conversation and we train our Employees to approach the situation as discreetly as possible," King said in the statement. "The ... best case scenario is for the Customer to notify us of any special needs ahead of time. If providing the additional seat does not result in our having to deny another Customer boarding, we will refund the ticket to the Customer at no charge, which happens more than 90 percent of the time."
Tiggeman's crusade is just a small part in what feels like a war that has erupted between the airlines and their passengers. Many charge for everything from onboard snacks, to blankets and pillows, to excess baggage and body weight. Just today, Spirit Airlines announced that passengers may have to pay up to $100 for a carry-on, meaning bags that have to go in the overhead compartment and are checked in at the gate. Bags that can fit under the seat are still free.
But if you weigh more, should you pay more? Peter Singer, a bio-ethics professor at Princeton University, raised this simple, but inflammatory question.
"It's not about treating obese people badly," he said. "It's about people paying for the costs that they are imposing on the airline or in general."
Singer is a mega-commuter, flying from his home in Melbourne, Australia, to the States. He thinks that on a flight from, say, Melbourne to New York, an obese person should face a roughly $30 surcharge.
The airline is just one example that I've chosen," Singer said. "Buses and trains may have to provide wider seats. Hospitals have to have stronger beds, even having to have extra-large refrigerators for their morgues. So it's not hostility to obesity. It's just saying, where people are paying, why should other people who are lighter be subsidizing those who are heavier?"
There are plenty of people who are on board with Singer's idea, like MeMe Roth, the founder of National Action against Obesity, who has very strong opinions about the wide-ranging impact of obesity.
"I don't want the person next to me on top of my seat, or coming underneath the armrest because I've paid for my whole seat," he said. "It's nothing personal against them."
And there are plenty of people who sympathize with Kenlie Tiggeman. Brandon Macsata, an advocate for passengers' rights, has become a leader in the "fat acceptance" movement and thinks an obesity surcharge would spark outrage.
"These aren't durable goods being shipped from point A to point B. This isn't cattle being shipped to a livestock farm," he said.
But making overweight people pay more for their flight might ultimately be bad for business. While Roth argued that airlines weigh bags discreetly, Macsata said, "That's a bag. It's not a person."
In fact, Macsata's fat acceptance group has proposed that airlines provide a row of extra wide eats for larger passengers at a higher price, which they can buy voluntarily.
Pressing forward with her lawsuit, Kenlie Tiggeman said she is not an advocate for obesity, but wants to be treated with respect.
"Shaming people isn't the right way to do it, then you'll just have a lot of depressed people," she said. "I don't care if I have to pay more, just tell me what I have to do and I'll do it."
Too Fat To Fly' Passenger Sues Southwest Airlines For 'Discriminatory Actions'
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/fat-fl...nes-discriminatory-actions/story?id=16271932#
More Sharing ServicesShare
Share on facebook_likeEmail
26 Comments
Single Page
Text Size
- / +
BY JUJU CHANG (@JujuChangABC) , ELIZABETH STUART (@elizabethstuart) , LAUREN EFFRON (@LEffron831) and SALLY HAWKINS
May 3, 2012
Kenlie Tiggeman, the overweight passenger who garnered national attention last May after she claimed a Southwest gate agent told her she was "too fat to fly," is now suing the airline.
Tiggeman, who lives in New Orleans and blogs about weight loss on her website, AllTheWeigh.com, filed an injunction against Southwest in district court on April 20, alleging that the Southwest agents "did not follow their company policy and chose to discriminate, humiliate and embarrass" her in front of "airport onlookers," and that the airline uses "discriminatory actions ... toward obese customers."
Watch the full story on "Nightline" TONIGHT at 11:35 p.m. ET/PT
Southwest currently has a Customers of Size policy, which requires passengers to buy a second seat if they can't fit between the armrests. Southwest's seats measure 17 inches across.
Tiggeman said she is not seeking monetary damages from the airline and filed the injunction application pro se, without legal representation. She said she wants an industry standard to be put in place for flyers who have to buy a second seat, including rules so that it is no longer up to gate attendants to decide whether or not an obese passenger has to purchase a second seat.
"If you're telling me I have to buy two seats, you should tell me at the point of purchase, not the day I'm flying when I check in at the terminal," she said.
Tiggeman said she was horrified last May when a Southwest Airlines gate agent told her to buy a second seat.
"The gate agent came up to me and he asked me how much I weighed, what size clothes I wore," Tiggeman said. "He said that I was too fat to fly, that I would need an additional seat, and he was really sort of crass about the whole thing."
At the time, Tiggeman said she weighed between "240 and 300 pounds."
"There was no privacy," she continued. "He didn't know what the policy was. So he actually brought in a supervisor as well who didn't know."
After the incident, Tiggeman said a Southwest executive contacted her to apologize, refunded her ticket and offered her flight vouchers, which she accepted. But last November, Tiggeman said she was again told by a Southwest agent that she was too fat too fly.
In a statement to "Nightline," Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King said she was aware of Tiggeman's blog post describing the suit, but hadn't confirmed the filing with the airline's legal department.
"We realize that it's a sensitive conversation and we train our Employees to approach the situation as discreetly as possible," King said in the statement. "The ... best case scenario is for the Customer to notify us of any special needs ahead of time. If providing the additional seat does not result in our having to deny another Customer boarding, we will refund the ticket to the Customer at no charge, which happens more than 90 percent of the time."
Tiggeman's crusade is just a small part in what feels like a war that has erupted between the airlines and their passengers. Many charge for everything from onboard snacks, to blankets and pillows, to excess baggage and body weight. Just today, Spirit Airlines announced that passengers may have to pay up to $100 for a carry-on, meaning bags that have to go in the overhead compartment and are checked in at the gate. Bags that can fit under the seat are still free.
But if you weigh more, should you pay more? Peter Singer, a bio-ethics professor at Princeton University, raised this simple, but inflammatory question.
"It's not about treating obese people badly," he said. "It's about people paying for the costs that they are imposing on the airline or in general."
Singer is a mega-commuter, flying from his home in Melbourne, Australia, to the States. He thinks that on a flight from, say, Melbourne to New York, an obese person should face a roughly $30 surcharge.
The airline is just one example that I've chosen," Singer said. "Buses and trains may have to provide wider seats. Hospitals have to have stronger beds, even having to have extra-large refrigerators for their morgues. So it's not hostility to obesity. It's just saying, where people are paying, why should other people who are lighter be subsidizing those who are heavier?"
There are plenty of people who are on board with Singer's idea, like MeMe Roth, the founder of National Action against Obesity, who has very strong opinions about the wide-ranging impact of obesity.
"I don't want the person next to me on top of my seat, or coming underneath the armrest because I've paid for my whole seat," he said. "It's nothing personal against them."
And there are plenty of people who sympathize with Kenlie Tiggeman. Brandon Macsata, an advocate for passengers' rights, has become a leader in the "fat acceptance" movement and thinks an obesity surcharge would spark outrage.
"These aren't durable goods being shipped from point A to point B. This isn't cattle being shipped to a livestock farm," he said.
But making overweight people pay more for their flight might ultimately be bad for business. While Roth argued that airlines weigh bags discreetly, Macsata said, "That's a bag. It's not a person."
In fact, Macsata's fat acceptance group has proposed that airlines provide a row of extra wide eats for larger passengers at a higher price, which they can buy voluntarily.
Pressing forward with her lawsuit, Kenlie Tiggeman said she is not an advocate for obesity, but wants to be treated with respect.
"Shaming people isn't the right way to do it, then you'll just have a lot of depressed people," she said. "I don't care if I have to pay more, just tell me what I have to do and I'll do it."
shame on the staff at the gate using common sense.
the policy should be similar to carding someone to buy booze or smokes or lottery tix.
if you look under 40 we will ask for ID
if you look like you will not fit in the seat, you may have to purchase a 2nd ticket
if you appear intoxicated, we reserve the right to stop serving you
if you've been trying to sue the airlines for the last year and can't find an attorney you may not have a case
the policy should be similar to carding someone to buy booze or smokes or lottery tix.
if you look under 40 we will ask for ID
if you look like you will not fit in the seat, you may have to purchase a 2nd ticket
if you appear intoxicated, we reserve the right to stop serving you
if you've been trying to sue the airlines for the last year and can't find an attorney you may not have a case
