https://sputniknews.com/columnists/...he-new-tobacco/

These are the blunt facts that must be communicated, as this approach is far more effective than a tax if mass attention is to be drawn to this horrendous health emergency.

Dr. Yoni Freedhoff blogged his thoughts on Cancer Research UK's fat-shaming message.

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2019/0...ches-awful.html

I do believe that there is truth in the statement that obesity is the new smoking. Just as smokers ARE at a much higher risk of getting cancer, so are the obese. Pointing out a health fact is NOT fat shaming. There is no "judgment" about a person's virtue nor about their "value as a person" involved in stating that the obese are more likely to get cancer than less heavy people.

Unfortunately, obese people DO face a daily barrage of discrimination. Those who have never had a weight problem often DO think that obese people are less virtuous than slender people, that they lack self-control or are too lazy to exercise. The obese ARE discriminated against in multiple ways and, are often made the butt of jokes as children. From adults, the discrimination against the obese is usually more indirect and subtle... but it hurts none the less! And daily experience with overt and covert discrimination CAN lead the overweight into becoming overly sensitive to seeing/hearing slights where none are intended.

So, perhaps there might be a better way to get the factual health-message across by focusing more on how sugar is addictive in the same way that nicotine is addictive...and that BOTH addictions ultimately lead to an increased risk for cancer.

Nicotine addiction --> excessive smoking --> tar build up --> CANCER.

Sugar addiction --> excessive eating --> fat build up --> CANCER.

Dr. Yoni Freedhoff is anti-low carb and pushes the "moderate" diets that just keep people addicted to carbs.

I don't believe the author of the article posted by Demi, Jon Gaunt, was fat shaming in any way. His "diatribe" focused on the irony involved when those who blame obesity, which is ridiculous because obesity is merely a symptom with association to other health issues, are also the ones who happily accept funding from sources producing some of the most unhealthy products available. Jon is admittedly obese. He took matters head on when he changed his lifestyle to regain health. Blunt articles like this get people's attention more than some health organization making a false claim that obesity causes cancer. There are many people who, by shaky BMI calculations, are considered obese but are also very healthy. More calories in, calories out, and exercise admonitions aren't going to cut it. Most of us have blocked that out for a long time. What does cut it is hearing from many who have conquered this issues (obesity), and in the process, have regained sound health in many other areas. Those who claim fat shaming, Freedhoff and others, clearly miss the point, but so does Cancer Research UK to Gaunt's point.

I am torn. As someone who became obese in their teens, I am painfully aware of the prejudices. As a humanitarian, I regard all prejudice as repugnant.

As that same person who is far happier AND healthier on low carb, I think it's a shame more people haven't tried it. But I know why they don't: it is the false promise of "eat cake and lose weight."

Food is an unacknowledged emotional regulator in myriad ways.

I have a friend who is a retired nurse. She is an unhealthy thin person who has little muscular and who's physician wants her to gain muscle and weight. My friend is vehemently anti-fat as food. She eats very low-fat and now drinks a liquid protein supplement to try to gain muscle. It hasn't been working, but she will not add any fat to her diet. She eats so few calories that I believe that her body is burning the protein for energy instead of building muscle from it.

I don't think smoking was entirely a choice people made. Not like whether to buy a t-shirt. Or a choice is made, but we have to recognize that it wasn't an easy one. Making some 16 year old taking up smoking a moral issue--well, I don't know. And you can't help, later, that when you were 16 you didn't have the Wisdom of the Ages, I mean, who does, and you've got this whole addiction going on. I tried to take up smoking when I was younger. I was lucky, it just ramped up my asthma. Smoke a cigarette, I get inflamed and my breathing isn't as good for a week or two. I got the same problem once working with loose hay, I was sick for weeks.


My mom has COPD. You can blame this on her smoking, but growing up when she did, I don't think you can rightly place a moral blame here. Sometimes I hear comments when people are outside hospitals with oxygen tanks and cigarettes. My brother in law had a quadruple bypass a few years ago, patient in the next bed was going on about wanting to get out of there and eat some decent food--by which he meant junk food. There are very reasonable, selfish reasons to cease these behaviours--which speaks to the strength of the drives/addictiveness of the behaviours. I don't think morality is the right framework here.



Smoking is the normal consequence of normal people living in abnormal, smokigenic environments.

I guess for the smaller percentage of people that have an actual addiction, this might be an issue. But for average people and the general population that are just trying to improve overall health, moderate carb is a great option. I guess it depends on what you define as moderate carb--I'd probably put that somewhere around 100–150g/day. Most paleo and primal diets fit this, as do South Beach, Zone, etc.

I don't think I'd lose weight on that, which is my current goal, but I hope to move to a paleo/primal style once I'm at maintenance. Of course, I don't have a medical need like epilepsy or cancer or something that requires me to be at an extremely low carb level permanently.