"7,000 calories a day, my life as a 600 lb woman"

[Munkie91087]

I don't think anybody said she wasn't human or doesn't deserve basic human respect, but she is obese. Dangerously so. She clearly has an enabling family that isn't giving her the help and support she needs. I didn't see anyone say anything overly rude about her. I stand by what I said, I have no earthly idea how anyone gets that large. You figure basic vanity would settle in well before that point. I hope she gets the help she needs because if not she will die. No one can be that large and live a long life. It just isn't the way our bodies are designed. However, she's still worthy of respect and I saw no one being overly disparaging towards her. At least not in this thread.

[HMARK Center]

Mar 6, 2014 0:53:08 GMT -5 Munkie91087 said:

I don't think anybody said she wasn't human or doesn't deserve basic human respect, but she is obese. Dangerously so. She clearly has an enabling family that isn't giving her the help and support she needs. I didn't see anyone say anything overly rude about her. I stand by what I said, I have no earthly idea how anyone gets that large. You figure basic vanity would settle in well before that point. I hope she gets the help she needs because if not she will die. No one can be that large and live a long life. It just isn't the way our bodies are designed. However, she's still worthy of respect and I saw no one being overly disparaging towards her. At least not in this thread.

It was largely the "no sympathy" comments, which we got some of.

On the surface, I'm with you; when I was at my heaviest, something like 250 pounds, I was eating way too much junk and didn't really know how to eat a more balanced diet, so it's tough for me to imagine what I would've had to have done to get into the 400-600 pound range without gaining all that weight willingly.

However, again, it's one of those things where our own abilities to understand it really aren't that important. Things happen, especially in cases of addiction and ignorance of reality, that most people outside of those situations couldn't easily comprehend. When something incredibly unhealthy is brought up to you as "normal", your mind will do weird things to justify it as normal.

I've read up before on a small movement that goes by some name like "healthy at any size" or whatever, and there's some interesting stuff there, though I don't necessarily buy all of it for the general population. Still, as said before, we'd go a long way toward making healthy habits more accessible and appealing to people if we focused on how, yes, it IS possible for some folks to be 300+ pounds and not be at insanely high risks for heart disease or what have you, which could help people get over the stigma involved and the "what's the point of trying?" feeling when a person realizes they'll likely never be thin.

[kidglov3s]

Mar 6, 2014 10:08:24 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

it IS possible for some folks to be 300+ pounds and not be at insanely high risks for heart disease or what have you

I was totally with you until this part. If someone is 300+ pounds they're going to be at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and other disorders, no matter how healthy they live, if they don't drop the excess weight. For all the good that the Fat Acceptance movement does calling out people who genuinely are assholes to fat people (such as the dregs of reddit), I'm very troubled by the idea of normalizing even extreme obesity as something that's ok and can't be helped, when we're seeing obesity trends increase and the diseases increase. As a society we must acknowledge that extreme obesity is dangerous in and of itself and that is ok to lose weight, and that if you're morbidly obese losing weight is the thing to do and is possible, or this will just get worse and worse.

That's not the only thing to do, but I think in some corners it is an essential thing to do. There is a growing school of thought that losing weight in any circumstances is stupid/cruel/pointless, and this is foolishness, imo.

[fuzzywarble, squat cobbler]

But what's wrong with saying, "So-and-so doesn't deserve sympathy"? I'm one of those people who wholelheartedly believes this statement, because a lot of these people eat and eat and eat, and once they hit 700 lbs and realize, "Gee...maybe I"m just a tad obese", and then start crying when they can't commit themselves to try to be healthier. It's great that some of them want to lose weight, and I love hearing success stories (it makes me happy to see people change their lives and actually LEARN how to eat and take better care of themselves), but when they're that big, and all they do is whine about being that big, without actually having any accountability or taking the necessary steps to change their lives, then they get no sympathy from me.

Also, super morbidly obese people are negatively impacting our health care system. Just look at this article: www.fairfoodnetwork.org/connect/blog/obesity-and-rising-cost-healthcare-america . If obesity rates keep rising, medical costs associated with obesity will cause payroll taxes and income taxes paid on Social Security benefits to rise. How can I have sympathy when people who have such a treatable condition - and who do nothing about it - are causing healthy/responsible people like me to have to shell out more in taxes? Sorry, but if you're obese and want to lose weight, either get on the ball or stop your whining.

If people are big, and are happy being big, then this doesn't apply to them. If they're happy with how they look, then great. But I can't stand whiners who don't do anything to improve their current physical state.

Also, when they complain that obesity is a freakin' disease, this is pretty much a slap in the face to every cancer patient out there, as well as people who have been stricken with ALS, MS, and any other type of disease that they didn't bring upon themselves. Obesity is NOT a disease; it's a repercussion of irresponsibility.

I know that there will be some people on here who respond to me negatively, and that's fine. But this is how I feel, and I'm very passionate about this topic. And this 600 lb. TV show is further showing us just how much society revels in gluttony , only to expect the easy way out (surgery) when it comes to trying to 'cure' their gluttony.

By the way, I'm not trying to 'shame' or be a bully. But it just drives me nuts hearing super morbidly obese people complain and then think that they should be given the easy way out (surgery), while not actually putting in some hard work themselves.

[HMARK Center]

Mar 6, 2014 12:08:47 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

Mar 6, 2014 10:08:24 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

it IS possible for some folks to be 300+ pounds and not be at insanely high risks for heart disease or what have you

I was totally with you until this part. If someone is 300+ pounds they're going to be at higher risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and other disorders, no matter how healthy they live, if they don't drop the excess weight. For all the good that the Fat Acceptance movement does calling out people who genuinely are assholes to fat people (such as the dregs of reddit), I'm very troubled by the idea of normalizing even extreme obesity as something that's ok and can't be helped, when we're seeing obesity trends increase and the diseases increase. As a society we must acknowledge that extreme obesity is dangerous in and of itself and that is ok to lose weight, and that if you're morbidly obese losing weight is the thing to do and is possible, or this will just get worse and worse.

That's not the only thing to do, but I think in some corners it is an essential thing to do. There is a growing school of thought that losing weight in any circumstances is stupid/cruel/pointless, and this is foolishness, imo.

There're actually studies and some science that points to 300-ish being acceptable, but it does matter what the overall size of the person is (e.g. bone structure, height, frame, etc). I don't mean to use "300+" as a catch-all; there IS a limit, and there's also the reality that most people who become very obese don't manage to do so while leading an all-around healthy lifestyle; my bad, I should've clarified. Weight is simply a function of "calories in/calories out", so to speak, and a person can gain weight while remaining mobile or active or not binging on junk food, plus the person might carry the additional weight in a way that is far less hazardous to overall health (e.g. a woman who's more "pear" shaped vs. the "apple" shape where the fat is concentrated in the belly/against the vital organs.

In totem I definitely agree that the school of thought that bashes ANY attempts at weight loss (and ESPECIALLY people who rage about movements to get kids to be healthier; kids don't get to choose their diets, let them learn to be healthy) is complete folly and destructive. My overall point is more that weight itself isn't necessarily indicative of health to a point; you're absolutely right that at a certain level, which might vary depending on the individual or might be in the more obvious range like in the OP, there's no way to call certain weights healthy.

fuzzy, we just got done explaining why saying "they should've noticed they were getting obese" doesn't work when you're discussing issues that involve addiction, hammered-home ignorance, and the mental and emotional gymnastics that go along with each. It's not your job to go and console the person or hug them, but saying "I have no sympathy" is that faux-internet tough guy routine of coming off as jaded and superior to others, which is especially wrong when discussing matters involving people you've never met, who have lived lives and circumstances that you have no intimacy with.

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

Mar 6, 2014 12:37:38 GMT -5 fuzzywarble, squat cobbler said:

But what's wrong with saying, "So-and-so doesn't deserve sympathy"? I'm one of those people who wholelheartedly believes this statement, because a lot of these people eat and eat and eat, and once they hit 700 lbs and realize, "Gee...maybe I"m just a tad obese", and then start crying when they can't commit themselves to try to be healthier. It's great that some of them want to lose weight, and I love hearing success stories (it makes me happy to see people change their lives and actually LEARN how to eat and take better care of themselves), but when they're that big, and all they do is whine about being that big, without actually having any accountability or taking the necessary steps to change their lives, then they get no sympathy from me.

Also, super morbidly obese people are negatively impacting our health care system. Just look at this article: www.fairfoodnetwork.org/connect/blog/obesity-and-rising-cost-healthcare-america . If obesity rates keep rising, medical costs associated with obesity will cause payroll taxes and income taxes paid on Social Security benefits to rise. How can I have sympathy when people who have such a treatable condition - and who do nothing about it - are causing healthy/responsible people like me to have to shell out more in taxes? Sorry, but if you're obese and want to lose weight, either get on the ball or stop your whining.

If people are big, and are happy being big, then this doesn't apply to them. If they're happy with how they look, then great. But I can't stand whiners who don't do anything to improve their current physical state.

Also, when they complain that obesity is a freakin' disease, this is pretty much a slap in the face to every cancer patient out there, as well as people who have been stricken with ALS, MS, and any other type of disease that they didn't bring upon themselves. Obesity is NOT a disease; it's a repercussion of irresponsibility.

I know that there will be some people on here who respond to me negatively, and that's fine. But this is how I feel, and I'm very passionate about this topic. And this 600 lb. TV show is further showing us just how much society revels in gluttony , only to expect the easy way out (surgery) when it comes to trying to 'cure' their gluttony.

By the way, I'm not trying to 'shame' or be a bully. But it just drives me nuts hearing super morbidly obese people complain and then think that they should be given the easy way out (surgery), while not actually putting in some hard work themselves.

You're such a bleeding heart, your sympathetic encouragement is overwhelming. If anything, you're probably still being too generous to fat people!

[Deleted]

Great. In a thread with that woman being the focus I somehow manage to be more disgusted by some of YOU. Maybe you ought to look into the way addiction and eating the way a person like that does from an early age literally alters your brain chemistry. It's not as simple as "Just buckle up and try hard!" because for some people, their brains don't work the same as yours. You might as well be telling a guy with a busted knee to walk properly.

There Is Nothing Left literally said the phrase "They're not human. They deserve nothing."

Absolutely disgusting, shameful display.

edit: www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& for a little bit of reading on it.

[rowdy426]

7,000 calories a day, never drew a dime.


I apologize if the joke was already made.

[James Fabiano]

Anyone ever see the Sex series of shows on TLC?

[Kim]

I don't think bypass surgery should be viable, excercise is key to losing weight. She should seriously consider doing some walking or something, surgery is not the answer.

[Red Impact]

Mar 10, 2014 8:46:59 GMT -5 Kim said:

I don't think bypass surgery should be viable, excercise is key to losing weight. She should seriously consider doing some walking or something, surgery is not the answer.

Generally speaking, diet is a much more important factor in losing weight than exercise is. Exercise is important for a variety of reasons, yes, but the amount you burn exercise is miniscule compared to what you can take in in a single meal. That's why most fitness gurus will point to diet as being the key, no matter what else you do, if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you're likely to lose weight.

As for whether it's the answer, it's a complex issue, there's no one best answer because people have a variety of issues that go along with it. Walking may not be a good option for people of that size if they have certain issues (and a lot of people do once they get to be that size). Completely removing surgery as an option would be a mistake, it helps a lot of people to remove it because it doesn't fit in with the notion of what a proper way to lose weight should be. And once you get to be a certain size, time also becomes a factor, the longer you're that size, the more health risks you're likely to get. Weightloss via diet and exercise is a slow process and high failure rate with people regaining the weight back. If you're worried about someone contracting type II diabetes, or becoming bed-ridden due to stress factors on weak bones, losing wait over the course of a year might not be the most effective approach.

[Danimal]

Mar 4, 2014 20:37:06 GMT -5 Sephiroth said:

Mar 4, 2014 20:33:34 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

On one level I can kinda agree with the whole responsibility thing, cuz at its basic level that's true. But, let's be real, an addict of any kind (and clearly a lady like this has addiction qualities) has something really wrong with the way they're functioning, whether it's brain chemistry or whatever, allowing them to make obviously terrible choices.

Addicts willfully seek out enablers-they don't want to be around people who will say no. This woman's family are blatant enablers.

This

[kidglov3s]

Mar 10, 2014 9:25:47 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Mar 10, 2014 8:46:59 GMT -5 Kim said:

I don't think bypass surgery should be viable, excercise is key to losing weight. She should seriously consider doing some walking or something, surgery is not the answer.

Generally speaking, diet is a much more important factor in losing weight than exercise is. Exercise is important for a variety of reasons, yes, but the amount you burn exercise is miniscule compared to what you can take in in a single meal. That's why most fitness gurus will point to diet as being the key, no matter what else you do, if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you're likely to lose weight.

As for whether it's the answer, it's a complex issue, there's no one best answer because people have a variety of issues that go along with it. Walking may not be a good option for people of that size if they have certain issues (and a lot of people do once they get to be that size). Completely removing surgery as an option would be a mistake, it helps a lot of people to remove it because it doesn't fit in with the notion of what a proper way to lose weight should be. And once you get to be a certain size, time also becomes a factor, the longer you're that size, the more health risks you're likely to get. Weightloss via diet and exercise is a slow process and high failure rate with people regaining the weight back. If you're worried about someone contracting type II diabetes, or becoming bed-ridden due to stress factors on weak bones, losing wait over the course of a year might not be the most effective approach.

I've only ever heard of, and was only taught in nursing school of, bariatric surgery as part of a larger program toward weight loss.

The typical process is someone is significantly obese, and has documented failed attempts at weight loss. They go on a monitored Very Low Calorie Diet to demonstrate that they're committed, willing and capable of complying with the post surgery regimen. The weight loss from this initial VLCD also helps to lower the risk of the surgery itself. The surgery is performed, either something to restrict the stomach so its capacity is reduced or something to reduce the absorption of energy from food that is eaten, then the person loses weight through diet, aided either by the constriction of their stomach or the reduction of absorption.

These have proven to be effective interventions, much moreso than exercise alone. Standard protocols, if everyone is playing by the rules, demand people to pursue non-surgical routes first. Surgery is for individuals who fail with those approaches and are at high risk for or suffer problems due to their weight.

[shaker]

Mar 6, 2014 14:36:43 GMT -5 @rrnew said:

Great. In a thread with that woman being the focus I somehow manage to be more disgusted by some of YOU. Maybe you ought to look into the way addiction and eating the way a person like that does from an early age literally alters your brain chemistry. It's not as simple as "Just buckle up and try hard!" because for some people, their brains don't work the same as yours. You might as well be telling a guy with a busted knee to walk properly.

There Is Nothing Left literally said the phrase "They're not human. They deserve nothing."

Absolutely disgusting, shameful display.

edit: www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all& for a little bit of reading on it.

She's a food addict for sure (I completely understand this) - but the issue from the show is she was given opportunities most people don't get (the surgery, a doctor monitoring her weight) and squandered it by not exercising and eating fast food, even when locked up in a hospital.

So it's less "She's disgusting for being an addict" and more "She's disgusting for throwing away an amazing opportunity that most people who are overweight will never get." At least on my side.

[Red Impact]

Mar 10, 2014 9:54:37 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

Mar 10, 2014 9:25:47 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Generally speaking, diet is a much more important factor in losing weight than exercise is. Exercise is important for a variety of reasons, yes, but the amount you burn exercise is miniscule compared to what you can take in in a single meal. That's why most fitness gurus will point to diet as being the key, no matter what else you do, if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you're likely to lose weight.

As for whether it's the answer, it's a complex issue, there's no one best answer because people have a variety of issues that go along with it. Walking may not be a good option for people of that size if they have certain issues (and a lot of people do once they get to be that size). Completely removing surgery as an option would be a mistake, it helps a lot of people to remove it because it doesn't fit in with the notion of what a proper way to lose weight should be. And once you get to be a certain size, time also becomes a factor, the longer you're that size, the more health risks you're likely to get. Weightloss via diet and exercise is a slow process and high failure rate with people regaining the weight back. If you're worried about someone contracting type II diabetes, or becoming bed-ridden due to stress factors on weak bones, losing wait over the course of a year might not be the most effective approach.

I've only ever heard of, and was only taught in nursing school of, bariatric surgery as part of a larger program toward weight loss.

The typical process is someone is significantly obese, and has documented failed attempts at weight loss. They go on a monitored Very Low Calorie Diet to demonstrate that they're committed, willing and capable of complying with the post surgery regimen. The weight loss from this initial VLCD also helps to lower the risk of the surgery itself. The surgery is performed, either something to restrict the stomach so its capacity is reduced or something to reduce the absorption of energy from food that is eaten, then the person loses weight through diet, aided either by the constriction of their stomach or the reduction of absorption.

These have proven to be effective interventions, much moreso than exercise alone.

Yeah, that's the way I know of it as well, based on a family member who got it. It's not liposuction, you don't walk in and get it and walk out thin, it's part of a really long and difficult process that is essentially a last resort.

[Sephiroth]

Mar 10, 2014 9:45:15 GMT -5 Danimal said:

Mar 4, 2014 20:37:06 GMT -5 Sephiroth said:

Addicts willfully seek out enablers-they don't want to be around people who will say no. This woman's family are blatant enablers.

This

In her case it is even worse, because by enabling her, her family are trying to exert power over her. They don't want her taking care of herself and making her own choices, they want her to be reliant on them so that she will never leave and be her own person. I've seen it before.

[Kim]

Mar 10, 2014 9:54:37 GMT -5 kidglov3s said:

Mar 10, 2014 9:25:47 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Generally speaking, diet is a much more important factor in losing weight than exercise is. Exercise is important for a variety of reasons, yes, but the amount you burn exercise is miniscule compared to what you can take in in a single meal. That's why most fitness gurus will point to diet as being the key, no matter what else you do, if you eat fewer calories than you burn, you're likely to lose weight.

As for whether it's the answer, it's a complex issue, there's no one best answer because people have a variety of issues that go along with it. Walking may not be a good option for people of that size if they have certain issues (and a lot of people do once they get to be that size). Completely removing surgery as an option would be a mistake, it helps a lot of people to remove it because it doesn't fit in with the notion of what a proper way to lose weight should be. And once you get to be a certain size, time also becomes a factor, the longer you're that size, the more health risks you're likely to get. Weightloss via diet and exercise is a slow process and high failure rate with people regaining the weight back. If you're worried about someone contracting type II diabetes, or becoming bed-ridden due to stress factors on weak bones, losing wait over the course of a year might not be the most effective approach.

I've only ever heard of, and was only taught in nursing school of, bariatric surgery as part of a larger program toward weight loss.

The typical process is someone is significantly obese, and has documented failed attempts at weight loss. They go on a monitored Very Low Calorie Diet to demonstrate that they're committed, willing and capable of complying with the post surgery regimen. The weight loss from this initial VLCD also helps to lower the risk of the surgery itself. The surgery is performed, either something to restrict the stomach so its capacity is reduced or something to reduce the absorption of energy from food that is eaten, then the person loses weight through diet, aided either by the constriction of their stomach or the reduction of absorption.

These have proven to be effective interventions, much moreso than exercise alone. Standard protocols, if everyone is playing by the rules, demand people to pursue non-surgical routes first. Surgery is for individuals who fail with those approaches and are at high risk for or suffer problems due to their weight.

I didn't really look at that way but I guess you are both right there.

[King Ghidorah]

Is their even a viable exercise for a 600lb woman

[Red Impact]

Mar 10, 2014 11:50:07 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Is their even a viable exercise for a 600lb woman

Walking if she can tolerate it. If not, water aerobics, hand cycles, some light weight lifting.

If someone is that sedentary, anything that gets them started is good, and you just go from there.

[shaker]

Mar 10, 2014 12:27:49 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

Mar 10, 2014 11:50:07 GMT -5 King Ghidorah said:

Is their even a viable exercise for a 600lb woman

Walking if she can tolerate it. If not, water aerobics, hand cycles, some light weight lifting.

If someone is that sedentary, anything that gets them started is good, and you just go from there.

There's a documentary on Netflix called "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead" which shows this. There's a truck driver who weighs close to 500 lbs. To get in shape he cuts out all fast food, goes on a liquid diet for 60 days, and works out. When he starts - he can only walk for 5 minutes at a time and swim.

By the end of a year he was down to like 250 lbs. The difference between him and this woman? Motivation.