2008 Focus SECOND in Consumer Reports Comparo

[timmm55]

Just a thought here about being fat.....or about the statistics.

 

A few years ago I went back to Jr. College and took a health class. I was 45 or so, 172 lbs., 5'10" and according to the statistics I was borderline overweight. That was absurd. I've been working out since I was 19, not a body builder, but relatively lean. One thing to remember is that muscle weights more than fat. To be accurate a BMI (body mass index) needs to be done.

 

http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/weigh...se_body_fat.htm

 

I wonder about the national statistics. Most of my friends are gym regulars and they are not fat. And some of them are BIG guys. They would all be lumped into the "overweight" group just by their weight vs height ratio.

 

 

 

 

While there certainly are overweight/obese people out there (my brother is one of them) statistcs are not an accurate representation. (I did have a BMI done, and I was "lean" as I already knew.)

 

Correction!!!!!!! a BMI DOESN'T differenciate between a body builder or an obese person. A "pinch test" with calipers (by a trained professional) or a water immersion test are more accurate.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/hea...ols/hescale.htm

Edited October 5, 2007 by timmm55

[igor]

^^^YES BMI does not distinguish between a body builder and a McD frequenter

 

Igor

[Catalepsy]

wow, a lot of anger there on a Friday. :o)

 

The way I look at it, if nature wants you to live/breed, it will give you more time and better genes to live on and continue the human race. If you are mentally/physically weak, you will face many health problems because mother nature wants you out of the family tree.

 

I don't see a link between "blame" (meaning someone is doing something wrong) and the simplicity of it is just you being you (meaning that nature selects the most able to survive and kills off the rest). What is the point of blaming someone for eating too much or risky behavior? It is just a part of the process to make sure the best and the brightest continue, and the people who are not able to cope do not.

 

 

 

You're a hyprocite.

 

I know that without a shadow of a doubt that if we examined your lifestyle and the choices you make, there would be something in which "blame" could be assigned to you so that the rest of us wouldn't be encumbered with the cost. If you say there isn't then you're a liar as well.

[Deanh]

Technically I'm now 2 minutes more grown up than last time.

 

It's like hearing people complain about being unhealthy/overweight as they dine at McDonalds. There is no reason for a child (ok, 99% of them) to be overweight. It is simply unacceptable and a failure of society. If you refuse to believe that obesity is controllable this debate has to end because you are wrong.

I blame current technology.........kids never used to have playstation, computers, cell phones etc....but they did have a bat and ball, tennis raquets, soccer balls and ACTIVE forms of amusement.......

[NickF1011]

I blame current technology.........kids never used to have playstation, computers, cell phones etc....but they did have a bat and ball, tennis raquets, soccer balls and ACTIVE forms of amusement.......

 

At least now they have Wii and Guitar Hero to actually get them off the couch. Sad.

[TomServo92]

wow, a lot of anger there on a Friday. :o)

 

The way I look at it, if nature wants you to live/breed, it will give you more time and better genes to live on and continue the human race. If you are mentally/physically weak, you will face many health problems because mother nature wants you out of the family tree.

 

I don't see a link between "blame" (meaning someone is doing something wrong) and the simplicity of it is just you being you (meaning that nature selects the most able to survive and kills off the rest). What is the point of blaming someone for eating too much or risky behavior? It is just a part of the process to make sure the best and the brightest continue, and the people who are not able to cope do not.

 

You're looking at it from a Darwinian perspective. Shock's point of view if purely monetary. He wants to be able to lay blame to support the act of making those who make bad choices pay more so that it will cost him less. The truth is that we all make some type of choice in our life that has a societal impact, whether it be overeating, drug use, or talking on your cell phone while you drive.

[Deanh]

At least now they have Wii and Guitar Hero to actually get them off the couch. Sad.

yes it is....no more riding bikes 10 miles to school etc etc...GOD I FEEL OLD!.....

[ShockFX]

No. The symptoms exist because of the cause. Ergo, blame for the cause equates to blame for the symptom.

Lung cancer is 99% of the time due to smoking. I don't blame people with lung cancer, I blame people smoking for causing 99% of all lung cancer. Can you not see the difference there? I'm not blaming people for being fat, I'm blaming people that are fat because they eat terribly and/or don't exercise. Are you saying a 300lb person eating McDonalds is blameless?

[Deanh]

Lung cancer is 99% of the time due to smoking. I don't blame people with lung cancer, I blame people smoking for causing 99% of all lung cancer. Can you not see the difference there? I'm not blaming people for being fat, I'm blaming people that are fat because they eat terribly and/or don't exercise. Are you saying a 300lb person eating McDonalds is blameless?

I always chuckled when I first got here....first thing I noticed was just the outright size of people, some not even overweight.....but the funniest was going to a McDonalds or a Jack in the Box, they were novelties to me as new Zealand fast food at the time consisted of Fish and Chips and toasted Sandwiches....anyway, back to the hilarity....i would sit in the line and watch "larger" people ordering 3 quarter pounders WITH cheese, 2 large French fries...AND....YOU GUESSED IT....a DIET coke.... UNBELEIVABLE!

[ShockFX]

You're looking at it from a Darwinian perspective. Shock's point of view if purely monetary. He wants to be able to lay blame to support the act of making those who make bad choices pay more so that it will cost him less. The truth is that we all make some type of choice in our life that has a societal impact, whether it be overeating, drug use, or talking on your cell phone while you drive.

 

Duh, cause people aren't motivated by Darwinism, but if you tell them they can't buy that new TV because they are fat they get the picture in a hurry.

 

And if I don't overeat, have good genetics, don't use drugs, don't cause accidents, etc....I should pay for people that do? They have no incentive to change behaviors if the cost is the same to them as it is to me.

 

You know why patients on Medicare/Medicaid visit the doctor much more on average than people that pay out of pocket? It's because there is no cost to them associated with it. So the doctor orders unneccessary tests just to make sure he's not sued later on.

 

It's basic human nature to act based on incentives/disincentives. If I told you I'd give you $5million to get in shape, you'd do it. But would you do it for no cash reward? The health benefits to you are the same, but people are unwilling to change unless they get something NOW for it.

[Catalepsy]

So if I don't have children and don't plan on having children, I shouldn't have to pay school taxes right?

 

 

 

You're looking at it from a Darwinian perspective. Shock's point of view if purely monetary. He wants to be able to lay blame to support the act of making those who make bad choices pay more so that it will cost him less. The truth is that we all make some type of choice in our life that has a societal impact, whether it be overeating, drug use, or talking on your cell phone while you drive.

[ShockFX]

So if I don't have children and don't plan on having children, I shouldn't have to pay school taxes right?

 

I'm pretty sure education has a societal benefit. Obesity, on the other hand...

[TomServo92]

Duh, cause people aren't motivated by Darwinism, but if you tell them they can't buy that new TV because they are fat they get the picture in a hurry.

 

And if I don't overeat, have good genetics, don't use drugs, don't cause accidents, etc....I should pay for people that do? They have no incentive to change behaviors if the cost is the same to them as it is to me.

 

You know why patients on Medicare/Medicaid visit the doctor much more on average than people that pay out of pocket? It's because there is no cost to them associated with it. So the doctor orders unneccessary tests just to make sure he's not sued later on.

 

It's basic human nature to act based on incentives/disincentives. If I told you I'd give you $5million to get in shape, you'd do it. But would you do it for no cash reward? The health benefits to you are the same, but people are unwilling to change unless they get something NOW for it.

 

And what about the behaviours that you have affect everyone else? So far you've avoided that aspect of it. You seem perfectly willing to lay blame on other people but how would react if it were the other way around?

[ShockFX]

And what about the behaviours that you have affect everyone else? So far you've avoided that aspect of it. You seem perfectly willing to lay blame on other people but how would react if it were the other way around?

If you can name some behaviors that might affect others, I'll gladly own up to any of them that fit.

[Catalepsy]

There are obese doctors that are saving lives. There are obese teachers. Are you arguing that people who are fat or involved in risky behavior contribute nothing to society?

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure education has a societal benefit. Obesity, on the other hand...

Edited October 5, 2007 by Catalepsy

[ShockFX]

There are obese doctors that are saving lives. There are obese teachers. Are you arguing that people who are fat or involved in risky behavior contribute nothing to society?

See, this is why people are retarded. I never said obese PEOPLE contribute nothing. I said OBESITY contributes nothing. So unless you want to argue it's better to be obese than not obese, I'm right.

 

EDIT: Obese people gain nothing from being obese that's beneficial. Educated people gain benefits from being educated.

Edited October 5, 2007 by ShockFX

[TomServo92]

If you can name some behaviors that might affect others, I'll gladly own up to any of them that fit.

 

Do you ever exceed the speed limit?

 

Have you ever talked on your cellphone (or any other similar distraction) while driving?

 

Do you drink alcohol?

[timmm55]

http://spurlockwatch.typepad.com/front/poo...ment/index.html

 

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2810

 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcare/a/cdcbadstats.htm

 

The more I read about it, and from my own experience I think the obesity "epidemic" is a manufactured lie by people who have a self interest (ie to make money).

[ShockFX]

Do you ever exceed the speed limit?

 

Have you ever talked on your cellphone (or any other similar distraction) while driving?

 

Do you drink alcohol?

 

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

 

Now tell me how this is making you pay more.

[timmm55]

You know why patients on Medicare/Medicaid visit the doctor much more on average than people that pay out of pocket? It's because there is no cost to them associated with it. So the doctor orders unneccessary tests just to make sure he's not sued later on.

 

People on Medicare/Medicaid are usually older and/or are in need of health care.

 

People who who don't have health care and defer treatment cost more in the long run.

[TomServo92]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

 

Now tell me how this is making you pay more.

 

Those are risky behaviours that contribute to higher insurance costs. The first two also put you at higher risk to be in an accident which could affect others for more than just monetarily. The argument is no different than the one you're making.

Edited October 5, 2007 by TomServo92

[ShockFX]

People on Medicare/Medicaid are usually older and/or are in need of health care.

 

People who who don't have health care and defer treatment cost more in the long run.

 

You are actually wrong. Medicare is for the elderly, Medicaid is for the poor. People without healthcare that defer do cost more because they wait too long for serious conditions. People with health care they pay for though, are less likely to go when not necessary because they don't get every single cough checked out. They weigh the cost vs the benefits. But we have a system where some people have no cost associated with their choices.

[pcsario]

I'm seriously debating if you understand reading comprehension at ALL.

And you can keep being in denial of the hard choices that would give you control of your life. That's how you defend Ford as well, looks like you're a winner to me.

</thread>

[the_spaniard]

Wow. At times this place crosses over to the surreal.

 

Last time I checked, America does have an obesity epidemic. Let's not get into silly arguments that it's a media-created lie, like that fake global warming stuff there are endless threads devoted to, and the liberal media destroying the American auto market, because it's all a big conspiracy.

 

BUT, my take on it, is:

 

America is a free country. As Americans we choose to eat too much, smoke, etc. We definitely aren't lazy, we are just slave-driven. We work waaaayyyy too many hours, and don't have time to cook for ourselves. So we turn to that super-fat, greasy food that we are hard wired to find desirable (from an evolutionary standpoint).

 

IMO one thing we as Americans are NOT good at is moderation. We all want more than we need, because we want it, and we want it now. Damn the consequences, we want instant gratification. That being said, I treat it as a choice. If someone wants to kill themselves by smoking, it's a free country. But when they die, it's anything but tragic, it was a choice.If someone wants to fire down eight double-quarter pounders a day, they bloat up to 500+ pounds, let them. For the MOST part if they croak from a heart attack, it's not tragic, it's a choice.

 

If someone becomes obese due to long-term psychological issues - and uses eating as a coping strategy, (side effect from medication) security blanket, etc (like a good friend of mine did growing up) I have a little more sympathy for them. BTW, other countries DO have obese people as well, just not as many as we do.

 

I believe that most people abroad look down on American obese people because in their eyes it shows a fundamental lack of discipline. There may be some truth in some of that, but then again, (for the most part) they don't work the ridiculous work hours we do here.

 

And yeah, at the end of the day we as Americans look down on obese people. We make jokes about them, and we probably pass them over more for promotions and pay them a little less on average.

 

<------------BACK to TOPIC

 

Good press for for is great press. Has anyone confirmed this was the 07 or 08 Focus in the test? If so, what has changed in the Focus from the 06 model year?

[Catalepsy]

Okay, maybe we should tax retardation. We know retardation contributes nothing to society. It costs society massive amounts of money via special education, transportion, and medical costs. So let's tax retardation.

 

Remember, we're not taxing retarded people...we're taxing retardation.

 

Purely from an economic point of view, why not tax physical disablity as well? American society spends enormous amounts of money on making everything accessible and medical costs. Let's tax that.

 

Cancer...wow, should I even begin to state how much cancer costs? Medical bills on cancer is MASSIVE! When was the last time cancer contributed to society?

 

So retarded people, cripples and cancer patients, you're are on notice.

 

 

 

 

See, this is why people are retarded. I never said obese PEOPLE contribute nothing. I said OBESITY contributes nothing. So unless you want to argue it's better to be obese than not obese, I'm right.

 

EDIT: Obese people gain nothing from being obese that's beneficial. Educated people gain benefits from being educated.