Skip to main content

View Diary: Y'all mock Chris Christie at your peril (525 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you are missing out some of the other consequences (11+ / 0-)

    such as diabetes.  He is statistically more likely to develop joint problems, hypercholesteremia, AODM etc.  Not to go Fristian (which I don't think the doctor did), but JFK and FDR both effectively minimized or concealed significant handicaps.  This would lead me to believe Christie is also concealing the long term effects of his lifestyle.

    After all anecdotes do not constitute data and while data cannot be confidently applied to individual cases, it does indicate the likelihood of certain events in a person's life  

    •  Lifestyle (20+ / 0-)

      again, fat shaming.

      No. Mister, it's not a lifestyle. For many of us, it's not a choice, either.

      The logical next step from your "lifestyle" remark is that we are to blame for everything that happens to us.

      And from there its a very tiny step to structural punishment, from civil rights to insurance rates.

      No, It's not a lifestyle, and rarely it's a choice.  Go to hell.

      •  Check the other comments (6+ / 0-)

        The commenter is also overweight

        There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

        by slothlax on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 04:48:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  disclaimer: my weight bounces between 265lbs (6+ / 0-)

          and 285 lbs.  I find the extra 20 lbs show up when I gorge on cokes and chocolate chip cookies and drops when I quit.  I have a yo yo effect currently, partially from some of my meds, so I alternate between anorexia where even the thought of eating nauseates me to gorging, where no matter the amount of food i consume, I am still ravenous.

          Therefore I understand the problems of weight control as my knees and ankles are shot, I have gout in both feet, have had HVD for decades and my triglycerides have been triple normal since 1976 or so and my doc tells me I am pre-diabetic.      

          •  what is HVD? (0+ / 0-)

            "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

            by eXtina on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:48:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm right there with you. (5+ / 0-)

            And I'm 60 years old, which means I'm both old and fat.
            My back bothers me some, but I'm still able to ride a bike for 50 miles, walk 2-3 miles and even slowly run a mile.

            My cholesteral, resting heart rate, and blood pressure are all good.

            I keep working to lose that  100 lb (I used to be over 300lb, so a little bit of progress) because it would make a lot of things easier and probably improve my quality of life as I get older, but...

            Isn't it interesting how the same problem (a pile of extra weight) can affect two individuals so differently?

            It's not a matter of fault, it's a matter of genetics and biology.  People are complex. We vary.  Population statistics are very useful, but they can only tell us so much about individual cases.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:42:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The number of obese teens has increased (9+ / 0-)

        greatly in the past decades
        In earlier years, more people were engaged in hard physical labor.  That is no longer true as people have more and more sedentary lifestyles (If you still plow 5 acres a day with a mule, I apologize or if you still split kindling for the fire, I apologize)
        In addition, people eat more high calorie foods with high refined sugar content.  Our grandparents rarely ate meat comparatively and ate many more fresh and preserved fruits and veggies.  Sweetness was derived from cane and from honey. (I still have a cane press).  While the meat consumed was usually fried and usually fatty, they also maintained much higher activity levels.

        Now if you deny your lifestyle is more sedentary and your diet more calorie and sugar rich than that of your great grandparents, then maybe whatever problems you have with weight is glandular.  OTOH until Americans examine their lifestyles and acknowledge that obesity has consequences, we are not going to solve the problem    

        •  they ate vegetables (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fruits and veggies.
          veggies is a fairly recent invention

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:49:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Our grandparents generation frequently ate (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          entlord, ChurchofBruce, worldlotus

          meat - but they ate far less of it.

          3 ounce burgers for lunch, not 8 oz.

          Two short strips of bacon with breakfast, not 3 or 4 double sized ones.

          A three pound chicken was dinner for 7 or 8 people, with enough left over for a good soup the next day.

          (Assuming we're talking about American grandparents who weren't completely destitute living between 1900 and 1970).

          But some people were pudgy back then, too.  

          "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

          by JesseCW on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:57:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  exactly and a lot more offal was used in the diet (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I remember breakfasts of pig and calf brains or dinners of tongue or tail and suppers of liver or kidney.  Many of those organ meats were much richer in minerals and vitamins than the sirloin we value so much today

            I would say the same about ciggies.  My grandfather smoked 2 ciggies per day; one when he ate lunch brought to him by a kid and at evening when he sat on the porch washing his feet.  he worked 6 days a week and did not smoke on Sunday so he smoked 12 ciggies per week.  Compare that to the 4 pack puffers I knew in the 60s and 70s  

            •  Everyone has their own genetic predisposition (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              when it comes to tobacco addiction, but I certainly found I smoked a hell of a lot more when I smoked lights than when I smoked non-filters.

              A pack of Camel bolts would last me three or four days.  When I started smoking filters I went up to a pack and a half a day right away.  It got worse later.

              Cigarette for cigarette, they're equally deadly.  More tar in a non-filter, but people inhale really deeply with filtered smokes so they're just as damaging.

              It was an eye opener to watch a PBS special on great hamburger stands, all of them 100 to 70 years old.  One of them was famous back in the 20's for huge burgers.

              3.5 ounces before cooking.

              Of course, their meat was all range fed, finished in a feed lot for only 4 to 6 weeks.  That made a difference too.

              "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

              by JesseCW on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 08:42:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yep lotsa difference in range fed and grain fed (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, fiddlingnero, worldlotus

                beef was not a substantial part of US diet until after Civil War which saw the advent of mega cattle ranches and the development of the railroads and extinction of buffalo.

                These three events led to a radical change as before Americans depended on small farmstead animals such as pigs, goats and sheep for meat supplemented with wild meat and fish.  Cows were mainly kept for their milk and manure with any bull calves usually butchered at a year and half of age.  Cow calves were kept as replacement or traded or sold.  Look in any smokehouse of the era and you will find very little beef in comparison to the other meats there

                •  Our beef and chicken consumption per person (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  has skyrocketed (nearly doubled) while our pork consumption has actually dropped about 20% (per person per year).

                  Beef historically ran about twice the price of pork.  Not anymore.

                  I'm not arguing that we need to eat more pork, just pointing out how much more of other meats we're now eating thanks to factory farming.

                  "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

                  by JesseCW on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 09:00:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I could write so many diaries on factory (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JesseCW, worldlotus

                    farming as it has taken over the chicken and pork industries and is now working on the beef industry.  We will soon see factory farms for beer which will leave only lamb.  This delights my youngest daughter as she developed a taste for woolies while she was in NZ

          •  I don't know about your grandparents. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            My grandfather was born in 1900.  He grew up on a farm in North Dakota, and believe me those farmers didn't eat 3 oz servings of meat or share a 3-pound chicken with 6 or 7 other people.  That's pretty funny.  Maybe your grandparents had desk jobs.

            I didn't know my grandfather until he was maybe 40, but when I was a kid he and my grandmother regularly ate large servings of steak and pork.  They ate many of their evening meals in restaurants.  

            They ate lots of real butter, plenty of bread and desserts, and they used half and half on their cereal all their lives.  My grandfather smoked at least until he was in his 70s.  He was quite overweight, and his weight was mostly around his middle, especially in front.

            He died at 94.  He never had heart trouble or a stroke.  The only serious health problem he ever had was skin cancer on his hands (he was a dentist in the days before modern knowledge about x-rays) and lip and throat cancer from smoking.  

      •  no, it's about running for president (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        with an obviousl health problem

        •  works both ways (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, SuetheRedWA, dinotrac

          Obama smoking is a health issue too

          Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

          by GideonAB on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:36:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GoGoGoEverton, salamanderempress

            And you'll notice he doesn't exactly flaunt it. But having elected one president with a worrisome health issue doesn't make it right to elect another one.

            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

            by sidnora on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:55:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LordMike, sidnora

              But obesity is, by its nature, more visible than smoking.

              It is also not right to give a pass to the medical profession for trivializing obesity when it is far from trivial

              Blake: I am an enemy of the Federation but it is corrupt and oppressive. I will destroy it if I can

              by GideonAB on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 06:21:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW, sidnora

              why not?

              I mean, one should avoid electing suicidal megalomaniacs, and others whose good judgment is medically impaired.

              But beyond that?

              Did Kennedy's troubles hurt the nation? FDR's wheelchair?

              •  that would have excluded GWB and Reagan (0+ / 0-)

                so it sounds like a good idea

              •  As it turned out, (0+ / 0-)

                Neither Kennedy's nor Roosevelt's physical problems hurt the nation, but we voted for them unawares, at least in Kennedy's case, and with the press working mightily to minimize the problems in Roosevelt's case.

                If we are aware of a presidential candidate's health issues, at the very least it should make us far more concerned with who their running mate is. That's one of the reasons Sarah Palin cost McCain the presidency: he was and old man with a history of serious illness, and it was far too easy, and scary, to picture her in the WH.

                Obama is a very fit young man with a clean bill of health, apart from one bad habit, and he has a competent vice president. He's not going to drop dead one day soon from smoking; if it has serious effects on his health he'll get emphysema or lung cancer in 15 or 20 years. Christie, OTOH, could literally drop dead one day. Who's going to be his running mate?

                "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                by sidnora on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 05:08:19 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  How do you know he smokes? (0+ / 0-)
          •  and it got just as much attention nt (0+ / 0-)

            "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

            by eXtina on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 08:49:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So is being an African American male (0+ / 0-)

            Roughly doubles his stroke risk compared to a causcasian male.

            About the same increase, btw, as being obese.

            Do you really want to say that African American men should not run for President because they might die in office?

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:45:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You are completely correct. I agree with you 100% (13+ / 0-)

        My daughter is overweight, has an excellent diet, is not diabetic, and in fact is very healthy. My extremely obese grandmother lived into her 90's.
        Like my comment below stated, she goes to the doctor and the nutritionist says "cut out donuts and soft drinks" and she says "I never eat them." Then they give her a knowing grin and say something like "I know, I'm just telling you."

        "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

        by shmuelman on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 07:00:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, It's those (5+ / 0-)

          condescending attitudes which get me.

          Not so much from medical people, but when they come from family.  Yes, I should loose 15-20 lbs.  But when 12 family members sit around at a 80th Birthday Party at a restaurant and almost all are making oblique or not so oblique comments about people who are overweight, it really builds resentment.  

          Especially when the faults of many of the commentators are smoking, drinking too much or a history of making mean comments.  So you sit there and take it, because you love your 80 yo uncle enough that you don't get up from the table, either noisily or quietly, and make a scene.  

          However, you remember, and someday will strike back.  

          If 60% of the people in this country are overweight, then Christie will win just with the identifying vote.

    •  However, it won't keep him from being elected (7+ / 0-)

      President. Everyone knows obesity is a health problem.
      However, it is not necessarily a political problem for Christie and trying to make it one could radically backfire.
      I think he's a likeable enough loudmouth Republican, but I don't want to see him made President.
      Let's beat him on his policy decisions.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 07:43:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Entlord--He might never develop Diabetes (10+ / 0-)

      He may have been born with Hyperinsulinism. That right there causes all sorts of problems, including weight, but not diabetes.

      He may have a thyroid problem.

      He may have been exposed to certain pesticides as a child or even be the child of someone so exposed. Those can lead to endocrine problems.

      He may have a wal- in closet full  of Jelly Doughnuts, but at the end of the day--Does that matter?

      He was voted into office by people who want him in charge of their state. His fat is a non-issue.

      •  then let us separate health from weight (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slothlax, skohayes, ladybug53

        in the discussion; it seems people are taking various health risks personally.  Excess weight is a health risk the same as excess drinking or smoking or driving without a seatbelt.  So long as it is treated as a health risk, why is it a verboten subject?

        After all, we have had presidents with health problems who concealed the extent of those problems (JFK, FDR and Reagan come immediately to mind) and the question is to what extent does the public deserve to know about the health of its elected officials, esp the POTUS?

        •  Because the way weight is treated. (4+ / 0-)

          The consensus that it is a health risk that will cause premature death is something that goes back and forth. I see more problems with the Diet Drugs that kill livers, than I do with simply being overweight.

          Even cholesterol reducing drugs have serious side effects that can reduce life expectancy and shorten the length of life considerably.

          When weight is a medical issue, sometimes it goes hand in hand with other serious health problems that need treatment. Sometimes it doesn't.

          Sometimes its important to treat in order to improve quality of life, and sometimes it isn't.

          It's an iffy thing. But most of the time, it's used to stigmatize people professionally and socially, so that millions of insecure souls can feel better about themselves, or perhaps benefit from stigmatizing someone in some fashion.

          Premature death might mean someone croaks in their 70s rather than 80s or 90s. So is it worth it to torture a human being in the hopes of adding 10 years to their life? Because the weight gain as often as not might also be simply a symptom of some more serious, harder to treat condition.

          I repeat. If you want to bring our collective weight down as a nation--

          1. Make sure every community has bike lanes and sidewalks.

          2. Better planning to eliminate urban sprawl.

          3. End subsidies to sugar so that it's not dumped by the ton into every food we buy in the store.

          4. Create a living wage, so people have the money to buy better food.

          5. End time poverty, so that people have the time to get some kind of exercise.

          But understand there will always be people who are overweight even in a perfect utopian society. Metabolism is unique to each individual.

          •  I agree with you but to do what you suggest (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreenMother, ladybug53, worldlotus

            means a radical restructuring of society that the Powers that Be will oppose.  
            Personally, I have considered a stationary bike to increase my activity level but I have been up and down with sciatica since bringing in a package the postman left on the deck.  I am afraid that cycling's repetitive motion will fire off the sciatica which will lay me up even more.
            However decreasing my weight may give me an extra 10 years to enjoy my granddaughters.  As it is, except for my paternal grandfather, all the males in my direct line of descent died ages 60-62.  According to my genetics, I am at the end of my string  

            •  Sciatica is awful. It is debilitating for many (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              entlord, ladybug53, worldlotus

              people. Two things that helped me with that:

              1. Finally treating PCOS--because that was triggering the Sciatica

              2. Yoga

              After that, being able to walk and stand upright went a long way to allowing me to get exercise.

              If you have access to a pool, water aerobics might also be a possibility.

              •  unfortunately I am in the boonies with nearest (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                neighbor a mile away and all the pools have fish and otters and turtles in them.  My problem is that if I find a way to deal with one problem, comorbidities crop up, such as gout or nerve damage or a pinched nerve.  I fear I am a walking textbook of neurological morbidities

        •  Excess weight is "taking risks"? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer, ladybug53

          If you spend much time with the science, you'll learn that we have a terrible time combatting obesity.  

          A few people succeed.
          Most fail and they fail because it's damned hard to do.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 06:49:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  When did you test his blood sugar? (0+ / 0-)

      "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

      by JesseCW on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 07:52:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site