Paula Deen, Diabetes and Duh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some people are trying to argue on this thread that PD's lifestyle seemed healthy and didn't cause her diabetes?

I don't think so. I think people are trying to get others to understand the following points:

There is no single cause of Type 2 diabetes, and while dietary practices can contribute, they are not the sole, necessary, or inevitable cause of it.
People make choices that may harm their health. Be fair: Laugh at all of them or none of them, but don't pick and choose because you do or don't like someone.
There are very little data suggesting that eating fatty foods is an immediate problem for diabetics. Counting carbs, especially simple carbs, is a much more pressing concern.
While most people with Type 2 diabetes are overweight, most overweight people do not have Type 2 diabetes. Moreover, it is not clear whether the weight gain is a cause, or solely a cause, of the disease. It may be that poor dietary and exercise habits that are a problem for people with Type 2 diabetes are also habits that result in weight gain. Correspondence is not causation.
We aren't following Paula Deen around every day, all day. We don't actually know what her habits are, and it is none of our fucking business unless she starts dispensing medical advice. As long as all she's doing is demonstrating recipes, the only dishonest thing she can be accused of is showing them if they don't work.

http://healthateverysizeblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/the-haes-files-does-bariatric-surgery-cure-diabetes/

What is your point? Not all smokers get lung cancer or emphysema, but there is a pretty big correlation, so smart people who care about their healthy don't smoke, as people who care about their health eat less of the wrong foods and more of the right foods. Life is a game of odds.

Sorry, there is very little excuse for being the size of Paula Dean and no excuse to eat like her. Furthermore there should be laws that people like Paula Dean and smokers pay significantly more taxes into the system to support their high likelihood of draining the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some people are trying to argue on this thread that PD's lifestyle seemed healthy and didn't cause her diabetes?

I don't think so. I think people are trying to get others to understand the following points:

There is no single cause of Type 2 diabetes, and while dietary practices can contribute, they are not the sole, necessary, or inevitable cause of it.
People make choices that may harm their health. Be fair: Laugh at all of them or none of them, but don't pick and choose because you do or don't like someone.
There are very little data suggesting that eating fatty foods is an immediate problem for diabetics. Counting carbs, especially simple carbs, is a much more pressing concern.
While most people with Type 2 diabetes are overweight, most overweight people do not have Type 2 diabetes. Moreover, it is not clear whether the weight gain is a cause, or solely a cause, of the disease. It may be that poor dietary and exercise habits that are a problem for people with Type 2 diabetes are also habits that result in weight gain. Correspondence is not causation.
We aren't following Paula Deen around every day, all day. We don't actually know what her habits are, and it is none of our fucking business unless she starts dispensing medical advice. As long as all she's doing is demonstrating recipes, the only dishonest thing she can be accused of is showing them if they don't work.

http://healthateverysizeblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/the-haes-files-does-bariatric-surgery-cure-diabetes/

WARNING-This is a FAT ACCEPTANCE BLOG. Overweight people trying to tell everyone that they really are healthy...really, they swear, fat is healthy. Bon Appetite!

[Anonymous]

Her food is foul and now we know that her ethics are equally rotten.

[Anonymous]

OMG, did you guys see the NYT article in which they mentioned the cost of the drug that Ms. Deen is promoting?

The drug’s only drawback, he said, and the reason it is not a first-line diabetes medication, is its high cost: about $500 a month at the normal therapeutic dose.

This is the crux of our national health care nightmare. You can be proactive about lifestyle, and exercise, eat heathy, in other words, make certain sacrifices, OR you could just wait until there is some magic pill/shot that other people will pay for/subsidize! Yay!!!!

[Anonymous]

And people wonder why there is such prejudice/ bias/ downright loathing towards the obese. Truly, fatties are going to do us all in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Furthermore there should be laws that people like Paula Dean and smokers pay significantly more taxes into the system to support their high likelihood of draining the system.

Nonsense. It is health fascists like you that should pay more - nothing is more expensive than Alzheimer's care that can go on for decades. Smokers and the obese have the decency to die off around the end of their working lives rather than hang around year after year as they become more and more senile, requiring 24 hour care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Furthermore there should be laws that people like Paula Dean and smokers pay significantly more taxes into the system to support their high likelihood of draining the system.

Nonsense. It is health fascists like you that should pay more - nothing is more expensive than Alzheimer's care that can go on for decades. Smokers and the obese have the decency to die off around the end of their working lives rather than hang around year after year as they become more and more senile, requiring 24 hour care.

Yes, but smokers and the obese are actively doing something, every single day for many years usually, that promotes, enhances and causes their condition. And their dying off process -- even if it occurs at a relatively young age -- still costs millions to the health care system. People develop Alzheimers through no known fault of their own.

[Anonymous]

Fat acceptance = people have the right to respect regardless of what they weigh. People are under no moral obligation to make choices -- including health choices -- based on what other people want.

Health at every size = to the extent we can influence our health, we do so through the process of choosing foods that make us feel good and function well and through finding the type and amount of exercise that does the same. You can be thin and unhealthy or fat and healthy, and focusing on your BMI will distract you from the numbers that have been shown to correlate to good health.

Most people here will probably use them interchangeably, because fat people are icky and should be hated for their own good, but the two philosophies, while they may coexist, are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fat acceptance = people have the right to respect regardless of what they weigh. People are under no moral obligation to make choices -- including health choices -- based on what other people want. Health at every size = to the extent we can influence our health, we do so through the process of choosing foods that make us feel good and function well and through finding the type and amount of exercise that does the same. You can be thin and unhealthy or fat and healthy, and focusing on your BMI will distract you from the numbers that have been shown to correlate to good health.

Most people here will probably use them interchangeably, because fat people are icky and should be hated for their own good, but the two philosophies, while they may coexist, are not the same.

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

[Anonymous]

Paula Deen has diabetes? But that's like a marathoner dying of a heart attack.

[Anonymous]

I just wonder how many other major health problems she has. I guess we won't find out until she inks corresponding drug deals for them.

[Anonymous]

You cannot be fat and as healthy as you would be if you weren't fat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

If your desire to be thin means you're not getting adequate nutrition, people are subsidizing you. If you're sleep-deprived and causing accidents, people are subsidizing you. If you're overexercising to stay thin and injuring yourself because of it, we're subsidizing you. If you do extreme sports and get hurt, we're subsidizing you. If you stay thin without exercising, so you don't exercise, we're subsidizing you.

People make shitty choices. Somehow people want to focus on the one that results in their being less than aesthetically pleasing to the mainstream, even though the actual cost of those choices is minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fat acceptance = people have the right to respect regardless of what they weigh. People are under no moral obligation to make choices -- including health choices -- based on what other people want. Health at every size = to the extent we can influence our health, we do so through the process of choosing foods that make us feel good and function well and through finding the type and amount of exercise that does the same. You can be thin and unhealthy or fat and healthy, and focusing on your BMI will distract you from the numbers that have been shown to correlate to good health.

Most people here will probably use them interchangeably, because fat people are icky and should be hated for their own good, but the two philosophies, while they may coexist, are not the same.

Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

And they subsidize schools and other things for you and your kids. This is America and we have given up too damn many rights and if people want to smoke, eat too much, drink, they are free to so do. I do not smoke, drink, and am not overweight but I will fight to the death to defend other people's decision to do so. Who the hell put you in charge of anyone's life other than your own and your poor children who will have to listen to your diatribe and end up as neurotic as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fine, if they are willing to pay for it. Problem is, you and I subsidize them.

If your desire to be thin means you're not getting adequate nutrition, people are subsidizing you. If you're sleep-deprived and causing accidents, people are subsidizing you. If you're overexercising to stay thin and injuring yourself because of it, we're subsidizing you. If you do extreme sports and get hurt, we're subsidizing you. If you stay thin without exercising, so you don't exercise, we're subsidizing you.

People make shitty choices. Somehow people want to focus on the one that results in their being less than aesthetically pleasing to the mainstream, even though the actual cost of those choices is minimal.

Ha! You're joking, right?

I would bet my bottom dollar that if you add up all of the adult Americans in the first five scenarios you describe, the total number of people wouldn't be a tenth of all of the "aesthetically unpleasing" (read: fat) people that we are subsidizing.