There's always an exception
| Status: | draw | |
|---|---|---|
| Topic: | Attacking someone for being fat should be a hate crime, campaigners say. |
Still, she would have to be eating enough food for the tumor to get material to grow bigger. Matter doesn't just appear out of thin air. If she hadn't though, she probably would have starved as the tumor consumed everything she ate, and then her as well.
So, that last statement...Are you saying that being fat may have prolonged her life?
Probably, yeah. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't have lost weight by eating fewer calories.
From this scope of our argument it would seem that simply losing weight was the entire basis.
Hold, up...wait a minute...
The original post you commented on said this:
"Some fat people don't have a choice in being fat. They're just fat." - valvosky
Your response implied that being fat is still a choice. In the case I presented, this woman's condition didn't give her much of a choice. She could have lost some pounds, but this giant tumor wasn't going to disappear with calorie reduction. Even if she lost all of her inessential fat, she'd still look like this : http://www.power104.fm/powerblogs/Jasmin-Doobay/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/stomach-huge.jpg
Well, she did have a choice, didn't she? She chose to get surgery to have the tumor removed. Choosing to change your diet and exercise is also possible, and I'd say, harder to commit to than choosing to have surgery. Harder, in that you have to keep it up for an extended period of time, where the surgery happens once and then it's over.
Sure, she had a choice once she realized it was a tumor...you know, after 20 years.
She had the choice to go to the doctor and get a test to determine if it was a tumor for those whole 20 years. It was really unlikely, which is why she didn't do it. Other fat people also have the choice to go to a doctor and find out if they actually just have a 140lb tumor.
From the article: “And then you go to your doctor and they tell you, ‘You need to lose weight — you’re fat!’”
"Doctors suggested weight loss surgery."
"It wasn’t until Rittenbach went to a different doctor this spring for flu-like symptoms that she found out what was really wrong."
How is it her fault that her doctors were quacks and missed it?
My original point was never that she was at fault. Just simply that if calories in are less than calories out, you lose weight. That's still true whether you have a tumor or night. Granted, it's hard to stop feeling hungry if the calories are nourishing a tumor rather than your body.
I agree with your original point...Yes, reduction of calories will result in losing weight...in this case probably resulting in death, by your own admission.
However, I pointed out that I was arguing with the fact that your response seemed to imply that this woman didn't have a choice in being fat after a certain point, she was an exception...despite pointing this out, you continued to argue that she did have a choice.
My point is yes, you can lose weight SOME weight by reduction of calories, but in some circumstances you will not be able to get out of the overweight category despite your efforts.
But ultimately she did get out of the overweight category through her own efforts. She knew there was something wrong with what the doctors were telling her and refused the stomach stapling surgery. Eventually, she found a doctor who gave her the correct diagnosis. It seems to me she took responsibility for her own weight loss, though her method obviously had to be unique to her own situation.
Yeah, eventually...but how long did she have to suffer from ridicule and judgment of others before she found her answer, despite being a PROACTIVE person?
How many people said "If you eat fewer calories than you expend, you'll always lose weight. The laws of thermodynamics are cool like that."
Regardless of how many people made fun of her, she's not an exception to the laws of thermodynamics. Tumors need fuel to grow like anything else. I agree that dieting wouldn't solve her weight problem in a healthy fashion though.
I never meant to imply that she was an exception to the laws of therodynamics. I'm just saying that the solution to her problem wasn't going to be THERMODYNAMICS.
When I said that calorie reduction causes weight loss, I didn't mean that it was an appropriate treatment for cancer.
In this woman's case, she had a rare condition that appeared to be a weight issue, but was actually something else. This doesn't change the effectiveness of eating less when faced with a real weight issue.
Ok, and I'm saying that in some cases, the answer is not as simplistic as consume less than you burn.
There are cases, though uncommon, that if people followed that rule alone they could end up (by your own admission) dead.
It's true, it's not a solution to every conceivable problem. If the argument is that the tumor lady is an exception to the rule that a calorie deficit results in weight loss, then I think I've shown that that's not true. If you're arguing that the tumor lady is an exception to the rule that "eating less food is always the appropriate course of action for someone who appears to be overweight", then I agree that it is, but that's not a rule that I ever proposed.
You did not propose it, but to me, it was implied. I think this has been settled and we've both proved our points.
Final Tally:
1 vote for HC130 votes for gabe
If you eat fewer calories than you expend, you'll always lose weight. The laws of thermodynamics are cool like that.