Originally Posted By barboy No disneyfreak, the M&M's are worse to take in than a puff or two when talking about the total quality of life or lackthereof. Adverse effects of cigarette use on one's life: 1) personal health 2) dirty looks from bystanders 3) financial costs 4) faster aging 5) smells which attach to carpets, cloths and upholstery Adverse effects of eating disorders on one's life: 1) personal health 2) dirty looks from bystanders 3) financial costs 4) faster aging 5) self esteem issues 6) low energy
Originally Posted By sherrytodd >>>6) low energy<<< You've never seen my smoking friend try to keep up with us skiing. He has the lung capacity of a thimble. He loves to ski. I'm hoping this will convince him to quit.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden <<I am a smoker... I get dirty looks and nasty comments when I l take a 5 minute break to have a smoke... However, it is unacceptable for me to tell these people to put down the m and m's. I think I am missing something here.... I would think smoking is just as bad as overeating, yet why am I singled out?>> In all honesty, if you don't know the difference I think some smoke seeped into your brain. Who would you rather stand next to in line, someone who is smoking or someone shovelling M&M's into their mouth. With a smoker you have the pleasure of breathing in someone else's smoke, irritating your eyes, stinking up your hair and clothes, not to mention the wretched stench the smoker brought with them. The only downside to standing next to the food junkie is they might make you hungry, especially if they were peanut m&m's.
Originally Posted By barboy Yes sherry, I see what you mean as to endurance issues like skiing related to smoking. No competing swimmer, skier or cyclist will smoke. But generally, "all things being equal", very large people have less energy than the chain smoker.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But generally, "all things being equal", very large people have less energy than the chain smoker.>> It may seem a contradiction in terms, but I've seen fit, fat people. And I don't know if you would call it 'energy', but smokers definitely have reduced stamina because of reduced lung capacity. It is an absolute fact that smoking impacts life expectancy more than being overweight does.
Originally Posted By barboy What I should have said: Most huge people have very low energy; but not necessarily the smoker. The smoker clearly is not a candidate for physical competition but usually his smoking doesn't get in the way with day- to- day physical activities(assuming he isn't on oxygen tanks or caughing up a lung!)
Originally Posted By barboy "It is an absolute fact that smoking impacts life expectancy more than being overweight does" It is? I'll just have to take you on your word--- I would have thought that the extremely large have shorter lives than the chain smoker. But I guess that I am wrong. Anyone in insurance out there who underwrites life insurance policies... clearly one in that industry would know stats on life expectancy?
Originally Posted By smeeeko I think that things are such that people just don't think about what they are eating or what they are feeding their kids. Everything is geared toward fast & easy and getting the kids happy and fed.. No one should be eating at McDonald's.. or any fast food place for that matter but that's not to say that "billions" aren't being served every day. I consciously choose to eat the 'healthier' options whenever possible at WDW and the amount of walking we did was OMG crazy! I actually made it back after our 2 week trip to Food & Wine fest weighting about the same, maybe a pound or two LIGHTER than when we left. I guess it helps we were on our feet for 12+ hrs a day and not sitting when enjoying our tapas-like samples at food & wine fest and sharing everything whenever possible! =) (except those yummy Morroccan Mint teas and the Twinnings tea cart! *grin*) I'm about 60lbs overweight and although I am watching what I eat have gotten away from journaling everything. Unless one has "constant vigilance" and has motivation to get out and about, I think you're going to continue to see a weight "epidemic" in your adults and especially the youth of today where Type II diabetes is on a crazy upswing. OT: When I worked at DLR I actually lost 20lbs and when I quit I gained it all back plus 10lbs. It's hard, it really is.. but doable. I'm just not doing. I'll admit my guilt. ;P
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden <<It is? I'll just have to take you on your word--- I would have thought that the extremely large have shorter lives than the chain smoker. But I guess that I am wrong.>> I just ran two life insurance quotes (I'm a financial planner). A 45 year-old male that qualifies for a preferred rate class (meaning no health issues, not taking medications, is at an ideal weight for their height) but smokes would pay $2,640 for $250,000 of life insurance. A 45 year-old in a sub-standard rate class (being overweight would put you in a sub-standard rate class) but does NOT smoke would only pay $1,782 for the same coverage.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd Yep, I'm a former group life and health underwriter. Smoking will definately bump the rates up faster.
Originally Posted By smeeeko ^whenever I am at the doctor (not too often thank goodness!) the first thing they ask is "do you smoke?" and I'm like "NOPE! I got my allergies the old fashioned way.." LOL.. but yeah I sometimes wish "NON SMOKER" was in huge caps on my file. It would make a lot quicker than answering the old "do you smoke have you ever smoked?" questions.. nope and nope! (having childhood asthma will do that to you.. I avoid ciggarettes because you know, I like breathing) It's the other environmental stuff that'll kill me.. dust.. tree pollen, grass, perfume.. oh and being overweight. ;P
Originally Posted By barboy But does one who chain smokes have a shorter life expectancy than the extemely overweight? I would guess that someone who is 5' 10" with a weight of 400 lbs. or more would, statistically, have fewer days here on earth than the smoker who puffs at every given chance. Do insurance companies have a category for the very, very huge or is it just that there is one category(overweight) for rating a policy? Clearly, being 20lbs past one's window of preferred wight is far, far safer than the one who exceeds his target of 200 lbs.
Originally Posted By barboy "safer than the one who exceeds his target of 200 lbs." I mean: safer than the one who exceeds his target weight by 200 lbs or more.
Originally Posted By barboy Drs have to ask if you smoke if they want to practice sound medicine; they don't ask if you are 400 lbs because it is self evident!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip About 9 years ago my wife lost almost 90 lbs. (a fair portion of which she has gained back over the years, making jonvn's point). At one of her Dr. appointments after the loss the doctor said that although her weight loss was admirable, by far the best thing she had ever done for her health was when she quit smoking about 25 years ago. Smoking is about the worst thing you can do to your health.
Originally Posted By barboy So is there a special policy rating for the extremely large or is it "one size fits all" in the industry? State Farm has(or at the very least HAD) a "one size fits all" for smokers. One cigarette per week was rated the same as a two packer per day user.
Originally Posted By barboy "About 9 years ago my wife lost almost 90 lbs. (a fair portion of which she has gained back over the years, making jonvn's point)." And no it doesn't make his point; well I guess it lends credence to his first point about the failure rates but in no way does it make his biggest and more outrageous claim that we are slaves to our biology/DNA whereby we have no choice. Such a cop out.
Originally Posted By sherrytodd When I underwrote group policies it was one size fits all, but the more smokers will cost you a premium. Now each year I would review all the costly medical conditions and diagnosis' that were paid out and that would affect the group premium. I'll be quite honest, the medical expenses that cost the most were not weight related. The two most costly were premature birth and cancer (hence the smoker premium). The two things that would cause the greatest rise in premium in a group plan were smokers and women in child bearing age. This was a while ago (well only 10 years ago) and I don't know if they are still allowed to charge a high premium for the women anymore.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden Individual policies have many different rate classes, some companies have 8 different sub-standard levels. For instance if you're a male 6'0" and weigh 206lbs, you'd qualify for "Super Preferred". That same person weighing 236 would qualify for "Standard". If you weighed anymore than that you premium would increase anywhere from 25% to 300% depending on the increased weight. And that's assuming you have no other health issues.
