Why the fuck would you call this "clinical obesity" rather than "cardiovascular risk" or something more neutral? Body weight adds nothing to a conversation focused on habits and health markers. www.nytimes.com/2024/09/19/o...

Medical Doctors are probably more susceptible to bigotry and this kind of entrenched psuedoscience because their position in society tells them that they're much smarter and wiser than other people, preventing them from hearing or considering critique. Or they're fucking assholes.

Speaking as a cardiovascular researcher, I think for this specific discussion using the term "cardiovascular risk" is way too broad. I think (I would hope!) these researchers would be fine with a better term for fat that contributes to cardiovascular/metabolic risk.

it already has a name: cardiometabolic syndrome but folks like him like saying patients with obesity as it is much more judgy in a social context and some folks just want to assume that fat people automatically have these issues while being thin is somehow a marker of good health/good habits

Metabolic Syndrome is more descriptive and accurate in almost every way.

“Obesity the actual illness, irrespective of body size” 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️ Lol if you disregard body size, there *is* no obesity! Body size (or body fat anyway) is literally what that word means, you won’t get rid of that by establishing a “better definition”

“obesity as the actual illness regardless of body size” is…a CHOICE to type in a document.

“obesity the actual illness” OKAYYYY SO a pretend thing that isn’t real???

People in the comments explaining the term obesity to Michael Hobbes is just the wildest thing.

BMI is a BS number. I wish the med. community would disregard it completely. It doesn't take into account muscle mass, bone density, racial or sex differences, body composition or medical history. It's just a number for insurance co's to use to charge ppl higher rates.

They’re going to do labs but not dx other diseases??