What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

WashPo Article Calls for Morbid Obesity to be Classified as a Handicap (1 Viewer)

But anyone who has done any kind of research knows that your diet should be well below the 50% carbs that myplate.gov espouses.
You're saying I won't be able to find anyone who's done any kind of research but still recommends getting more than half of one's calories from carbs? I'd say nearly the opposite: it's very difficult to find professional obesity researchers who've bought into the low-carb movement.

After I read Gary Taubes, I believed that the low-carb philosophy failed to gain headway among professional obesity researches because they were biased or ignorant or just thickheaded. That was admittedly kind of stupid of me. In any case, after looking into the subject in greater depth, I've changed my mind. It's failed to gain headway among obesity researchers because the evidence does not favor it.

To be sure, low-carb diets do work for weight loss in the short term. So do low-fat diets, though low-carb diets seem to work marginally better. But the mechanism proposed by low-carb evangelists for why low-carb diets work -- because carbs drive insulin, which drives fat gain -- has been convincingly refuted. While eliminating any large class of foods from one's diet will tend to spontaneously reduce caloric consumption, there is nothing magical about carbs that causes fat gain. That's how the Kitavans (among others) can eat an extremely high-carb diet while remaining extraordinarily healthy and slim.

So even with improvements from the disastrous food pyramid, the government is still pushing grains grains grains. Why though? I mean on the one hand they subsidize grain growers and on the other they are telling people to eat them to be healthy. Who makes the money from this? Health care and insurance is the obvious choice.
Health care insurers want their insured to be healthy. I would say that grain-growers are the obvious choice for who benefits from subsidizing and promoting the consumption of grains. Processed food manufacturers are another obvious beneficiary. Health care insurers might also benefit, but only to the extent that grain consumption is associated with better health outcomes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The FDA must know that a paleo type diet is much more healthy for the average person. But anyone who has done any kind of research knows that your diet should be well below the 50% carbs that myplate.gov espouses.
I don't think it's certain at all.
That's great. Thanks for posting. Enjoy your Fritos.
Haha. You obviously have never seen Juxt.
NTTAWWT but your response kind of illustrates my point.
Maybe I misunderstood your post. Seems like by saying enjoy your fritos you were calling him fat. Juxt is in pretty amazing shape, so I found the comment funny. Clearly you have some other very intelligent point that you hid behind a bag of fritos. Maybe you could enlighten us further.

 
But anyone who has done any kind of research knows that your diet should be well below the 50% carbs that myplate.gov espouses.
You're saying I won't be able to find anyone who's done any kind of research but still recommends getting more than half of one's calories from carbs? I'd say nearly the opposite: it's very difficult to professional obesity researchers who've bought into the low-carb movement.

After I read Gary Taubes, I believed that the low-carb philosophy failed to gain headway among professional obesity researches because they were biased or ignorant or just thickheaded. That was admittedly kind of stupid of me. In any case, after looking into the subject in greater depth, I've changed my mind. It's failed to gain headway among obesity researchers because the evidence does not favor it.

To be sure, low-carb diets do work for weight loss in the short term. So do low-fat diets, though low-carb diets seem to work marginally better. But the mechanism proposed by low-carb evangelists for why low-carb diets work -- because carbs drive insulin, which drives fat gain -- has been convincingly refuted. While eliminating any large class of foods from one's diet will tend to spontaneously reduce caloric consumption, there is nothing magical about carbs that causes fat gain. That's how the Kitavans (among others) can eat an extremely high-carb diet while remaining extraordinarily healthy and slim.

So even with improvements from the disastrous food pyramid, the government is still pushing grains grains grains. Why though? I mean on the one hand they subsidize grain growers and on the other they are telling people to eat them to be healthy. Who makes the money from this? Health care and insurance is the obvious choice.
Health care insurers want their insured to be healthy. I would say that grain-growers are the obvious choice for who benefits from subsidizing and promoting the consumption of grains. Processed food manufacturers are another obvious beneficiary. Health care insurers might also benefit, but only to the extent that grain consumption is associated with better health outcomes.
See now that's interesting to me that you of all people have jumped off the bandwagon for the low carb paleo movement. I have no doubt you are smart but you seem to have completely switched positions. You sounded very smart when you argued that paleo was the way to go as well. So which is it? What type of diet do you espouse? I'm curious because you seem to do a lot of reading on it. Which diet has worked for you?

 
Of course no two people will be equally sated by eating 5 donuts. 5 was kind of a bad example to use as it was hyperbole. The point I was trying to make is that hunger has far less to do with eating a donut(or several) than the psychological aspect of it.
I'd say that hunger has an awful lot to do with eating stuff. The more you eat, the less hungry you become. The point I've been trying to make is that this normal hunger-reducing response to eating varies from person to person, and tends not to work as well in fat people as it does in thin people.

We had a pot luck at work on friday. I can say without a doubt everybody in the office consumed more calories than usual. Was everybody hungrier? I highly doubt it. Probably had more to do with the social aspect and the fact that the food being served was not healthy. There were no less than 5 desserts.
Of course there are a zillion factors that affect eating behavior. When I say that X is one such factor, I am not denying the fact that A, B, C, and D are also factors. I am merely saying that X is one such factor. Appetite dysregulation, caused by leptin resistance or other physiological phenomena, is a real thing. That's all I'm trying to get you to acknowledge.

XMas dinner, thanksgiving, New Years, Super Bowl Sunday, etc. Most people consume more calories on these days. Most people are also far less active on those days(except maybe New Years since resolutioners come out in force) so it isn't their bodies reacting to increased activity levels. There are numerous studies and media reports regarding holiday weight gain. Many of them seem inflated, but it is a very real thing. People aren't just hungrier during the holidays.
Yes, most people eat a lot at Thanksgiving. Most people also spontaneously eat less in the days that follow Thanksgiving -- in part because they're less hungry. But that response is not the same in everybody. It varies from person to person.

There are many other factors at play.
I've specifically said that acknowledging the existence of leptin resistance does not require ignoring the existence of other factors. There are a zillion factors. That does not contradict anything I'm saying.

Then when they have put that weight on, I think the factors that led to putting it on are the same factors that cause them to keep it on or put it back on if they lose it. Not some switch in their body chemistry.
Are you saying that there's no such thing as leptin resistance, or that leptin resistance doesn't affect hunger, or that hunger doesn't affect eating habits, or that eating habits don't affect obesity?

I mean, are you really saying that a switch in body chemistry doesn't exist at all, or doesn't have an effect at all -- or are you merely saying that while it exists and may have a small effect, you think other factors are more important?

It seems like you're saying the former, but that just seems like a really weird position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
See now that's interesting to me that you of all people have jumped off the bandwagon for the low carb paleo movement. I have no doubt you are smart but you seem to have completely switched positions. You sounded very smart when you argued that paleo was the way to go as well. So which is it? What type of diet do you espouse? I'm curious because you seem to do a lot of reading on it. Which diet has worked for you?
When I was 215 and lost 40 my diet was to eat 500 less calories a day and get at least 500 more per day in exercise. I lost 2 lbs per week almost like clockwork. Losing weight is simple - not necessary easy, but it sure isn't complicated.


ETA I think that the differences in weight compared to 30 years ago are directly related to a lower activity level and there being more calorie dense foods in our faces everyday via advertising and because of the microwave.
:goodposting:


This subject is a VERY sore subject for me as I used to weigh 315-320. I would never, even at my biggest, consider myself handicapped. I would be absolutely humiliated to put those tags on my car. Finally, I just said 'eff it and lost the weight. No surgery (although I don't look down at those that do) I just *gasp* dieted and exercised and lost 120 or so pounds.

I supposedly had/have a 'glandular' problem, but it's merely a crutch used by the lazy. Anyone can lose weight, you just have to want to.

*steps off soapbox*
That's awesome.

 
See now that's interesting to me that you of all people have jumped off the bandwagon for the low carb paleo movement. I have no doubt you are smart but you seem to have completely switched positions. You sounded very smart when you argued that paleo was the way to go as well. So which is it? What type of diet do you espouse? I'm curious because you seem to do a lot of reading on it. Which diet has worked for you?
I think the idea underlying the paleo diet is sound. I think a lot of people have applied the underlying idea incorrectly. Proposing that the paleo diet should be low-carb is one of the mistakes that some people have been made. Most of our paleolithic ancestors probably did not eat low-carb.

ETA: If I had to name the single biggest difference between the true paleo diet and the modern American diet, I would probably say that the paleo diet included way, way more fiber and resistant starch (from fruits, vegetables, and legumes).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be quite honest I'd be happy finding any diet that allowed me to get to my desired weight and stay there. I don't really give a crap what people ate before I lived.

 
To be quite honest I'd be happy finding any diet that allowed me to get to my desired weight and stay there. I don't really give a crap what people ate before I lived.
There is no magic diet. Eat few calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. For your health's sake it's wise to keep a certain protein/fat/carb ratio, but this low carb stuff is mostly overrated.

Just eat less, move more.

 
To be quite honest I'd be happy finding any diet that allowed me to get to my desired weight and stay there. I don't really give a crap what people ate before I lived.
understanding how the human body and its systems evolved to work optimally can help to figure out how you should eat in order to do that.

 
it helps me to think of my body as a machine. all I need to do to lose weight is to provide the machine with enough fuel to function, and it will take care of the rest. eating just slightly less than normal (300-500 calories per day) will result in weight loss. and if you want to expedite the process, exercise will do that.

 
To be quite honest I'd be happy finding any diet that allowed me to get to my desired weight and stay there. I don't really give a crap what people ate before I lived.
understanding how the human body and its systems evolved to work optimally can help to figure out how you should eat in order to do that.
I understand that in theory. However there is so much information and misinformation out there that if anyone really does discover how to optimize their diet, it will be drowned out by the millions of articles stating anything and everything to the contrary.

 
I mean, are you really saying that a switch in body chemistry doesn't exist at all, or doesn't have an effect at all -- or are you merely saying that while it exists and may have a small effect, you think other factors are more important?It seems like you're saying the former, but that just seems like a really weird position.
Bingo. Some people get more sated, some people have a higher metabolism, some people have a lower metabolism, some people are physically repulsed by tons of foods, some people have bigger appetites. These things all exist and affect weight.

But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat. These people just don't really exist in any kind of quantity. I have never met a single one.

 
Was in line behind a flabby floppy 280 lb woman this morning at a 7-11. She got a big gulp and a jumbo hot dog for breakfast.

 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I think you are defining "physical trigger" far too narrowly. For one thing, the mind is a physical thing. My understanding is that diet can significantly and permanently alter a person's mind, just like the minds of drug abusers can be permanently altered.

 
ETA I think that the differences in weight compared to 30 years ago are directly related to a lower activity level and there being more calorie dense foods in our faces everyday via advertising and because of the microwave.
Not sure if this has been posted here - but What 2000 Calories Looks Like. Really easy these days to choke down a ton of calories in one meal. This might be fine if someone runs an hour a day to absorb those calories, but the vast majority of folks don't.


 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body.
Appetite appears to be regulated largely by the hypothalamus, which is a region of the brain. Does that make it part of the mind, or part of the body? Is there a clear distinction?

If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I don't think that follows. What if the physical trigger caused lethargy and cravings for junk food?

 
MT, I assume you don't argue the point that to eat enough to sustain a body weight of 350 pounds or more you need to take in at least 50% of that energy from processed sugar type energy, correct?

If no, can you point to someone that can get to a weight of 350 pounds on a diet of less than 100g carbs from any source per day?

I'm not saying carbs are the reason for the preponderance of muffin tops, but once you push past a certain point the only way you put on more fat is with carbs. It's just physically not possible to get there any other way.

 
MT, I assume you don't argue the point that to eat enough to sustain a body weight of 350 pounds or more you need to take in at least 50% of that energy from processed sugar type energy, correct?

If no, can you point to someone that can get to a weight of 350 pounds on a diet of less than 100g carbs from any source per day?

I'm not saying carbs are the reason for the preponderance of muffin tops, but once you push past a certain point the only way you put on more fat is with carbs. It's just physically not possible to get there any other way.
If someone gorged themselves daily with fats and proteins, are you saying they couldn't be obese?

 
ETA I think that the differences in weight compared to 30 years ago are directly related to a lower activity level and there being more calorie dense foods in our faces everyday via advertising and because of the microwave.
Not sure if this has been posted here - but What 2000 Calories Looks Like. Really easy these days to choke down a ton of calories in one meal. This might be fine if someone runs an hour a day to absorb those calories, but the vast majority of folks don't.
vast majority of thin people don't eat out regularly
 
If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
Happens all the time. A half hour on an elliptical equals one doughnut.

 
I think they should put the exercise requirement to burn off the calories ingested on all food.

6 donuts = 10 mile run/5000 sit ups/2 mile swim

1 can of soda = 1 hour on elliptical

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
parasaurolophus said:
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body.
Appetite appears to be regulated largely by the hypothalamus, which is a region of the brain. Does that make it part of the mind, or part of the body? Is there a clear distinction?

If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I don't think that follows. What if the physical trigger caused lethargy and cravings for junk food?
This is where we will just go round and round. I disagree that eating donuts instead green beans, salad, or a million other foods is regulated by appetite. I think that is a choice. I think diving for pringles instead of a potato, or eating a candy bar instead of carrots is a choice. Combine that with the fact that pringles dont fill you up as much and you have a double bang. More calories, twice as often. Then throw on top of it that a candy bar will still be tempting after eating pringles until you are sated because it is delicious. Reaching for a second or third potato is far less likely.

Translation: a bit of hunger turns into 400 calories worth of pringles followed by some fries followed by a twix compared to eating a potato with some salt and butter.

 
culdeus said:
MT, I assume you don't argue the point that to eat enough to sustain a body weight of 350 pounds or more you need to take in at least 50% of that energy from processed sugar type energy, correct?
Sumo wrestlers don't eat much processed sugar, I don't think, so processed sugar is not required. They do consume minimally processed carbs in the form of beer and rice. But I think the bulk of their diet, traditionally, comes from meat and vegetables. (I say "minimally processed" because, while beer and rice are not whole foods, the processing requires only stone-age technology. No factories need be involved.)

Eating refined foods would certainly make it easier. Calorie-dense junk foods containing lots of fat and carbs would be best. Refined sugar by itself becomes gross pretty quickly, just like concentrated fat does. I would no sooner want to eat several thousand calories' worth of table sugar than I would several thousand calories' worth of plain butter. Mix them together into a delicious toffee, however, and I might be able to do it.

If no, can you point to someone that can get to a weight of 350 pounds on a diet of less than 100g carbs from any source per day?
I personally can't point to anyone who's done it on fewer than 400 calories of carbs or fewer than 400 calories of fat. Maybe others can point to such people. I'm not all that good at pointing.

I'm not saying carbs are the reason for the preponderance of muffin tops, but once you push past a certain point the only way you put on more fat is with carbs. It's just physically not possible to get there any other way.
I don't see why it would be physically impossible. Dietary protein, by way of gluconeogenesis, can do anything dietary carbohydrate can do when it comes to packing on adipose tissue. Ten thousand calories of bacon and beef ribs a day would pretty surely induce obesity in your average couch potato.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
parasaurolophus said:
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body.
Appetite appears to be regulated largely by the hypothalamus, which is a region of the brain.
This is where we will just go round and round. I disagree that eating donuts instead green beans, salad, or a million other foods is regulated by appetite. I think that is a choice.
Choices can be affected by appetite. (The whole evolutionary point of an appetite, in fact, is to affect choices.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm torn, on the surface I think a lot of obese people re there by choice and are just lazy. But on the other hand, I've had a family member die of anorexia/bulimia, so I know how eating disorders can effect a person mentally. I know it's not an apples to apples, but there is no doubt in my mind a mental element to it

 
I would be all for providing special handicap parking spaces for the fat people.. with one stipulation. The parking spaces shall be located as far from the store entrance as possible.

 
There isn't anything particularly new in this op-ed, but I just saw it in the NY Times today so I thought I'd post it for whoever gave me the rolleyes when I said obese people are addicts:

Sugar Season. It’s Everywhere, and Addictive
This study seems to contradict the findings referenced in that article. It does compare some people's relationships with food to those of gambling addicts, but not drug addicts.

Basically saying it is a behavioral addiction, not a physical addiction.

 
I'm not sure which laws you're talking about, but most people seem to recognize that gambling addiction is "real" and that just telling addicts to stop gambling isn't a very useful tactic. I would be satisfied if food addiction got the same level of recognition.

 
I'm not sure which laws you're talking about, but most people seem to recognize that gambling addiction is "real" and that just telling addicts to stop gambling isn't a very useful tactic. I would be satisfied if food addiction got the same level of recognition.
Absent a physical dependency, what is the difference between addiction and choice?

 
I'm not sure which laws you're talking about, but most people seem to recognize that gambling addiction is "real" and that just telling addicts to stop gambling isn't a very useful tactic. I would be satisfied if food addiction got the same level of recognition.
Absent a physical dependency, what is the difference between addiction and choice?
Insurance coverage for the pharmaceutical treatment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure which laws you're talking about, but most people seem to recognize that gambling addiction is "real" and that just telling addicts to stop gambling isn't a very useful tactic. I would be satisfied if food addiction got the same level of recognition.
Don't forget sex addiction too. Basically everything that's enjoyable is addictive the way our society is going.

Self control and choice are the answers.

 
If obesity is a medical problem what about gambling? Insurance companies should have to repay gambling losses. If we are going nanny state, I don't want to see any half measures.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body.
Appetite appears to be regulated largely by the hypothalamus, which is a region of the brain.
This is a good article on this topic, and short considering the subject matter.
Thanks for posting. It is a good read, but as you said very short. They don't really explain a lot of their statements or show the data.

I found the migraine comment fascinating, until I looked it up. Almost twice as likely=81% more likely and the study used for that figure didn't eliminate the variable that lots of these migraine sufferers could be taking one of three medications for migraines known to cause weight gain.

 
If obesity is a medical problem what about gambling? Insurance companies should have to repay gambling losses. If we are going nanny state, I don't want to see any half measures.
Nobody is saying this.
If obesity is a medical problem what about gambling? Insurance companies should have to repay gambling losses. If we are going nanny state, I don't want to see any half measures.
Nobody is saying this.
I'm sure somebody is.

 
There isn't anything particularly new in this op-ed, but I just saw it in the NY Times today so I thought I'd post it for whoever gave me the rolleyes when I said obese people are addicts:

Sugar Season. It’s Everywhere, and Addictive
Not entirely related, but about two years ago I started making the conscious push to get away from refined sugars, and wanted to find a loaf of bread at the supermarket without "sugar" or "HFCS" in the ingredients. I walked the entire bread aisle of my local Wegmans (not some small mom and pop shop), and found one - one! - type of bread in the entire aisle without sugar or HFCS in the ingredients. And it's not just that, I found a whole host of preservatives and ingredients I'd never even heard of. Note: I skipped the pitas, flatbreads, Naan, etc....just actual bread). I know that many bread recipes call for a little bit of sugar, but how did something so simple that we all recognize and most of us eat - bread - become a frankenfood?

It was a very memorable and sobering moment for me. I knew, yeah yeah, "added sugars are in everything". No, they're almost literally in every processed food at the supermarket. Even the "healthy" stuff, the whole wheat, whole grain, "heart healthy" etc. It's absolutely terrifying. We, collectively, eat so much ####### sugar.

 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body.
Appetite appears to be regulated largely by the hypothalamus, which is a region of the brain.
This is where we will just go round and round. I disagree that eating donuts instead green beans, salad, or a million other foods is regulated by appetite. I think that is a choice.
Choices can be affected by appetite. (The whole evolutionary point of an appetite, in fact, is to affect choices.)
My current favorite blogger has addressed this general topic here.

 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I think you are defining "physical trigger" far too narrowly. For one thing, the mind is a physical thing. My understanding is that diet can significantly and permanently alter a person's mind, just like the minds of drug abusers can be permanently altered.
I agree. And we don't consider drug addiction to be a handicap, so we should not consider food addiction to be one either.

If we have to start accommodating every personality flaw, then everyone will get some kind of special treatment.

 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of

people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I think you are defining "physical trigger" far too narrowly. For one thing, the mind is a physical thing. My understanding is that diet can significantly and permanently alter a person's mind, just like the minds of drug abusers can be permanently altered.
I agree. And we don't consider drug addiction to be a handicap, so we should not consider food

addiction to be one either.

If we have to start accommodating every personality flaw, then everyone will get some

kind of special treatment.
Otherwise known as the ultimate wet dream for Liberals

 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I think you are defining "physical trigger" far too narrowly. For one thing, the mind is a physical thing. My understanding is that diet can significantly and permanently alter a person's mind, just like the minds of drug abusers can be permanently altered.
I agree. And we don't consider drug addiction to be a handicap, so we should not consider food addiction to be one either.

If we have to start accommodating every personality flaw, then everyone will get some kind of special treatment.
People who have drug and alcohol addictions can be covered under the American Disabilities Act, sort of. Question Number 28 below seems most applicable here -- a recovering alcoholic can request a reasonable accommodation from his employer. I'm not sure exactly how to translate that to the food addict context, you can't draw a clear line between "using" and "not using" like you can with drugs and alcohol.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html#alcohol

G. Alcoholism and illegal use of drugs24. Does the ADA protect employees with substance abuse problems?

The ADA may protect a “qualified” alcoholic who can meet the definition of “disability.” The ADA does not protect an individual who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs,82 but may protect a recovered drug addict who is no longer engaging in the illegal use of drugs, who can meet the other requirements of the definition of “disability,”83 and who is “qualified.” As explained in the following questions, the ADA has specific provisions stating that individuals who are alcoholics or who are currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs may be held to the same performance and conduct standards as all other employees.

25. May an employer require an employee who is an alcoholic or who illegally uses drugs to meet the same standards of performance and conduct applied to other employees?

Yes. The ADA specifically provides that employers may require an employee who is an alcoholic or who engages in the illegal use of drugs to meet the same standards of performance and behavior as other employees.84 This means that poor job performance or unsatisfactory behavior – such as absenteeism, tardiness, insubordination, or on-the-job accidents – related to an employee’s alcoholism or illegal use of drugs need not be tolerated if similar performance or conduct would not be acceptable for other employees.

Example 46: A federal police officer is involved in an accident on agency property for which he is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Approximately one month later, the employee receives a termination notice stating that his conduct makes it inappropriate for him to continue in his job. The employee states that this incident made him realize he is an alcoholic and that he is obtaining treatment, and he seeks to remain in his job. The employer may proceed with the termination.85

Example 47: An employer has a lax attitude about employees arriving at work on time. One day a supervisor sees an employee he knows to be a recovered alcoholic come in late. Although the employee’s tardiness is no worse than other workers and there is no evidence to suggest the tardiness is related to drinking, the supervisor believes such conduct may signal that the employee is drinking again. Thus, the employer reprimands the employee for being tardy. The supervisor’s actions violate the ADA because the employer is holding an employee with a disability to a higher standard than similarly situated workers.

26. May an employer discipline an employee who violates a workplace policy that prohibits the use of alcohol or the illegal use of drugs in the workplace?

Yes. The ADA specifically permits employers to prohibit the use of alcohol or the illegal use of drugs in the workplace.86 Consequently, an employee who violates such policies, even if the conduct stems from alcoholism or drug addiction, may face the same discipline as any other employee. The ADA also permits employers to require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol or the illegal use of drugs in the workplace.

Employers may comply with other federal laws and regulations concerning the use of drugs and alcohol, including: (1) the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988; (2) regulations applicable to particular types of employment, such as law enforcement positions; (3) regulations of the Department of Transportation for airline employees, interstate motor carrier drivers and railroad engineers; and (4) the regulations for safety sensitive positions established by the Department of Defense and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.87

27. May an employer suggest that an employee who has engaged in misconduct due to alcoholism or the illegal use of drugs go to its Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in lieu of discipline?

Yes. The employer may discipline the employee, suggest that the employee seek help from the EAP, or do both. An employer will always be entitled to discipline an employee for poor performance or misconduct that result from alcoholism or drug addiction. But, an employer may choose instead to refer an employee to an EAP or to make such a referral in addition to imposing discipline. However, the ADA does not require employers to establish employee assistance programs or to provide employees with an opportunity for rehabilitation in lieu of discipline.

28. What should an employer do if an employee mentions drug addiction or alcoholism, or requests accommodation, for the first time in response to discipline for unacceptable performance or conduct?

The employer may impose the same discipline that it would for any other employee who fails to meet its performance standard or who violates a uniformly-applied conduct rule. If the appropriate disciplinary action is termination, the ADA would not require further discussion about the employee’s disability or request for accommodation.

An employee whose poor performance or conduct is attributable to the current illegal use of drugs is not covered under the ADA.88 Therefore, the employer has no legal obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation and may take whatever disciplinary actions it deems appropriate, although nothing in the ADA would limit an employer’s ability to offer leave or other assistance that may enable the employee to receive treatment.

By contrast, an employee whose poor performance or conduct is attributable to alcoholism may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, separate from any disciplinary action the employer chooses to impose and assuming the discipline for the infraction is not termination. If the employee only mentions the alcoholism but makes no request for accommodation, the employer may ask if the employee believes an accommodation would prevent further problems with performance or conduct. If the employee requests an accommodation, the employer should begin an “interactive process” to determine if an accommodation is needed to correct the problem. This discussion may include questions about the connection between the alcoholism and the performance or conduct problem. The employer should seek input from the employee on what accommodations may be needed and also may offer its own suggestions. Possible reasonable accommodations may include a modified work schedule to permit the employee to attend an on-going self-help program.

Example 48: An employer has warned an employee several times about her tardiness. The next time the employee is tardy, the employer issues her a written warning stating one more late arrival will result in termination. The employee tells the employer that she is an alcoholic, her late arrivals are due to drinking on the previous night, and she recognizes that she needs treatment. The employer does not have to rescind the written warning and does not have to grant an accommodation that supports the employee’s drinking, such as a modified work schedule that allows her to arrive late in the morning due to the effects of drinking on the previous night. However, absent undue hardship, the employer must grant the employee’s request to take leave for the next month to enter a rehabilitation program.

29. Must an employer provide a “firm choice” or “last chance agreement” to an employee who otherwise could be terminated for poor performance or misconduct resulting from alcoholism or drug addiction?

An employer may choose, but is not required by the ADA, to offer a “firm choice” or “last chance agreement” to an employee who otherwise could be terminated for poor performance or misconduct that results from alcoholism or drug addiction. Generally, under a “firm choice” or “last chance agreement” an employer agrees not to terminate the employee in exchange for an employee’s agreement to receive substance abuse treatment, refrain from further use of alcohol or drugs, and avoid further workplace problems. A violation of such an agreement usually warrants termination because the employee failed to meet the conditions for continued employment.89
 
But by and large obesity is a choice of the mind, not the body. If it truly was a physical trigger that made the difference, you would see tons of people that exercise, eat quality food to excess, and stay fat.
I think you are defining "physical trigger" far too narrowly. For one thing, the mind is a physical thing. My understanding is that diet can significantly and permanently alter a person's mind, just like the minds of drug abusers can be permanently altered.
I agree. And we don't consider drug addiction to be a handicap, so we should not consider food addiction to be one either.

If we have to start accommodating every personality flaw, then everyone will get some kind of special treatment.
People who have drug and alcohol addictions can be covered under the American Disabilities Act, sort of. Question Number 28 below seems most applicable here -- a recovering alcoholic can request a reasonable accommodation from his employer. I'm not sure exactly how to translate that to the food addict context, you can't draw a clear line between "using" and "not using" like you can with drugs and alcohol.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/performance-conduct.html#alcohol

28. What should an employer do if an employee mentions drug addiction or alcoholism, or requests accommodation, for the first time in response to discipline for unacceptable performance or conduct?

The employer may impose the same discipline that it would for any other employee who fails to meet its performance standard or who violates a uniformly-applied conduct rule. If the appropriate disciplinary action is termination, the ADA would not require further discussion about the employee’s disability or request for accommodation.

An employee whose poor performance or conduct is attributable to the current illegal use of drugs is not covered under the ADA.88 Therefore, the employer has no legal obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation and may take whatever disciplinary actions it deems appropriate, although nothing in the ADA would limit an employer’s ability to offer leave or other assistance that may enable the employee to receive treatment.

By contrast, an employee whose poor performance or conduct is attributable to alcoholism may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, separate from any disciplinary action the employer chooses to impose and assuming the discipline for the infraction is not termination. If the employee only mentions the alcoholism but makes no request for accommodation, the employer may ask if the employee believes an accommodation would prevent further problems with performance or conduct. If the employee requests an accommodation, the employer should begin an “interactive process” to determine if an accommodation is needed to correct the problem. This discussion may include questions about the connection between the alcoholism and the performance or conduct problem. The employer should seek input from the employee on what accommodations may be needed and also may offer its own suggestions. Possible reasonable accommodations may include a modified work schedule to permit the employee to attend an on-going self-help program.

Example 48: An employer has warned an employee several times about her tardiness. The next time the employee is tardy, the employer issues her a written warning stating one more late arrival will result in termination. The employee tells the employer that she is an alcoholic, her late arrivals are due to drinking on the previous night, and she recognizes that she needs treatment. The employer does not have to rescind the written warning and does not have to grant an accommodation that supports the employee’s drinking, such as a modified work schedule that allows her to arrive late in the morning due to the effects of drinking on the previous night. However, absent undue hardship, the employer must grant the employee’s request to take leave for the next month to enter a rehabilitation program.
Fine, the fatties can come in late so they have time to make a healthy smoothie in the morning.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top