On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
Regards, VdoP
Awesome, congratulation dude. I'm sure everyone has friends or family who would be willing to help you out if you asked for it. Also having some kind of objective (other then simply lose x kilos) should play a big part too.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
Regards, VdoP
Yeah awesome, a good read to start the day
Awesome, congratulation dude. I'm sure everyone has friends or family who would be willing to help you out if you asked for it. Also having some kind of objective (other then simply lose x kilos) should play a big part too.
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
lol
You don't know how junk food works do you
Mono cropping produces junk food due to a lack of resource diversity. Since corn is the only reliable source of mass produced crop--all junk food and sweets become corn starch/corn syrup based. Without monocropping this doesn't happen because who would spend millions of dollars developing something that will only be sold a few months a year?
When food prices goes up it is because there will be no more monocropping. When monocropping disappears--so too will junk food and corn syrup as we know it.
EDIT:
Also, the government is currently passing laws in an attempt to amend the main law they passed which is subsidies. Before subsidies few people had plentiful food because it was scarce and expensive. After subsidies we now expect the store to always be stocked with the same stuff throughout the year. Why pass laws telling people to stop using the excess food improperly when they could simply make food cost however much they actually cost
I find it kind of ironic that Disney World has an exhibit like this. I haven´t been there since 1994, but I bet you still would have a hard time finding a spot where you can´t see a place to buy soda, candy, hotdogs, snacks or ice cream, all covered in happy bright colors. Children are going to associate their happy day with junk food, thus imprinting the idea that junk food is happy food and food you get served at home is boring food. I would rather see Disney take responsibility by cleaning up their own amusement parks before doing an exhibit like this, although it is good they acknowledge the problem.
I love how Political Correctness and Interest Groups are overriding common sense here. Having a larger body frame may be natural, as well as a genetic disposition to store more fat, but being obese and not making any efforts to diet or exercise is NOT healthy. Reaching out to children about the dangers of obesity and strategies to overcome it is a much better idea than convincing people that is natural to be unhealthy. I could go into the entire obese people paying more into their healthcare for obesity-orientated conditions, but I think that's been beaten to death in another thread.
I don't think Disney did any wrong here, and I won't say that very often about anything Disney does, fyi. I think Disney's PR department rolled out this idea, and while this idea may have been introduced for completely different reasons (does Disney actually care about ending the obesity epidemic in the US?), it wasn't a poor decision; some good would probably have come out of this initiative, and Disney probably would have benefitted as much as the kids. Instead we have an interest group that appears to be against initiatives to fight the war on childhood obesity.
I'd like to tell you a short story about myself: Until 3 years ago (iam 25 now) i was, what you would call 'obese'. Weighting about 140kg at 1.90m - pure fat, no muscle. This had actually been going on since i was 12 or so, and i never changed anything about it, because i didnt see it necessary. Also i found plenty of excuses why i was fat: i had asthma, i was an "easy gainer", my genetics (most of my family is fat too) and so on. Actually not beeing accepted in society is what first gave me the idea of loosing weight, but i was unable to do so, because i was mentally weak and couldnt keep my diet straight and the irritated looks people gave me in the gyms werent that helpful too. What really changed everything was a friend who introduced me to muay thai or 'thaiboxing' - the people in the gym were all very tolerant but also very motivating. The Trainer helped me working out a diet-plan that covered my needs as a student and still made me loose weight. The result: last year i had my first fight and was weighted-in at 79.5kg.
So actually: Social pressure in the right amount can help you want to fight your obesity, but you're still in the need for practical help!
just in regards to the ops claims that this is political correctness gone mad. im pretty sure shame has never been an effective motivator for change. its not a case of being politically correct its a case of the 'ride' having absolutely no effect on children other than making them feel worse about themselves.
on the general topic of 'political correctness gone mad'
If you want to see the amount of people that are obese due to illness go to Japan or Korea. There are around 3% obese in these countries, which means that all those people in the US that are fat are because they didn't learn to properly eat or exercise. Those things can be improved. http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide_Y#The_role_of_NPY_in_obesity Neuropeptide Y has been associated with the need to eat. Obese rats have been observed to have higher NPY mRNA and NPY release (causing them to eat more obviously) This part also says that leptin receptor mutations have occured when they were examining the rats.
Just two small hormones that can have a huge impact on metabolical level, just on the food intake level. Who knows what physiological disorders may be at work if we were to examine every obese person on the planet.. I'm sure you can actively work yourself to "normal", whatever the standards for that may be, but in some cases (if not most), the food intake, is not "just a choice to eat because it's good", but because a certain molecule is too abundant in the bloodstream causing you to have an elevated appetite most of the time.
If people question why one uses rats or say one can't compare rats to humans.. yes we can, but one has to be careful. A rat is not a human, but there is a great physiological and genetic overlap.
Anyway, back on topic.. Obesity is quite the issue and will be because it's so socially stressing. Obese people are less mobile, put a strain on themselves and the surrounding people, but this can be limited to a certain extent (if we aren't talking Jabba Teh Hutt style) However, everyone who is "normal" (there's that word again) notices the obese person and will have an opinion about it. Personally I don't really care about obesity, as long as the personality that goes along with it is fun to be around.
Also, this is something very weird, but it happens all the time and I want this social tendency to change: why is it an insult or can be viewed as mentally burdening if you call someone out on something, maybe because you want to talk about it? Like for instance, an obviously obese person, will have trouble with being called obese. Doesn't matter by whom it is, they'll just be offended. Some have found a way to cope with it and can even laugh with it, but most will have some sort of negative reaction to the situation. Social stigmas that just aren't done (the consensus of not talking about the problems to pepople with the problems), are probably more harmful than talking about it.. Aren't we living in a society where talking about problems (and being cynical about them) is the standard?
On March 08 2012 15:31 lorkac wrote: Why isn't anyone else on this thread blaming farm subsidies for the obesity problem?
If food was less plentiful, and corporations were less able to do mono-cropping, the US would be healthier.
Why blame fat people when it is government programs that allows people to overeat?
The miraculous thing about this thread is finally all bases are starting to get covered. Yes it is the fault of the following (not being sarcastic);
A. Ourselves B. Education C. Corporations (bombarded with advertisements which in empirical studies are nearly all of the fatty/sugary type and we get shit places like McDonald's). D. The government (regulation questions, subsidies, wealth of food)
All of these things need to be addressed, without critiquing and fixing all of the above we will continue to miss all of the causes and do little to alleviate the effects.
As much as it'd be cool to believe that it's the fault of those 4 things--it's really only the fault of one.
Remove government subsidies. Food prices skyrocket. Corporations can't make much money because the price rises too high--corporations stop pushing junk food as much. There would be no need to educate people on how to "eat properly" since options in food would be so limited that people would simply eat what is available--and what is available would only be the things that are in season that is available locally because it wouldn't be profitable to import from far away. And we as a people would not overeat because there isn't enough food to overeat.
Grocery stores and fast food would disappear. Restaurants would be few and far between. Everyone will see food in the same way they see healthcare--expensive, necessary, and not a luxury.
Really there's only one thing at fault--government intrusion.
Wait what. Poor eating habits and unhealthy lifestyle is now the fault of the government? If the government took steps (passed laws) to make people eat healthier, many would challenge that government is being too involved, ie. government intrusion.
As much as I lament corporate greed and government's complicity, we're ignoring our collective power to make a difference. Small steps - from within your family, amongst your friends, co-workers - can mean a world of a change. And this step will be a life-time of effort, you will have new members in your family, new friends, new co-workers. Good luck to you.
And how does food price skyrocketing reduce profit from junk food? The biggest consumers of junk food are people from lower economic brackets. Junk food is aptly named - it is made from junk, not high-quality food products. It is dirt cheap to produce. You can sell it low and still be profitable enough to have massive corporations based around the market.
When food prices go up, more people will turn to cheaper, junkier food. Of course, there is a threshhold here. If food prices are high to the point of starvation en masse, then my point is void. But you're not advocating for that, I'm pretty sure of it.
lol
You don't know how junk food works do you
Mono cropping produces junk food due to a lack of resource diversity. Since corn is the only reliable source of mass produced crop--all junk food and sweets become corn starch/corn syrup based. Without monocropping this doesn't happen because who would spend millions of dollars developing something that will only be sold a few months a year?
When food prices goes up it is because there will be no more monocropping. When monocropping disappears--so too will junk food and corn syrup as we know it.
EDIT:
Also, the government is currently passing laws in an attempt to amend the main law they passed which is subsidies. Before subsidies few people had plentiful food because it was scarce and expensive. After subsidies we now expect the store to always be stocked with the same stuff throughout the year. Why pass laws telling people to stop using the excess food improperly when they could simply make food cost however much they actually cost
I see you're still going with this doomsday hyperbolic language, except with smiley faces to make it a little more disarming
Really though do you have any evidence to backup these ridiculous claims, the worst estimate given by the CATO Institute (lets just take the worst possible scenario instead of the average) says that corn subsidies account for 9% of all production annually. If we lost 9% of our production to the total elimination of corn subsidies in what way imaginable will that eliminate mono-cropping or create a food shortage crisis that will force a dietary change? The 9% reduction will easily be accounted for in cost passing and importation within a year at best. I'm not arguing that we keep food subsidies, in fact I do think we should eliminate them but you are railing against a minor, possibly even spurious cause of obesity.
On March 06 2012 16:57 Emperor_Earth wrote: Being fat is a choice except for the very rare exception where you are vegetated or something and not physically able to determine your diet.
It's Disneyland. Kids don't decide what they eat, kids don't decide how they live their live. They become fat because of their parents. So no, it's actually not a choice for most of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropeptide_Y#The_role_of_NPY_in_obesity Neuropeptide Y has been associated with the need to eat. Obese rats have been observed to have higher NPY mRNA and NPY release (causing them to eat more obviously) This part also says that leptin receptor mutations have occured when they were examining the rats.
Just two small hormones that can have a huge impact on metabolical level, just on the food intake level. Who knows what physiological disorders may be at work if we were to examine every obese person on the planet.. I'm sure you can actively work yourself to "normal", whatever the standards for that may be, but in some cases (if not most), the food intake, is not "just a choice to eat because it's good", but because a certain molecule is too abundant in the bloodstream causing you to have an elevated appetite most of the time.
If people question why one uses rats or say one can't compare rats to humans.. yes we can, but one has to be careful. A rat is not a human, but there is a great physiological and genetic overlap.
Anyway, back on topic.. Obesity is quite the issue and will be because it's so socially stressing. Obese people are less mobile, put a strain on themselves and the surrounding people, but this can be limited to a certain extent (if we aren't talking Jabba Teh Hutt style) However, everyone who is "normal" (there's that word again) notices the obese person and will have an opinion about it. Personally I don't really care about obesity, as long as the personality that goes along with it is fun to be around.
Also, this is something very weird, but it happens all the time and I want this social tendency to change: why is it an insult or can be viewed as mentally burdening if you call someone out on something, maybe because you want to talk about it? Like for instance, an obviously obese person, will have trouble with being called obese. Doesn't matter by whom it is, they'll just be offended. Some have found a way to cope with it and can even laugh with it, but most will have some sort of negative reaction to the situation. Social stigmas that just aren't done (the consensus of not talking about the problems to pepople with the problems), are probably more harmful than talking about it.. Aren't we living in a society where talking about problems (and being cynical about them) is the standard?
Some people have better metabolism than others...duh. I say it its a choice because in the grand scheme genetics plays a VERY small part in it...10% maybe and that's being generous. I grew up in Romania.....u know how many obese people I knew when I lived there? ZERO. There were zero obese kids at my school, I didn't know anyone who was obese and I never even saw anyone obese walking down the street that was under 40 years old. That's because we didn't have any access to fast food or the processed shit you get in every grocery store in north america. And it was normal for every kid to play outside for hours each day because there was nothing to do inside. Of course some people were chubbier than others but when I say obese I'm talking about the kids who are 200 pounds at 10 years old and adults who are like 300-400+ pounds. In places were fast food and junk food isn't so easily accessible these people do not exist. I go back and visit every couple of years and I can already see an increase in weight in the general population since fast food and processed stuff is becoming more readily available in big cities. When it comes down to it....if you eat right and excercise you will not be obese. It's that simple. But in this society its much easier to eat crap and be lazy so its understandable that obesity is such a problem.
I think it can become some kind of a negative spiral once you're obese at a certain level. It's a choice of lifestyle when you're aware of your own lifestyle and keep exercising this lifestyle. But you can't really say that kids at the age of ten who weigh 200 pounds (which is already quite excessive imo) have chosen this lifestyle. Their parents should be the ones to blame this crappy raising attitude. Also, I'm sure the obese kid will realize at some point he's obese and he's been fed this crap all the time.. But it's not so simple to change all that. Then it will be some sort of psychological/physiological fight he's going to have in order to make his living situation any better.
On March 09 2012 02:49 Uldridge wrote: Obese people seem to be resistant to the effect leptin should invoke
. I will agree it's a choice, granted there are no freaky body changes you inherit over the years, if you become obese in later stages of your life.
By the way, same thing over here. I grew up in virtually non obese circles, but I don't think the other side is true for, generically picked country of the day, the USA for example. Also, don't underestimate genetics. It's not because you're inherited with a certain genome and certain traits become apparent in a certain stadium of life, that other traits can't pop up and mess things up if you're exposed to a certain environment. So many things are working on us and in us and the systems our body, organs, tissues, cells, proteome and genome represent are far too complex to simply say: if a --> b. It's more like: if a, b, (c), (d), e, f, ... --> then p, q, r, t, s, ...
EPT
