This seems like a contradiction to me. It's all fat people's fault, but it's the fault of companies pushing processed food. That's an environmental issue, not a psychological one.
Or perhaps a third possibility? One of the more interesting suggestions I’ve seen involves the inverse relationship between obesity and breastfeeding. Depending on the study rates of obesity in children that were exclusively breastfed can be half that of children that received significant amounts of formula. Children who were bottle fed have lower obesity rates than formula fed babies but higher than those fed directly from the breast.
The hypostasis goes that the chemical and philological pathways for deciding “I’ve eaten enough and it’s time to stop” are formed in the first year or so of life, and bottle feeding and formula disrupt this. If true this would mean it’s not a willpower problem, rather people should be stopping without having to make a conscious decision to do so, or use willpower to enforce that decision. Anecdotally obesity rates in adulthood do seem to track pretty well with popularity of formula and bottle-feeding when those adults were infants.
One thing I noticed in Hawaii (a huge melting pot from both sides of the Pacific Ocean) is how fat all the Americans seemed. Admittedly, many of the islanders were pretty hefty also, even more so.
Or perhaps a third possibility? One of the more interesting suggestions I’ve seen involves the inverse relationship between obesity and breastfeeding. Depending on the study rates of obesity in children that were exclusively breastfed can be half that of children that received significant amounts of formula. Children who were bottle fed have lower obesity rates than formula fed babies but higher than those fed directly from the breast.
The hypostasis goes that the chemical and philological pathways for deciding “I’ve eaten enough and it’s time to stop” are formed in the first year or so of life, and bottle feeding and formula disrupt this. If true this would mean it’s not a willpower problem, rather people should be stopping without having to make a conscious decision to do so, or use willpower to enforce that decision. Anecdotally obesity rates in adulthood do seem to track pretty well with popularity of formula and bottle-feeding when those adults were infants.
Not calorie for calorie. The cookies are much cheaper per calorie.
You can get a 12-16oz package of cookies for a dollar at a dollar store. That's 1500 kcals or more. You can't buy an apple there. At a bodega or convenience store, an apple (100 kcals) is at least a dollar.
So, can the poor afford to pay 15 times more per calorie? An overweight individual might benefit a lot from buying fewer higher-quality food calories. But what about people feeding families?
It's not just calories, it's all the crap that is in the cookies. Spending more money on an apple or bag of carrots than a box of garbage is still a better investment in your own body. People don't think that way apparently.
If you buy a box of cookies you are eating pretty much 100% crap. Eating an apple or handful of veggies is a much better value even if it costs more, which it does not.
There is no comparison between a box of cookies and fresh fruit.
Walmart:
Cookies: about $3.50 / 18 oz.
Apple (1): $0.59
Fresh carrots: $0.82 / pound
Which is the better investment? Even if you can buy that box of cookies for a dollar it's still more money and it is not at all good for you which makes it a much worse value.
You don't even see the contradiction, do you?
On the one hand, poor people get fat because they waste their money on expensive gadgets so they can't afford to buy healthy food, but on the other hand, healthy food is supposed to be much cheaper than unhealthy fattening foods so you would expect them to be unable to buy anything other than "fresh veggies" after having spent most of their money on iPhones and weed.
I bet they also can't afford to live in gated communities that offer "activities, events and fun gathering spaces" because they waste their money on beer and flat-screen TVs ...
Hey I don't know why people won't buy proper food, but they obviously do not or we wouldn't have this "epidemic". I can't explain it because I don't live that way.
I'm not the one claiming that healthy food is so expensive either. They are the one's saying it's so expensive while they are on their expensive phones, not me. That is THEIR excuse and way of thinking, not mine. I can only guess their motivations and go by what I observe. They can afford it they just choose not to, and "expense" may be a convenient, though false, excuse.
I see people loading up the cart with Ruffles Chips ($5 a bag!) and soda, frozen food, loads and loads of crap. Don't ask me why - I can't afford to buy that junk and I don't. Same store has veggies and real food for sooo much cheaper.
They walk around the store with their already-fat toddlers teaching them these awful eating habits too, continuing the cycle. And they aren't all necessarily poor, at least that I can see. They still eat bad. People with money are fat too!
Most people in the US have access to proper food - that is not an excuse. There are Walmarts that sell veggies and food cheaper as I showed above. The same store where people load up on cakes and sweets also sell healthy cheap food.
Access to affordable food is not an issue in most places (in the USA). People wanting to eat crap is the problem. If you have to drive further to get food then make the drive worth it and load up.
For $10-12 I can crock-pot and freeze a dozen meals for myself in one shot. Pulled pork is cheap. Stew is if you cut your own meat. Soups. Forget the fattening meat and make veggie dishes even cheaper. The only thing in my freezer are foods I've made myself. No Hot Pockets, no Ice Cream or Pot Pies.
Being poor is not an excuse for being fat. See many obese homeless? Extreme example but there it is. Less calories = less fat.
It's about priorities and giving a damn for 99.9% of people. Everyone's a victim these days.
One more thing - being active is also a great way to stay healthy. I was at the park the other day and a little kid was driving around in a little tiny toy truck. But he wasn't pedaling it like I used to do. No this is battery controlled so his fat little legs don't need to exert themselves!
Sure, it's the world we live in...if you choose for it to be. It may take a little work to get the best food and learn about it, but what is more important than your own health?
Take control of your life or don't. I can't stand excuses like these.
Cookies: about $3.50 / 18 oz.
Apple (1): $0.59
Fresh carrots: $0.82 / pound
Which is the better investment? Even if you can buy that box of cookies for a dollar it's still more money and it is not at all good for you which makes it a much worse value.
It looks like the carrots are pretty comparable even in the metric of calories/dollar to the cookies. But carrots aren't a calorie dense food as compared to, say, potatoes, which have about twice the number of calories/pound (as well as being cheaper/pound than carrots). Most people eat meals with not just low calorie foods like carrots, but also higher calorie dense foots like potatoes. Given that sort of a mixed diet, the $/calorie on average will be much less than for cookies.
Hey I don't know why people won't buy proper food, but they obviously do not or we wouldn't have this "epidemic". I can't explain it because I don't live that way.
Of course, you know why they don't buy proper food. You tell us all the time. It's because they use all their money on expensive phones! And now you're telling us again:
I'm not the one claiming that healthy food is so expensive either. They are the one's saying it's so expensive while they are on their expensive phones, not me.
Where exactly do they, not you, say "it's so expensive while they are on their expensive phones"?! All I can see is you saying that that's what they are saying on their expensive phones. I don't see them do it.
That is THEIR excuse and way of thinking, not mine. I can only guess their motivations and go by what I observe. They can afford it they just choose not to, and "expense" may be a convenient, though false, excuse.
May be? Why do you think so? I don't believe that much of what you claim to observe is actually observations.
I see people loading up the cart with Ruffles Chips ($5 a bag!) and soda, frozen food, loads and loads of crap. Don't ask me why - I can't afford to buy that junk and I don't. Same store has veggies and real food for sooo much cheaper.
I don't ask you why they do what you claim that they do. You are the one telling us why all the time while at the same time pretending that you are just observing. You see it, i.e. you paint a picture of what you want to see, and then you claim that cheap snacks are so expensive that you can't afford them. Why can't you afford them? Because you've spent all your money buying expensive gadgets or weed? I'm just asking. Unlike you, I'm not pretending to actually know why you can't.
They walk around the store with their already-fat toddlers teaching them these awful eating habits too, continuing the cycle. And they aren't all necessarily poor, at least that I can see. They still eat bad. People with money are fat too!
What exactly is the alleged "cycle" that they are teaching their toddlers? Are you even sure that they, and not the TV commercials from manufacturers of unhealthy snacks, are the ones who teach them? This is a rather new phenomenon, percentage-wise, so you can't really claim that it's a kind of cycle handed down from generation to generation.
And if people with money are fat too, what is the point of claiming that people are fat because they buy expensive phones and therefore can't afford expensive food?
Most people in the US have access to proper food - that is not an excuse. There are Walmarts that sell veggies and food cheaper as I showed above. The same store where people load up on cakes and sweets also sell healthy cheap food.
So their choice is to eat either the **** that they eat or potatoes and carrots? Or a carrot in between the cakes? That doesn't sound like an attractive alternative to me, but maybe it is for you.
Access to affordable food is not an issue in most places (in the USA). People wanting to eat crap is the problem. If you have to drive further to get food then make the drive worth it and load up.
And once again you contradict yourself. You just told us: "Hey I don't know why people won't buy proper food," and now (again) you suddenly know exactly why they won't!
By the way, loading up to make the drive worth it, isn't what you do with carrots and potatoes and other perishable foods. It's what you do with the ****** stuff that manufacturers and sellers of food prefer, too. It's also the reason why they can't seem to get rid of the industry-produced trans fats that they are so fond of: They last longer!
We got rid of them here 16 years ago, and "it is hypothesized that the Danish government's efforts to decrease trans fat intake from 6 g to 1 g per day over 20 years is related to a 50% decrease in deaths from ischemic heart disease." But in the rest of the world, the arteries of consumers aren't clogged up because industry thinks it's easier that way, they are clogged up because fat parents are teaching their fat toddlers that industry's fatty acids are good for them, right?!
Get used to the FACT: Industry is killing people because industry is lazy and doesn't want to do the little extra effort that it takes to get rid of their trans fats! Trans fats are so convenient for industry. What consumers want has very little to do with it.
Have you seen many commercials lately for food products telling consumers that they are "chockfull of trans fats, the best that industry can buy!"?
Industry wants consumers to buy ****** foods, and it teaches consumers to do so.
For $10-12 I can crock-pot and freeze a dozen meals for myself in one shot. Pulled pork is cheap. Stew is if you cut your own meat. Soups. Forget the fattening meat and make veggie dishes even cheaper. The only thing in my freezer are foods I've made myself. No Hot Pockets, no Ice Cream or Pot Pies.
Do you expect me to applaud you because you've got the time and the money to buy and cook healthy food? I'm criticizing you for pretending that everybody has this choice.
Being poor is not an excuse for being fat. See many obese homeless? Extreme example but there it is. Less calories = less fat.
You don't remember what you wrote just two sentences ago, do you?!
Are you actually out there sharing your recipes with the homeless, telling them that they "can crock-pot and freeze a dozen meals for (themselves) in one shot"?! If you are, I would love to hear their response! Do you see many freezers in the cardboard boxes occupied by the homeless?
It's about priorities and giving a damn for 99.9% of people. Everyone's a victim these days.
No, everyone isn't a victim. Apparently you are not. You are a victim blamer. But when industry is allowed to produce and use its own trans fats, everyone who buys products with that ingredient is a victim, but it hasn't got much to do with choice.
One more thing - being active is also a great way to stay healthy. I was at the park the other day and a little kid was driving around in a little tiny toy truck. But he wasn't pedaling it like I used to do. No this is battery controlled so his fat little legs don't need to exert themselves!
I see nothing wrong with an electrical toy, and I bet that even children who don't have "fat (!) little legs" love them, too. I have talked with children here about them, and they aren't too fond of electric toy trucks because they're too slow. The ones they can pedal are much faster.
And this is how we do it in my corner of the world. Here, it's what children learn, too:
Sure, it's the world we live in...if you choose for it to be. It may take a little work to get the best food and learn about it, but what is more important than your own health?
Is that a serious question? What is much more important are the things that you can do when you're healthy, apart from work. Otherwise, what's the point of health?! Just being smug about it and telling unhealthy people that they are to blame for their poor health?
Take control of your life or don't. I can't stand excuses like these.
Take control of your life away from industry and the people who get wealthy by making your living conditions unhealthy and intolerable. I can't stand the excuses that allow rich people to ruin the lives and health of those less fortunate.
But that is what they choose to do, industry and its owners.
It looks like the carrots are pretty comparable even in the metric of calories/dollar to the cookies. But carrots aren't a calorie dense food as compared to, say, potatoes, which have about twice the number of calories/pound (as well as being cheaper/pound than carrots). Most people eat meals with not just low calorie foods like carrots, but also higher calorie dense foots like potatoes. Given that sort of a mixed diet, the $/calorie on average will be much less than for cookies.
That sort of a mixed diet?! Carrots and potatoes? I think I'd rather die eating snacks and cookies, only around here you don't die as fast when you eat ****** food because it isn't full of trans fats.
That sort of a mixed diet?! Carrots and potatoes? I think I'd rather die eating snacks and cookies, only around here you don't die as fast when you eat ****** food because it isn't full of trans fats.
I meant a mixed diet in the sense of not being only carrots or only potatoes, but of having a mix of foods like potatoes, carrots, other vegetables, other carbs, possibly meats, etc.
That's why i said:
"Most people eat meals with not just low calorie foodslike carrots, but also higher calorie dense foodslike potatoes."
Hey I don't know why people won't buy proper food, but they obviously do not or we wouldn't have this "epidemic". I can't explain it because I don't live that way.
I'm not the one claiming that healthy food is so expensive either. They are the one's saying it's so expensive while they are on their expensive phones, not me. That is THEIR excuse and way of thinking, not mine. I can only guess their motivations and go by what I observe. They can afford it they just choose not to, and "expense" may be a convenient, though false, excuse.
I see people loading up the cart with Ruffles Chips ($5 a bag!) and soda, frozen food, loads and loads of crap. Don't ask me why - I can't afford to buy that junk and I don't. Same store has veggies and real food for sooo much cheaper.
They walk around the store with their already-fat toddlers teaching them these awful eating habits too, continuing the cycle. And they aren't all necessarily poor, at least that I can see. They still eat bad. People with money are fat too!
Most people in the US have access to proper food - that is not an excuse. There are Walmarts that sell veggies and food cheaper as I showed above. The same store where people load up on cakes and sweets also sell healthy cheap food.
Access to affordable food is not an issue in most places (in the USA). People wanting to eat crap is the problem. If you have to drive further to get food then make the drive worth it and load up.
For $10-12 I can crock-pot and freeze a dozen meals for myself in one shot. Pulled pork is cheap. Stew is if you cut your own meat. Soups. Forget the fattening meat and make veggie dishes even cheaper. The only thing in my freezer are foods I've made myself. No Hot Pockets, no Ice Cream or Pot Pies.
Being poor is not an excuse for being fat. See many obese homeless? Extreme example but there it is. Less calories = less fat.
It's about priorities and giving a damn for 99.9% of people. Everyone's a victim these days.
One more thing - being active is also a great way to stay healthy. I was at the park the other day and a little kid was driving around in a little tiny toy truck. But he wasn't pedaling it like I used to do. No this is battery controlled so his fat little legs don't need to exert themselves!
Sure, it's the world we live in...if you choose for it to be. It may take a little work to get the best food and learn about it, but what is more important than your own health?
Take control of your life or don't. I can't stand excuses like these.
While you might take some flack for these statements, I for one am very impressed by this. It's admirable that you have the organization and energy to prepare economical healthy food, while also working three part-time jobs to make ends meet and raising young children at the same time, and still manage to drive out to the suburban centers where Walmarts are located from the city neighborhood where you live in order to economically shop for carrots and potatoes and pork. Nice job!
WRT "fat shaming", I wonder if any research has been done to examine wether fat shaming actually curbs obesity that also attempts to quantify the number of people who are not currently obese because they wished to avoid being fat shamed..
Currently, it seems like the focus is on those who are currently obese- which seems like self selection for failure, i.,e, "we have found that fat shaming has been %100 ineffective in reducing obesity in the sample of people for whom fat shaming is %100 ineffective".
Has there been some kind of control that attempts to answer the question of how many people that are not obese would be if they were not averse to being fat shamed?
Obviously fat shaming doesn't work because more and more people are becoming obese.
Who is going to do the fat shaming when an overwhelming majority are obese?
A big problem is that when being overweight is the new norm, you have few people in a position of authority to point out that the obesity epidemic is such a threat to the over all welfare of the community.
Overweight child welfare workers are hardly going to be calling out parents for letting their kids get fat..
WRT "fat shaming", I wonder if any research has been done to examine wether fat shaming actually curbs obesity that also attempts to quantify the number of people who are not currently obese because they wished to avoid being fat shamed..
It's an interesting question, but I don't know how you study it. You could only ever do observational studies, you could never do a controlled study because that would never get past an Institutional Review Board. And I don't know if you could separate out fat shaming from other factors in a purely observational study.
While you might take some flack for these statements, I for one am very impressed by this. It's admirable that you have the organization and energy to prepare economical healthy food, while also working three part-time jobs to make ends meet and raising young children at the same time, and still manage to drive out to the suburban centers where Walmarts are located from the city neighborhood where you live in order to economically shop for carrots and potatoes and pork. Nice job!
Walmart may be a more economical place to buy produce than convenience stores, but even in inner cities there is usually a grocery store (not a trendy and high priced place like whole foods, either) within a short drive or bike ride.
I can see how finding time to both cook and shop (and clean up afterward) can be more of a problem for someone working three jobs and raising young children. What percentage of the population is in that situation?
Has there been some kind of control that attempts to answer the question of how many people that are not obese would be if they were not averse to being fat shamed?
How do you propose to do that? Divide children into three groups, fat-shame one, fat-praise the other, and somehow isolate the third from ever hearing about demeaning attitudes to obesity?!
How do you propose to do that? Divide children into three groups, fat-shame one, fat-praise the other, and somehow isolate the third from ever hearing about demeaning attitudes to obesity?!
I was not making the proposal, I am not a researcher. I wondered if it had been attempted.
One might look at historical attitudes towards obesity, try to measure the societal tendency to "fat shame", and compare the prevalence of fat shaming with the obesity rate to see if there is a correlation between the prevalence of fat shaming attitudes and obesity rates.
Perhaps formerly obese individuals could be interviewed to attempt determine how big a factor their desire to avoid fat shaming played in their motivation to lose weight?
Maybe factors that are found to be prevalent in the environment of obese individuals could be isolated, then other individuals who experienced similar environments yet did not become obese could be examined to try to determine if their avoidance of obesity was driven by fat shaming, and if so to what extent?
The slim minority?! (By the way, the obese are still a minority.)
A big problem is that when being overweight is the new norm, you have few people in a position of authority to point out that the obesity epidemic is such a threat to the over all welfare of the community.
Is it actually the new norm? I don't see how the obesity epidemic can be a "threat to the over all welfare of the community," but even if it were, I don't see why it would be problem to find "people in a position of authority to point out" that it were so. You seem to think of obesity as a kind of cult whose members are trying to promote the 'cause' and will only elect people who will help them do so.
You seem to forget that most obese people aren't obese because they want to be or find it desirable to be obese.
Overweight child welfare workers are hardly going to be calling out parents for letting their kids get fat..
Isn't this somewhat akin to the gay-recruiting myth? That the obese are a secret community that aspires to make everybody obese?!
I don't see why an obese wellfare workers or health-care providers wouldn't do their utmost to help prevent children from becoming obese.
Perhaps formerly obese individuals could be interviewed to attempt determine how big a factor their desire to avoid fat shaming played in their motivation to lose weight?
You can go online and find out that some people blame fat shaming for contributing to their obesity (and low self-esteem), and others claim that it made them slim down.
As in the post above, I don't really see the point of this since the obese, apart from a very small minority of feeders 'n' eaters and sumo wrestlers in Japan), aren't trying to become obese. When you shame people, it's usually for behaviors that they themselves do deliberately.
In the case of involuntary obesity, you might as well blame people for growing old and bald.
Maybe factors that are found to be prevalent in the environment of obese individuals could be isolated, then other individuals who experienced similar environments yet did not become obese could be examined to try to determine if their avoidance of obesity was driven by fat shaming, and if so to what extent?
Many such factors have been found: Q&A with FENS 2019 plenary speaker, Professor Arne Astrup (Feb. 8, 2019) Poverty and lack of education, however, are probably the two most important factors when you look beyond biology. But a scientific approach to obesity probably wouldn't (and shouldn't!) pay too much attention to people who are only interested in justifying their attitude. They enjoy fat shaming and would like to see science justify this attitude.
It has nothing to do with scientific curiosity or a desire to help anybody.
You can go online and find out that some people blame fat shaming for contributing to their obesity (and low self-esteem), and others claim that it made them slim down.
As in the post above, I don't really see the point of this since the obese, apart from a very small minority of feeders 'n' eaters and sumo wrestlers in Japan), aren't trying to become obese. When you shame people, it's usually for behaviors that they themselves do deliberately.
In the case of involuntary obesity, you might as well blame people for growing old and bald.
Many such factors have been found: Q&A with FENS 2019 plenary speaker, Professor Arne Astrup (Feb. 8, 2019) Poverty and lack of education, however, are probably the two most important factors when you look beyond biology. But a scientific approach to obesity probably wouldn't (and shouldn't!) pay too much attention to people who are only interested in justifying their attitude. They enjoy fat shaming and would like to see science justify this attitude.
It has nothing to do with scientific curiosity or a desire to help anybody.
What does "involuntary Obesity" mean?, and What percentage of obese individuals would you describe as being "involuntarily" obese?
Is fat shaming similar to "smoke shaming"?
It seems we have no compunction as a society with "shaming" smokers, and attempting to make it more and more difficult to engage in that lifestyle even though we recognize that stopping that behavior is particularly difficult.
Are smokers "involuntary smokers"?
One might look at historical attitudes towards obesity, try to measure the societal tendency to "fat shame", and compare the prevalence of fat shaming with the obesity rate to see if there is a correlation between the prevalence of fat shaming attitudes and obesity rates.
I don't know how you could do that without the data being swamped by larger effects like different available food and different physical activity levels associated with work/transportation. There are so many potentially confounding variables that I doubt you could separate out something like fat shaming.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
