U.S. obesity problem intensifies

I don't see your point. Drinking no water would be incredibly easy. Not particularly healthy or enjoyable, but certainly very easy.

With all due respect Cuddles, I believe you are completely wrong. The reason is that you seem to be confusing 'easy' with 'simple'.

Now, it really is simple to eat less. It is simple to exercise more. It is simple to stop drinking water. How easy each of these things are will depend on a lot of factors, including the person attempting them. Now a lot of easy things are also simple. For a great many people, weight loss doesn't include this. For most people, not drinking would be simple, but difficult.

And if you want to loose weight without other dangers, you simply cannot drop your caloric intake like a rock and start running hours a week. That's a damn good way to mess yourself up, preventing you from exercising in the future. Dropping your caloric intake a lot when you have a hard time getting meals for whatever reason can also make you do things like pass out.

If you want to get into good athletic shape, it is usually neither easy, nor simple to do. I've lived with, worked with, and trained with professional football players and pro body builders. The methods and techniques are not easy. They are not simple. That is why they get paid, and in turn pay trainers and cooks, to do it for them many times.
 
I think we just need to redefine Obese. Make it a BMI of 40 and we will now have millions of people with a healthy BMI. I don't see why this is such an issue.


I also recently looked at some old photos from my elementary school days (mid 1960s), and the neighborhood "fat kid" really wasn't fat by today's standards.


I saw the 1963 Lord of the Flies recently. The kid they had playing Piggy was actually pretty normal sized by today's standards.
 
I'm fairly certain you don't actively engage in a behavior you know causes you to stutter, while at the same time lamenting the fact that you stutter and blaming another entity for your stuttering.

I assure you I do not blame another entity for my stuttering. I’m fairly certain stuttering is mostly caused by a neurological deficit that has been imperfectly compensated for.

What I recognise is that there are certain situations which make it more likely I will stutter. However, because stutterers make up only 1% of the population I don’t expect very much in the way of accommodation from others to make my life easier.

On the other hand, the fraction of overweight and obese people in the US (and other developed countries) is increasing dramatically. So rather than just relying on scorn, perhaps we should consider modifying the environment so people are motivated to behave in a way which is healthier, or at least not unhealthier.

For example, do not let soft drinks and junk food companies bribe schools to install vending machines for their products in the hallways and canteen. Make restaurants print the number of calories in each of their products on the menu and packaging and the fraction of the RDA they represent. Tax junk (i.e. high fat/salt/sugar) food.

So the application of "free will" and/or "will power" in your situation differs from that of someone who eats an excessive amount of fast food and then blames Burger King for their obesity. I don't think anyone can will themselves to not be fat, but they can certainly will themselves to not engage in behavior they know contributes to them being fat.

I don’t think that approach is realistic. For example, the simple answer to AIDS in Africa is as simple as ABC – Abstinence, Be monogamous and consistent use Condoms. Clearly Africans just don’t have the moral fibre to sick to this regime. Why do you think that might be? Is the drive to have sex greater than the drive to satisfy one’s hunger?

That being said, if there was a viable solution available (e.g. speech therapy) and you wished to no longer stutter, I would not think it a reasonable excuse for you to say "It's just too hard". So if this were the case then yes, I think you should "will yourself" to stop stuttering.

I think you need to take a step back and try to avoid using the words ‘excuse’, ‘blame’, etc. and see the obesity epidemic as a problem that needs to be solved with education and environmental changes, rather than just a sign of people holding themselves to declining personal moral standards.
 
another problem i see is in education, how much about a balanced diet or feeding in general do we learn in school today? also more and more school are stoping the sport education.
 
On the other hand, the fraction of overweight and obese people in the US (and other developed countries) is increasing dramatically. So rather than just relying on scorn...

I should make it clear that none of my posts were meant to be scornful. Within the context of society at large, I think this is a fair point.

...perhaps we should consider modifying the environment so people are motivated to behave in a way which is healthier, or at least not unhealthier.

For example, do not let soft drinks and junk food companies bribe schools to install vending machines for their products in the hallways and canteen. Make restaurants print the number of calories in each of their products on the menu and packaging and the fraction of the RDA they represent. Tax junk (i.e. high fat/salt/sugar) food.

These are all good ideas, and I support any "modifications of the environment" that lend themselves to education and awareness, as opposed to taking away choices for responsible adults.

I don’t think that approach is realistic. For example, the simple answer to AIDS in Africa is as simple as ABC – Abstinence, Be monogamous and consistent use Condoms. Clearly Africans just don’t have the moral fibre to sick to this regime. Why do you think that might be? Is the drive to have sex greater than the drive to satisfy one’s hunger?

Well, I didn't mean to imply that my opinion on how individuals should modify their behavior should be taken as a panacea to deal with these problems on a larger scale. I'm not that much of an idealist.

However, I do remain firm in my belief that the core issue here is personal responsibility. Ultimately, it comes down to a choice we all make as individuals. Are most Africans aware that irresponsible sexual behavior puts them at risk for AIDS? Are most drug-addicts aware that heroin is dangerously unhealthy? Are most obese people aware that their dietary habits contribute greatly to their obesity? I agree that education and awareness are our best weapons to fight these epidemics. But as they say, you can lead a horse to water...

I think you need to take a step back and try to avoid using the words ‘excuse’, ‘blame’, etc. and see the obesity epidemic as a problem that needs to be solved with education and environmental changes, rather than just a sign of people holding themselves to declining personal moral standards.

Again, I should make it clear that I am not coming from a position of judgment. If someone wants to be fat, then fine, be fat. I only used the word "excuse" in the specific context of answering a specific question.

And it should be noted that I wasn't engaging in this discussion in terms of "How do we solve this problem?". Within that context, I agree that assigning blame to the individuals is not the best course for dealing with an epidemic.

To me this is a discussion about personal responsibility vs. blaming others. And as a person who enjoys all of the choices living in a free society affords me, I think it's sets a dangerous precedent to start pointing our fingers outward for problems we cause ourselves.
 
Last edited:
another problem i see is in education, how much about a balanced diet or feeding in general do we learn in school today? also more and more school are stoping the sport education.

This is why children have parents. Be involved in your children's lives. If they're not getting their nutrition and exercise needs met at school, take steps to compensate for that.
 
From: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009...4961245860812/
A researcher in Portland, Ore., says his study found that slightly overweight people live longer than their normal weight counterparts.

Now, granted, this article only refers to a couple of studies, and they haven't really figured out the mechanism involved. (And, it should also be noted that the article does not indicate that the fatter you are, the longer you'll live, only that the 'optimum' is to be overweight but not GREATLY overweight.)
I wasn't able to find the original studies, but I've read readers' comments on some of the reports. A few people brought up some good points -- if these conclusions are just based on general surveys how do we know if the researchers took into account whether the normal weight people were thin because of their smoking, drinking or drug habits? Any of those habits would decrease the expected life span.
Yes, those are valid points. Its also possilble that the 'average' for thin people was dragged down by a few outliers (people with diseases like Anorexia, or certain cancers).

On the other hand, its possible that being a bit overweight provides a slight benefit in certain cases (for example, I have a friend who's dauther is a doctor; she thinks babies are best if 'chubby' because they can better handle diseases that might cause loss of appetite.)

As I said before, they don't yet know the mechanisms before.
 
On the other hand, its possible that being a bit overweight provides a slight benefit in certain cases (for example, I have a friend who's dauther is a doctor; she thinks babies are best if 'chubby' because they can better handle diseases that might cause loss of appetite.)
Low birth weight in babies correlates with bad pre-natal care, premature birth, and poor health for the infant (including higher infant mortality).

You can't compare any of that to health markers for adults (or even children).

ETA: removed
 
Last edited:
And, yet, when you challenged Obsequious to back up his statement "If you can find somewhere here where anyone has claimed that all people are fat because they're lazy, feel free to show me." So, he has to restrict his criticisms to actual people/statements here, but you don't.

He doesn't have to do anything I tell him. If he can present an example of someone saying that all people are fat, he is free to do so. I notice that he hasn't done so. Neither have you.

In any case, you should probably come back with those goalposts. You accused me of using a straw man argument because the attitude I complained about, which no-one has actually denied exists, has not been explicitly stated on this thread. Clearly it is not a straw man, since general attitudes are a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up in a thread about a general problem of obesity across a large country (and indeed, the world). Given that I never accused Obsequious of a straw man, anything I may have said to him is utterly irrelevant to this point. You were wrong in accusing me of using one. Either admit it or just drop it, don't bother trying to dodge the point.

Kinda my point. The "tiny" number of fat people that aren't "only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant", aren't even worth a disclaimer, according to you. So, "all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant", is pretty close to your actual position.

No. A small proportion (maybe something like 5-10%) is not none. You can dodge around and throw out all the logical fallacies you like, but it's not going to change what I have actually said.

you are wrong in so many many points.

And yet nothing you say actually refutes anything I have said, although you do throw in plenty of wrong of your own.

typical "just eat less" nonsense, what is even more important is what you eat not only the quantity. it doesnt help me to eat only one doubble whopper instead of a tripple whopper when i need more vegetables or fruits.

Actually, no. What you eat is certainly important, but claiming that eating less won't help is just plain nonsense. Of course eating a double instead of a tripple will help.

and what is even more important to people that are used to eat much, when they want to eat less, is to eat more often. instead of 3 times a day, eat 5 times aday, but only small portions, and the 2 extra meals are not cake or a burger, but an apple or a yogurt.

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of the recommendation. If you eat lots of small meals, or constantly snack, you never reach satiety and end up eating a lot more than if you restrict yourself to a few large meals. You may well be better off snacking on healthy, low calorie food than stuffing yourself with a few unhealthy meals, but you'd be much better of again just having a few healthy meals instead.

when you eat the right things, you may end up eating even more while loosing wight. I know that from experiance.

This is probably because you're using "more" in the wrong sense. It is not the total mass of food you put in your mouth that is important, it is the amount of calories in it (and the proportion of calories you can actually absorb). When people say to eat less, they don't just mean to eat less mass, since that would be silly, they mean to eat less calories. You may well eat more total mass if you eat healthy food since it will often contain a lot of fibre, cellulose and various other things which bulk out food but provide very little nutrition.

a did it already, and know i can do it again, but dont feel like.

As I have already said, I have absolutely no problem with people who choose to be the way they are, or with those who don't necessarily choose but accept it anyway. It is only those who try to blame a condition of their own making on something or someone else that I have a problem with.

but i know alot people that really do try hard and eat balanced and not to much and make no progress.

And you can't see the contradiction here? If they really are eating a balanced diet and not eating too much, then they will lose weight. If they are trying to lose weight and not succeeding then they must be eating too much, by definition.
 
He doesn't have to do anything I tell him. If he can present an example of someone saying that all people are fat, he is free to do so. I notice that he hasn't done so. Neither have you.

OK, fine.


All fat people are lazy and are a drain on our economy and environment. Fat ass environmentalists such as Rosie O'Donnel should focus on doing her part in helping the environment by losing weight because her fat overweight ass does damage to the environment

Honestly, would your response have been different if he'd left out the "all", or replaced it with "almost all"?

In any case, you should probably come back with those goalposts. You accused me of using a straw man argument because the attitude I complained about, which no-one has actually denied exists, has not been explicitly stated on this thread. Clearly it is not a straw man, since general attitudes are a perfectly reasonable thing to bring up in a thread about a general problem of obesity across a large country (and indeed, the world). Given that I never accused Obsequious of a straw man, anything I may have said to him is utterly irrelevant to this point. You were wrong in accusing me of using one. Either admit it or just drop it, don't bother trying to dodge the point.

I didn't accuse you of using a straw man argument. I said, both of those attitudes strike me as something of a strawman. Yes, I know that's not a totally Kosher usage of "strawman". My point was that I don't think either the "all fat people are lazy" or the "it's someone else's fault" attitudes are actually expressed by a large percentage of overweight people. But fine, I'll admit it.

Now, can you point us to some examples of some of these people who
do it to themselves and then desperately flail around trying to blame anyone and anything other than themselves?

Also, I think it's a bit rich for you to suggest I would dodge the point, when you are cherry-picking parts of my posts to respond to, while dodging the larger points like your bizarre usage of "easy" to only refer to how much physical energy is required, with no regard to the wider meanings of the word.


No. A small proportion (maybe something like 5-10%) is not none. You can dodge around and throw out all the logical fallacies you like, but it's not going to change what I have actually said.

And I didn't say "all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant", was your position, only that it was close to your position. Hey, it covers 90-95% of all fat people! Close, right?
 
Chemicals In Food

Today's food, particularly processed food, (and today you can't really get away from processed food unless your Amish,) has a whole lot of chemicals. Even the vegetables from the grocery are washed in noxious nasties. Veggie rinses get rid of some, but do you really know what's in there? The numbers of allergic people are skyrocketing. Many of these allergies, note allergies to peanuts or shellfish, can kill. I believe that some of these multiplying allergies are causing the obesity epidemic. Posters here have noted increases in sugar in foods in various forms.

I note this because I recently discovered a nasty little food allergy within myself. Wheat, that stuff that bread is made out of, gives me blinding migraine headaches. I still have the nasties, but have not successfully pinned down any other allergies.

:confused::boggled:
 
Today's food, particularly processed food, (and today you can't really get away from processed food unless your Amish,) has a whole lot of chemicals. Even the vegetables from the grocery are washed in noxious nasties. Veggie rinses get rid of some, but do you really know what's in there? The numbers of allergic people are skyrocketing. Many of these allergies, note allergies to peanuts or shellfish, can kill. I believe that some of these multiplying allergies are causing the obesity epidemic. Posters here have noted increases in sugar in foods in various forms.

I note this because I recently discovered a nasty little food allergy within myself. Wheat, that stuff that bread is made out of, gives me blinding migraine headaches. I still have the nasties, but have not successfully pinned down any other allergies.

:confused::boggled:


This is simply untrue on most levels. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers are biodegradable, most grown foods go through a wash, and what you describe is the classic toxic woo. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable on the CT subforum? If not, I have some Skeptoid episodes to reference for you.

Veggies do get rinsed some, and yes, we know exactly what's in them.

What supporting evidence do you have for the claim that allergy's have contributed to the obesity problem? I remember a piece that Popular Science had on strange things that could contribute to the obesity problem, but the science behind each of these was either weak, or not explored enough.

Please, define this medical 'nasties' that you refer to.
 
If wheat gives you problem, you might have an intolerance to gluten.

I see no evidence that rates of allergies or food intolerances are rising, though, especially considering many of such intolerances used to be (and sometimes still are) very poorly understood and misdiagnosed. For example, a co-worker's girlfriend is intolerant to gluten, but was only diagnosed with it when she was 11. Her early childhood was plagued with all sorts of health problems doctors couldn't figure out (and she was even suspected of hypochondria), but when one finally did and tried to alter her diet, the improvement in her health was staggering. Which makes me wonder how many cases go unreported or misdiagnosed.
 
This is simply untrue on most levels. Chemical pesticides and fertilizers are biodegradable, most grown foods go through a wash, and what you describe is the classic toxic woo. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable on the CT subforum? If not, I have some Skeptoid episodes to reference for you.

Veggies do get rinsed some, and yes, we know exactly what's in them.

What supporting evidence do you have for the claim that allergy's have contributed to the obesity problem? I remember a piece that Popular Science had on strange things that could contribute to the obesity problem, but the science behind each of these was either weak, or not explored enough.

Please, define this medical 'nasties' that you refer to.

You are correct that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are individually biodegradable or they wouldn't be permitted on crops. Do we know what they do when they end up in a mix together in a single stomach or body? With trace amounts of hundreds, if not thousands of chemical compounds? (I admit I am guessing. I had a bad spell with two medications that mixed badly. A brand change added a chemical to a medication I was allergic to.) That got me to thinking, what if other things, benign by themselves, are not so benign when in a mix?

There's video on this website?
 
You are correct that chemical fertilizers and pesticides are individually biodegradable or they wouldn't be permitted on crops. Do we know what they do when they end up in a mix together in a single stomach or body?

Yes we do. It's fairly standard testing stuff. It won't turn into anything that normal food wouldn't, and doesn't, turn into. A tomato has more dangerous, cancer causing, toxic chemicals in it naturally than the stuff put on it.

With trace amounts of hundreds, if not thousands of chemical compounds? (I admit I am guessing. I had a bad spell with two medications that mixed badly. A brand change added a chemical to a medication I was allergic to.) That got me to thinking, what if other things, benign by themselves, are not so benign when in a mix?

Agriculture and food production is one of the most scrutinized and regulated of industries. Of course it isn't always safe. Nothing is. However, what you describe is actually a very interesting branch of research. People are employed all over the place testing for just those things. Very interesting people. I'm most familiar with the dairy and grape part of it.

There's video on this website?

Not on this website, but Brian Dunning makes a great podcast called Skeptoid. He hits on a lot of your concerns in a few different episodes, mostly on organic foods and detox ones.
 
Today's food, particularly processed food, (and today you can't really get away from processed food unless your Amish,) has a whole lot of chemicals.

[OT]The Amish eat pretty horribly though - lots of cakes and pies, fatty meat, and gravy.[/OT]
 
With trace amounts of hundreds, if not thousands of chemical compounds

There are way more than trace amounts of chemical compounds in our food. And us.

Chemical doesn't always mean bad. If it was for chemical compounds we wouldn't be.

I keep hearing about how bad our food is because we've found ways to grow enough to feed ourselves, and yet our life expectancy is decades longer than what it was just 100 years ago.
 
I'm simply speculating, ruminating bytes about bites to pass time.:D You all have given me a lot of food for thought. (These puns are just ghastly I know.)
 
A lot of the science promoting the obesity epidemic is really, really low quality, and doesn't factor in really basic facts, like the fact that people gain weight as they age as a biological norm for our species, and the fact that we have more older people living longer now and comprising a larger percentage of the population.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/jfs-special-report-obesity.html

Also, the research showing "the obesity paradox" regarding longevity (overweight obesity being protective, and morbidly obese being the same as normal weight) does correct for smoking, illness, etc.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/even-obesity-paradoxes-cant-excuse.html


If anybody can debunk the Junkfood Science chick, I'd love to see it. I've tried and been unable to, which is why, for now, I think she's probably more or less correct.
 
I have no sympathy for anyone who doesn't at least show some discipline in controlling their weight.

Are you suggestion that everyone is capable of maintaining what you would consider to be an ideal weight?

Do you not allow for medical conditions that make it impossible?
 

Back
Top Bottom