Full Version: Obesity
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology > [A] Health and Medicine
Just my two cents:
1. As are country becomes more urban, less rural, obesity will, by nature increase some.
2. We have become a country that does not, or will not, take the time needed for home cooked meals. Picking up a meal on the way home, once a luxury, is now common.
1. As are country becomes more urban, less rural, obesity will, by nature increase some.
2. We have become a country that does not, or will not, take the time needed for home cooked meals. Picking up a meal on the way home, once a luxury, is now common.
QUOTE(redliner1989 @ May 10 2004, 02:18 AM)
Just my two cents:
1. As are country becomes more urban, less rural, obesity will, by nature increase some.
2. We have become a country that does not, or will not, take the time needed for home cooked meals. Picking up a meal on the way home, once a luxury, is now common.
1. As are country becomes more urban, less rural, obesity will, by nature increase some.
2. We have become a country that does not, or will not, take the time needed for home cooked meals. Picking up a meal on the way home, once a luxury, is now common.
That's very true. In addition, you've got a workforce that is increasingly sedentary and less active (both because driing has almost entirely replaced walking or cycling as a route to work, and because heavy work is in decline through automation and outsourcing), AND working hours in the USA are some of the longest in the developed world,
Taken together, the calorie expenditure of most people has gone down, but they find themselves without the time to cook at home, or even shop for the healthy fresh produce they would need to cook with. Is it any wonder people pick up meals on the way home, or live on microwave TV dinners?
And food technology is now at such an advanced pitch that it becomes very hard to tell whether or not a prepared meal is healthy just by eating it. Scientific understanding in the public at large isn't advanced enough to know from reading the list of ingredients whether the food is good or bad, and most fast food or restaurant food doesn't come with ingredients anyway.
No time to cook a meal?
Please. There's time to cook a meal. But not if you have more important things to do. Which leads to the crux of the problem - what is more important than your health?
It's very easy to find an excuse not to exercise. It's very easy to find an excuse not to cook or eat more healthy foods. However, it's difficult to make a lifestyle change and do something about it.
Riding a stationary bike or treadmill is somewhat helpful for weight loss and very helpful for cardio related issues. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to work your muscles. That converts fat calories into muscle and keeps working long after you're done working out. Lower body workouts convert more fat calories than upper body workouts, but both should be done.
I think treadmills suck and for the most part, avoidable if you can get into a gym. Personally, I hit the elipticals before lifting because they burn twice the calories in half the time than a treadmill, and won't screw your knees up (I have to wear a knee brace as it is, so this is more helpful).
But what's stopping you from taking a brisk walk or jog around the block? That's free. Pushups and situps are free. There are tons of things you can do to improve your health that wouldn't cost you a nickel.
But you have to want to do it. If you don't want to, that's a reasonable decision you've made on your part and nobody has a right to fault you for it.
But McDonalds didn't make that decision for you. This topic seems to indicate that Ray Kroc is ultimately responsible for your decisions.
People are fat because it's easier to be fat.
Please. There's time to cook a meal. But not if you have more important things to do. Which leads to the crux of the problem - what is more important than your health?
It's very easy to find an excuse not to exercise. It's very easy to find an excuse not to cook or eat more healthy foods. However, it's difficult to make a lifestyle change and do something about it.
Riding a stationary bike or treadmill is somewhat helpful for weight loss and very helpful for cardio related issues. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to work your muscles. That converts fat calories into muscle and keeps working long after you're done working out. Lower body workouts convert more fat calories than upper body workouts, but both should be done.
I think treadmills suck and for the most part, avoidable if you can get into a gym. Personally, I hit the elipticals before lifting because they burn twice the calories in half the time than a treadmill, and won't screw your knees up (I have to wear a knee brace as it is, so this is more helpful).
But what's stopping you from taking a brisk walk or jog around the block? That's free. Pushups and situps are free. There are tons of things you can do to improve your health that wouldn't cost you a nickel.
But you have to want to do it. If you don't want to, that's a reasonable decision you've made on your part and nobody has a right to fault you for it.
But McDonalds didn't make that decision for you. This topic seems to indicate that Ray Kroc is ultimately responsible for your decisions.
People are fat because it's easier to be fat.
I spent about two years total of my life either as an invalid in bed, in a wheelchair, or on crutches. I was never fat. I think it's mostly what you eat.
First, McDonalds, Burger King etc. should have to post nutrition info on every carton, wrapper and cup they sell. People should know what they're eating. But the republican controlled congress panders to the fast food industry and won't make the industry accountable for the poison that it sells the American people.
Second, Eat less, drink water (instead of soda) and exercise more. In the end you're responsible for you.
Second, Eat less, drink water (instead of soda) and exercise more. In the end you're responsible for you.
OH lord, I have never been obese, and was always a top notch athlete, until I went sedintary when my wife got pregnent with our first child, and I gained about 70lbs. I went on the Atkins diet, lost 45, and have been working out like a mad man for about 6 months, and still have about another 30 pounds to go, and have peaked badly lately. It is super hard to take off this wieght! I am much more sympathetic to the obese now! 
I think it has much more to do with genetics than anything, and 100 years ago, a person that could easily put on a few pounds was definately more of a survivor than someone that struggled to keep the pounds on- a slower metabolism was a survival trait. So- now that life is easier, the trend is going to reverse I guess!
I think it has much more to do with genetics than anything, and 100 years ago, a person that could easily put on a few pounds was definately more of a survivor than someone that struggled to keep the pounds on- a slower metabolism was a survival trait. So- now that life is easier, the trend is going to reverse I guess!
Let's put this in perspective. There were no fat Auschwitz victims. Portion sizes in America are out of control. Go to Asia, and a coke is 2/3 the size of one of ours. Lots of people point to the French and say,"How do you do it? They eat butter all of the time! They eat pork! They're thin!". Go to France (or your authentic French restaurant). You'll find that, when you order lamb from the menu there is a little thing that looks like a flower on your plate. It's calorically dense, but about the serving size of a lean cuisine.
It's the same in Italy. The food is healthy, but portion size is still much smaller than your local Olive Garden restaurant. We eat too much, and it's accepted here.
It's the same in Italy. The food is healthy, but portion size is still much smaller than your local Olive Garden restaurant. We eat too much, and it's accepted here.
I have to disagree with Mrs. Pigpen on one point. She is right about portions being worldwide, but not in France. My father was born in Paris. He came to Canada at 17. After 35 years, he returned, and he not once, in his 2 week stay could finish up to dessert. In France there are much greater portions.
But back on topic. I believe that the number one reason why there is so much obesity in North America ia because of soda pop. Instead of regular sugar now, they use fructose as a sweetener in Pepsi, 7up and all the other pops. The human body can't use such a large and concentrated amount of energy, so it simply turns it into fat. This is one of the major causes of obesity.
Another cause is lack of exercise. When I was in high school, I had to walk 1/2km every day to school, and I never felt better than in the morning when I was walking to school. That is one of the reasons I am such a morning person today. But most other kids don't care about that. They get up 15 minutes before the bell is supposed to go, skip breakfast and opt for a Pepsi or a couple of caffeine, then eat chips and a chocolate bar for lunch because they didn't pack one, and that is all they can afford. And it goes on like that, day after day. The phyical education classes don't push the children to run instead of walk, because if they do, they are "harassing the kids who aren'ty jocks" and "playing favorites". Well, I was a jock in high school because I chose to run instead of walk. I wasn't in shape, but I wasn't obese either.
Obesity is caused majorly, I believe by these two factors. There are many others, but these two are the important ones.
But back on topic. I believe that the number one reason why there is so much obesity in North America ia because of soda pop. Instead of regular sugar now, they use fructose as a sweetener in Pepsi, 7up and all the other pops. The human body can't use such a large and concentrated amount of energy, so it simply turns it into fat. This is one of the major causes of obesity.
Another cause is lack of exercise. When I was in high school, I had to walk 1/2km every day to school, and I never felt better than in the morning when I was walking to school. That is one of the reasons I am such a morning person today. But most other kids don't care about that. They get up 15 minutes before the bell is supposed to go, skip breakfast and opt for a Pepsi or a couple of caffeine, then eat chips and a chocolate bar for lunch because they didn't pack one, and that is all they can afford. And it goes on like that, day after day. The phyical education classes don't push the children to run instead of walk, because if they do, they are "harassing the kids who aren'ty jocks" and "playing favorites". Well, I was a jock in high school because I chose to run instead of walk. I wasn't in shape, but I wasn't obese either.
Obesity is caused majorly, I believe by these two factors. There are many others, but these two are the important ones.
QUOTE(Terra @ May 9 2004, 11:05 AM)
How is someone on welfare going to afford a stationary bicycle?
- - -
Since average poor families in the USA have TV's, VCR's, microwaves, (making it easy to watch TV and eat junk food), surely a stationary bike is attainable?
I read an article recently advancing the theory that 'only the rich' can afford to eat right and exercise. Case in point was a migrant worker that only had time and money to go to McDonalds. With ramen noodles available for 5 packs / $1.00 and produce dirt cheap, I beg to differ. $3 at the fruit market goes a lot further vs. $3 at McDonald's.
CruisingRam, are you sure the Atkins diet and excercise are a good combination? Carbohydrates are converted into energy much easier than fat. By removing carbohydrates from your diet you are making your body work a lot harder to achieve the same expenditure of energy.
People blame genetics, diet, portion sizes, physiology, and I just don't get it. Why does it matter WHY people are more obese than they were thirty, twenty or even ten years ago? I mean, on a social scale it is important to address these issues; but if I'm 40 pounds overweight I'm not looking for general social trends to explain my problem (and it IS a problem). You have to identify the area of your lifestyle that has caused your energy intake to exceed your energy expenditure, and correct it. Whether I'm simplifying this or not, that's what losing weight boils down to. The fact that nobody tries to do this when they lose weight is perhaps the reason that so many people in the west, and particularly in America are fat fat fat.
People blame genetics, diet, portion sizes, physiology, and I just don't get it. Why does it matter WHY people are more obese than they were thirty, twenty or even ten years ago? I mean, on a social scale it is important to address these issues; but if I'm 40 pounds overweight I'm not looking for general social trends to explain my problem (and it IS a problem). You have to identify the area of your lifestyle that has caused your energy intake to exceed your energy expenditure, and correct it. Whether I'm simplifying this or not, that's what losing weight boils down to. The fact that nobody tries to do this when they lose weight is perhaps the reason that so many people in the west, and particularly in America are fat fat fat.
QUOTE(kosmos @ May 10 2004, 09:44 AM)
First, McDonalds, Burger King etc. should have to post nutrition info on every carton, wrapper and cup they sell. People should know what they're eating. But the republican controlled congress panders to the fast food industry and won't make the industry accountable for the poison that it sells the American people.
Second, Eat less, drink water (instead of soda) and exercise more. In the end you're responsible for you.
Second, Eat less, drink water (instead of soda) and exercise more. In the end you're responsible for you.
Well gee, there's a novel idea.
Without posting calorie information on the side of a Big Mac with cheese,I bet your average person would have to do extensive research on the internet to conclude that Big Macs are not conducive to a healthy diet.
So, what cave would you have to be hiding in to not know Big Macs are not known as health foods?
Do you want to reduce the consumption of fast foods? It's easy. Make fast food joints hard to get to and eliminate drive-thrus.
People eat McDonalds because it's fast and convenient. Which coincidentally, IS conducive to your typical overweight person's lifestyle.
Sorry for the delayed response; I'm having a few unscheduled apartment upgrades.
Except that we're not talking about "a small percentage" of people with medical problems. Obesity and overweight places as much stress on the body as other diseases, and therefore warrant medical consultation.
Except that injuries are becoming more prevalent, even in those who aren't sedentary to start with: http://www.americansportsdata.com/sports_injury1.asp
The problem is that what you may consider to be "common sense" may not be how the body actually functions. The recent research on stretching is a prime example of this.
I wouldn't be so sure. Were you close friends with everyone in your gym class? After all, many people hide injuries and egos.
Terra
QUOTE
Of course you have a small percentage of people that have medical problems, but the vast majority of people aren't going to be hurt by unsupervised physical activities.
Except that we're not talking about "a small percentage" of people with medical problems. Obesity and overweight places as much stress on the body as other diseases, and therefore warrant medical consultation.
QUOTE
Maybe people have taken the pendulum too far that way. What I mean is that every little time someone wants to do exercise or etc, please consult your physican. But perhaps we are taking it too far in that direction. Sure we need to use a little common sense before we start any kind of physical activity whether it may be recreational or professional. Start the activity at a low rate and increase it over time. I would believe the vast majority of people could figure that out. It shouldn't take a Einstein mentality to start physical exercises.
Except that injuries are becoming more prevalent, even in those who aren't sedentary to start with: http://www.americansportsdata.com/sports_injury1.asp
The problem is that what you may consider to be "common sense" may not be how the body actually functions. The recent research on stretching is a prime example of this.
QUOTE
For instance we used to play dodge ball in physical education classes twice a week. Now it has been done away with because someone might get hurt or some ones feelings might get hurt. Come on, where are we headed. We never had one person hurt in my 4 years of high school playing dodge ball. It was a very stimulating activity and fun.
I wouldn't be so sure. Were you close friends with everyone in your gym class? After all, many people hide injuries and egos.
Terra
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ May 10 2004, 10:08 AM)
No time to cook a meal?
Please. There's time to cook a meal. But not if you have more important things to do. Which leads to the crux of the problem - what is more important than your health?
It's very easy to find an excuse not to exercise. It's very easy to find an excuse not to cook or eat more healthy foods. However, it's difficult to make a lifestyle change and do something about it.
Riding a stationary bike or treadmill is somewhat helpful for weight loss and very helpful for cardio related issues. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to work your muscles. That converts fat calories into muscle and keeps working long after you're done working out. Lower body workouts convert more fat calories than upper body workouts, but both should be done.
I think treadmills suck and for the most part, avoidable if you can get into a gym. Personally, I hit the elipticals before lifting because they burn twice the calories in half the time than a treadmill, and won't screw your knees up (I have to wear a knee brace as it is, so this is more helpful).
But what's stopping you from taking a brisk walk or jog around the block? That's free. Pushups and situps are free. There are tons of things you can do to improve your health that wouldn't cost you a nickel.
But you have to want to do it. If you don't want to, that's a reasonable decision you've made on your part and nobody has a right to fault you for it.
But McDonalds didn't make that decision for you. This topic seems to indicate that Ray Kroc is ultimately responsible for your decisions.
People are fat because it's easier to be fat.
Please. There's time to cook a meal. But not if you have more important things to do. Which leads to the crux of the problem - what is more important than your health?
It's very easy to find an excuse not to exercise. It's very easy to find an excuse not to cook or eat more healthy foods. However, it's difficult to make a lifestyle change and do something about it.
Riding a stationary bike or treadmill is somewhat helpful for weight loss and very helpful for cardio related issues. But if you really want to lose weight, you need to work your muscles. That converts fat calories into muscle and keeps working long after you're done working out. Lower body workouts convert more fat calories than upper body workouts, but both should be done.
I think treadmills suck and for the most part, avoidable if you can get into a gym. Personally, I hit the elipticals before lifting because they burn twice the calories in half the time than a treadmill, and won't screw your knees up (I have to wear a knee brace as it is, so this is more helpful).
But what's stopping you from taking a brisk walk or jog around the block? That's free. Pushups and situps are free. There are tons of things you can do to improve your health that wouldn't cost you a nickel.
But you have to want to do it. If you don't want to, that's a reasonable decision you've made on your part and nobody has a right to fault you for it.
But McDonalds didn't make that decision for you. This topic seems to indicate that Ray Kroc is ultimately responsible for your decisions.
People are fat because it's easier to be fat.
Looks like you didn't read my post about urban design. There's no time to cook a meal if getting to a store requires a 60 block walk, not to mention issues stemming from absentee landlords' refusal to provide adequate cooking spaces. And while running around the block may be free, child care isn't -- and neither is treatment for your gunshot wound if you live in a not-so-pleasant part of town.
The bottom line is that these costs are distributed on all of us. We may be the only nation without a socialized medical system, but private insurance operates on the same principles. Harp on personal responsibility all you want, but the past three decades has shown us that it's an ineffective way to reduce the obesity rates that we all have to pay for.
Terra
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ May 10 2004, 11:21 AM)
QUOTE(Terra @ May 9 2004, 11:05 AM)
How is someone on welfare going to afford a stationary bicycle?
- - -
Since average poor families in the USA have TV's, VCR's, microwaves, (making it easy to watch TV and eat junk food), surely a stationary bike is attainable?
I read an article recently advancing the theory that 'only the rich' can afford to eat right and exercise. Case in point was a migrant worker that only had time and money to go to McDonalds. With ramen noodles available for 5 packs / $1.00 and produce dirt cheap, I beg to differ. $3 at the fruit market goes a lot further vs. $3 at McDonald's.
A second-hand (or black market) tv is $20. Last time I checked, stationary bikes aren't common fixtures in pawn shops -- and I've yet to see a used bike sell for less than $200.
Last time I checked, $1.00 only buys me two grapefruit or one head of lettuce -- neither of which is very filling. Even if produce is cheaper in other parts of the country, getting to stores that sell produce is not: in Philly, public transportation now costs upwards of $2.00 a ride. (And that's if you're lucky enough to have service in your neighborhood.)
Terra
Not that we all have internet access, unless we can walk to a free library, but te 'buy it now' prices of bikes seems reasonable...
Stationary Exercise Bike USED in Excellent Condition $25.00 0 bids 1d 4h
Used Stationary Excercise Bike - Toronto GTA $55.00 0 bids
Perhaps the same people that can't get to a store that sells affordable produce shouldn't be protesting against Wal-Mart in their city? Shop there, and you'd even have enough for the busfare.
4 trips to McDonald's = 3 value meals, burger coke and fries = $12.50 with tax
1 trip to produce mart = 2 lbs carrots $1.50, 10 lbs potatoes $3.50, one whole chicken $3, onions $0.50, gallon milk $3 = $12.50
Even with busfare, this seems like a reasonable healthy option. Use your WIC or Food Stamps and you'd have even more savings.
Stationary Exercise Bike USED in Excellent Condition $25.00 0 bids 1d 4h
Used Stationary Excercise Bike - Toronto GTA $55.00 0 bids
Perhaps the same people that can't get to a store that sells affordable produce shouldn't be protesting against Wal-Mart in their city? Shop there, and you'd even have enough for the busfare.
4 trips to McDonald's = 3 value meals, burger coke and fries = $12.50 with tax
1 trip to produce mart = 2 lbs carrots $1.50, 10 lbs potatoes $3.50, one whole chicken $3, onions $0.50, gallon milk $3 = $12.50
Even with busfare, this seems like a reasonable healthy option. Use your WIC or Food Stamps and you'd have even more savings.
QUOTE(Terra @ May 12 2004, 10:13 AM)
and I've yet to see a used bike sell for less than $200.
That's funny, because I buy a new one every week or two for under $5. Ya' see that's my limit for my "grocery getter". I buy a cheap or free bike that I ride the three miles to the grocery store daily, where I fill my backpack with food items I will need for the dinner that evening and breakfast & lunch the next day (one gets really fresh produce and bread that way BTW).
I need a new bike every week or so, because I don't even lock them up. Because they're so freakin' cheap. I just replace them as they get stolen, and sometimes I'm lucky enough to steal one back.
Based on your comments throughout this thread, you have endless excuses as to why one couldn't get any exercise, but they are just that; excuses. If one wants to exersice they cetainly can. Jumping jacks out on the sidewalk can provide adequete aerobic stimulus. Or one could buy a $5 bike and ride to the grocery store "60 blocks away" - that's probably not even six miles away, for the groceries that inner city dwellers suposedly "cannot get".
QUOTE
Based on your comments throughout this thread, you have endless excuses as to why one couldn't get any exercise, but they are just that; excuses.
I'm going to have to agree with Juan Speeder here. There are many, many ways a person can exercise for free or little cost. Although I know many people have certain conditions (physical or psychological) that prevent them from exercising, but taking a walk each day is not unattainable (for people with physical problems).
Other than the most obvious causes of obesity in America (lack of exercise, unhealthy food, large portions) there are too many other factors such as genetic predisposition, economic status (though that plays less a role than one might think), location, and so on. But these latter factors have been constant where as the former have all changed over the last century. Food is now about speed and ease of preparation, the internet has replaced exercise, you can of course choose between regular or biggie sizes at fast food places (which offer speed and no preparation). So through a combination of culture changes I believe is one way to view the obesity problem.
I'm going to reply in brief right now...(I'm on a break from studying for an exam) and perhaps come back and edit later.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
It doesn't help that many companies captialize on the weight problem. For example the latest Curves craze....Total waste of the consumers money, they could better lose weight going for a fast paced mile walk and taking the stairs at work everyday. A better use of that outrageous membership fee (the equiptment in these places is paid off after only a handful of memberships are sold) would be to join a REAL gym OR invest in some basic home equiptment or better quality foods.
Perhaps with the price of gas going up more people will turn to public transportation (including walking and biking) and will lose some poundage.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
It doesn't help that many companies captialize on the weight problem. For example the latest Curves craze....Total waste of the consumers money, they could better lose weight going for a fast paced mile walk and taking the stairs at work everyday. A better use of that outrageous membership fee (the equiptment in these places is paid off after only a handful of memberships are sold) would be to join a REAL gym OR invest in some basic home equiptment or better quality foods.
Perhaps with the price of gas going up more people will turn to public transportation (including walking and biking) and will lose some poundage.
QUOTE(erratic_energy @ May 13 2004, 05:49 AM)
I'm going to reply in brief right now...(I'm on a break from studying for an exam) and perhaps come back and edit later.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
It doesn't help that many companies captialize on the weight problem. For example the latest Curves craze....Total waste of the consumers money, they could better lose weight going for a fast paced mile walk and taking the stairs at work everyday. A better use of that outrageous membership fee (the equiptment in these places is paid off after only a handful of memberships are sold) would be to join a REAL gym OR invest in some basic home equiptment or better quality foods.
Perhaps with the price of gas going up more people will turn to public transportation (including walking and biking) and will lose some poundage.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
It doesn't help that many companies captialize on the weight problem. For example the latest Curves craze....Total waste of the consumers money, they could better lose weight going for a fast paced mile walk and taking the stairs at work everyday. A better use of that outrageous membership fee (the equiptment in these places is paid off after only a handful of memberships are sold) would be to join a REAL gym OR invest in some basic home equiptment or better quality foods.
Perhaps with the price of gas going up more people will turn to public transportation (including walking and biking) and will lose some poundage.
I am glad that you mentioned "taking stairs at work everyday". That is exactly what I do. We only have 8 floors in our Company's building. I would guess that maybe 5% of the people will take the stairs instead of the elevator, even when they are only going up 1 floor.
If that is not being lazy, I don't know what is. I have heard numerous people complaining that it took them 5 minutes to get a elevator. PLEASE!!!!!! And most of the time they we only going 1 to 3 floors,anyway.
It is getting ridiculous how lazy and the mentality of Americans these days. Our forefathers would not recognize us today.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Apr 11 2004, 02:11 PM)
Lifestyle and conditioning unless there's a medical reason.
I would agree with you 110% on this one-we Americans have a very sedentary lifestylde due to technological advancements that leave us with little time to expend energy. Hardly anyone is cutting down a tree to have their own fire or tossing haybales in the summertime. Sometimes after a long day at work, you just aren't in the mood to hit the treadmill at the "Y" and you just want to collapse on the couch. Ditto the comments about corporations like McDonald's. They just merely provide a service and I don't buy for one minute that the folks who are now suing them for helping them pig out, had no idea that the food wasn't the best thing for them.
QUOTE
Not that we all have internet access, unless we can walk to a free library, but te 'buy it now' prices of bikes seems reasonable...
And therein lies the crux of your problem. Most people can't walk to a free library -- and even if they did, a lot of people in poor communitites don't have a valid debit or credit card. eBay requires a lot more technical knowledge than you'd think.
QUOTE
4 trips to McDonald's = 3 value meals, burger coke and fries = $12.50 with tax
1 trip to produce mart = 2 lbs carrots $1.50, 10 lbs potatoes $3.50, one whole chicken $3, onions $0.50, gallon milk $3 = $12.50
Even with busfare, this seems like a reasonable healthy option. Use your WIC or Food Stamps and you'd have even more savings.
1 trip to produce mart = 2 lbs carrots $1.50, 10 lbs potatoes $3.50, one whole chicken $3, onions $0.50, gallon milk $3 = $12.50
Even with busfare, this seems like a reasonable healthy option. Use your WIC or Food Stamps and you'd have even more savings.
Two things. First of all, you're not calculating the costs of transportation and preparation. You're also not accounting for the kitchen conditions that are endemic in certain neighborhoods. Spending an hour preparing a meal when you only have two hours to get from job a to job b simply isn't worth it to offset future medical costs.
QUOTE
Perhaps the same people that can't get to a store that sells affordable produce shouldn't be protesting against Wal-Mart in their city?
I didn't realize they were. In Philly and Chicago, the poor neighborhoods want Wal Mart; it's the economic interests in the rest of the area that don't.
QUOTE
Shop there, and you'd even have enough for the busfare.
And further undermine the national and local economy.
Terra
[/QUOTE]That's funny, because I buy a new one every week or two for under $5. Ya' see that's my limit for my "grocery getter". I buy a cheap or free bike that I ride the three miles to the grocery store daily, where I fill my backpack with food items I will need for the dinner that evening and breakfast & lunch the next day (one gets really fresh produce and bread that way BTW). [/QUOTE]
I was talking about stationary bikes. Normal bikes share the same problems that walking does in inner cities: namely, you're wandering through gang crossfire. Not to mention the costs associated with trying to get your kids to go biking with you.
I never questioned your assertion that if someone really, really wants to exercise in ghetto conditions, they can. I'm simply pointing out structural factors that ultimately force stressed-out single parents to choose between exercise and other, more immediate, concerns.
After all, what good is running through a war zone to get to a grocery store to buy fresh produce do for your family if the state finds out your kids were unsupervised during that trip?
Terra
I was talking about stationary bikes. Normal bikes share the same problems that walking does in inner cities: namely, you're wandering through gang crossfire. Not to mention the costs associated with trying to get your kids to go biking with you.
QUOTE
Based on your comments throughout this thread, you have endless excuses as to why one couldn't get any exercise, but they are just that; excuses. If one wants to exersice they cetainly can. Jumping jacks out on the sidewalk can provide adequete aerobic stimulus. Or one could buy a $5 bike and ride to the grocery store "60 blocks away" - that's probably not even six miles away, for the groceries that inner city dwellers suposedly "cannot get".
I never questioned your assertion that if someone really, really wants to exercise in ghetto conditions, they can. I'm simply pointing out structural factors that ultimately force stressed-out single parents to choose between exercise and other, more immediate, concerns.
After all, what good is running through a war zone to get to a grocery store to buy fresh produce do for your family if the state finds out your kids were unsupervised during that trip?
Terra
QUOTE(erratic_energy @ May 13 2004, 05:49 AM)
Perhaps with the price of gas going up more people will turn to public transportation (including walking and biking) and will lose some poundage.
I think it may be too late for that. Too many Americans live in suburbs that were designed to promote reliance on cars.
QUOTE
I'm going to reply in brief right now...(I'm on a break from studying for an exam) and perhaps come back and edit later.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
People buy and eat fastfood for the same reason that they don't exercise...LAZINESS.
Be a single parent for a month and see if you still agree with that statement. Single mothers often rely on fast food because it's convenient and they want to make what little time they have with their kids positive.
People only have so much stamina. You may want to call it lazy, but I call it human.
Terra
Terra, please don't flood us with posts. If you were the last person to post something and you have more to add, you merely need to edit your last post, provided it's done within your 12 hour edit window. Thanks 
QUOTE(Terra @ May 14 2004, 12:55 PM)
Be a single parent for a month and see if you still agree with that statement. Single mothers often rely on fast food because it's convenient and they want to make what little time they have with their kids positive.
People only have so much stamina. You may want to call it lazy, but I call it human.
People only have so much stamina. You may want to call it lazy, but I call it human.
Terra I disagree that fast food is an inevitable option for those with busy schedules...
Be a college student for a month and you'll see how many people go out for fast food merely because they are lazy and don't feel like cooking. Many college students go to school, work and recreate...I think its the same thing with a lot of single moms...too tired and too time consuming so they give up on making anything. Afterall fast food is easier, it tastes good (well sometimes), and its quick. These are all EXCUSES. Fast food is designed to target the lazy and overbusy consumer. You CAN still have positive time with your kids whilst providing a healthful meal option. Not all foods are time consuming to make yourself. Many things you can prepare quickly and put in the oven and forget about it until the timer goes off. Carrots and dip, rice, oatmeal, cold cereals, burgers (if you use a foreman grill or frying pan), fruit, eggs...all quick. Some children are even excited to help make food when given the opportunity. There are plenty of non-fast food healthful meal options for people on the go.
Popeye- I saw the same thing when I lived in the dormatories regarding the elevator.
There are so many small habitual changes that people could/can make that would result in weightloss. Its a matter of caring to do so.
eg: take the stairs, park further away and walk (most times it takes you more time to look for a closer spot than it would to walk from further), cut out sodas, pack healthy snacks the night before and bring them to work rather than using the vending machine, take smaller portions (you can always go get seconds if you are still hungry)...etc.
I think one major factor people overlook in the issue of weight is WHY people overeat to begin with. Food is often left out of the list of "addictive substances" such as drugs, alcohol, & smoking. Certain foods, (particularly those that cause weight gain - the high fat & sugar foods, and even chocolate) have been proven to be addictive simply because, once digested/assimilated into the blood stream, they cause a chemical reaction that enduces a sense of "well-being".
Given this fact, it's obvious to me why one would chose to eat these foods in excess - to help calm down, comfort, or numb emotional pain, just as drugs, alcohol or smoking does. You could say it's a matter of one choosing their "drug of choice" to help cope with the harsh issues in life.
The big difference is, however, one can't just quit eating cold turkey to get rid of the addiction the way one could with the other substances. One still has to eat, and that's why it's so much more difficult to "quit the habit". The real problem here is dealing with the underlying issuesthat cause someone to turn to food as an "emotional crutch" or "security blanket" in the first place, not the food itself.
I think it's safe to say that the popularity of spending our free time playing video games, watching TV, & surfing the Internet has attributed to the obesity problem as well. But even so, the combination of such and turning to food for comfort still begs the question, why are we (as a society) seeking such mental and emotional distractions to keep us happy? We didn't seem to need this 20 years ago.
I personally believe the obesity epidemic is due to the breakdown of the family, lack of parental involvement in their children's lives resulting in kids being left to raise themselves, and an increase in the overall violence in the world (i.e. it's not safe to let kids out to play anymore, schools are extremely violent, 9/11, etc.). I think this makes us (collectively) feel unsafe & that our future seems unstable which causes us to react out of fear for comfort. It's a form of control, in a sense, in that (those who lean on food) can control what and how much we want to eat, when everything else in the world is out of (our) control.
The solution: (aside from the obvious - nutritional education, exercise programs, pressuring the fast food industries to modify their menus, and forcing school vending machines to carry only healthy/natural food choices), THERAPY! (...and I don't say that condescendingly.) Kids (and of course adults) need emotional help and support today, more so than ever. The world they're growing up in is too dangerous and complex for them to handle alone and they shouldn't have to. Love, Integrity, and Genuineness are missing in our lives - from the Whitehouse to the backyard Treehouse - and our society walks around looking like a house because constitutes a wall of protection we can't find elsewhere.
Given this fact, it's obvious to me why one would chose to eat these foods in excess - to help calm down, comfort, or numb emotional pain, just as drugs, alcohol or smoking does. You could say it's a matter of one choosing their "drug of choice" to help cope with the harsh issues in life.
The big difference is, however, one can't just quit eating cold turkey to get rid of the addiction the way one could with the other substances. One still has to eat, and that's why it's so much more difficult to "quit the habit". The real problem here is dealing with the underlying issuesthat cause someone to turn to food as an "emotional crutch" or "security blanket" in the first place, not the food itself.
I think it's safe to say that the popularity of spending our free time playing video games, watching TV, & surfing the Internet has attributed to the obesity problem as well. But even so, the combination of such and turning to food for comfort still begs the question, why are we (as a society) seeking such mental and emotional distractions to keep us happy? We didn't seem to need this 20 years ago.
I personally believe the obesity epidemic is due to the breakdown of the family, lack of parental involvement in their children's lives resulting in kids being left to raise themselves, and an increase in the overall violence in the world (i.e. it's not safe to let kids out to play anymore, schools are extremely violent, 9/11, etc.). I think this makes us (collectively) feel unsafe & that our future seems unstable which causes us to react out of fear for comfort. It's a form of control, in a sense, in that (those who lean on food) can control what and how much we want to eat, when everything else in the world is out of (our) control.
The solution: (aside from the obvious - nutritional education, exercise programs, pressuring the fast food industries to modify their menus, and forcing school vending machines to carry only healthy/natural food choices), THERAPY! (...and I don't say that condescendingly.) Kids (and of course adults) need emotional help and support today, more so than ever. The world they're growing up in is too dangerous and complex for them to handle alone and they shouldn't have to. Love, Integrity, and Genuineness are missing in our lives - from the Whitehouse to the backyard Treehouse - and our society walks around looking like a house because constitutes a wall of protection we can't find elsewhere.
QUOTE
I think one major factor people overlook in the issue of weight is WHY people overeat to begin with. Food is often left out of the list of "addictive substances" such as drugs, alcohol, & smoking. Certain foods, (particularly those that cause weight gain - the high fat & sugar foods, and even chocolate) have been proven to be addictive simply because, once digested/assimilated into the blood stream, they cause a chemical reaction that enduces a sense of "well-being".
Good point. People overeat because they are "hungry" for something, and this is a maladaptive coping mechanism in our society. To recognize this requires some empathy, though, and it is unfortunately easier to deride a person who is uncomfortably overweight and does not have the energy to live a lifestyle that his/her more active acquaintances do.
Therapy is necessary. I remember listening to a tape about obesity where the expert opines that the emotion behind overeating and obesity is a lack of forgiveness. Interesting--that might include forgiveness of one's self.
QUOTE(Ardent Muse @ May 18 2004, 10:20 PM)
I think one major factor people overlook in the issue of weight is WHY people overeat to begin with. Food is often left out of the list of "addictive substances" such as drugs, alcohol, & smoking. Certain foods, (particularly those that cause weight gain - the high fat & sugar foods, and even chocolate) have been proven to be addictive simply because, once digested/assimilated into the blood stream, they cause a chemical reaction that enduces a sense of "well-being".
I do not accept that theory. There is a significant medical difference between something being 'enjoyable' and something being 'addictive'. I entirely accept your point about the sense of well-being conveyed by some of less healthy foods, and that makes eating them enjoyable. Lots of things are enjoyable, running barefoot in the grass is enjoyable, but they are not addictive. Equating drugs like heroin or even tobacco, with a strong physical addictiveness, to food, which is just nice to eat is unreasonable.
To draw that link is to take yet another step in the seemingly enless drive towards ending the concept of personal responsability in North America. To assume that lack of willpower is by definition some kind of medical condition makes people's actions meaningless.
If you know fatty foods are enjoyable, but make you fat, then make a sacrifice and stop eating them. If you do not, then be aware that that is your CHOICE, and for the price of short term enjoyment you will suffer long term weight gain, but make no mistake, enjoyable or not eating fatty and unhealthy foods is still a choice.
There are SOME few people who have a nervous disorder that makes them compulsive overeaters. But this obsessive compulsive behaviour is a sign of a mental illness or borderline personality, and it is fairly uncommon. These people can be treated with a combination of therapy and drugs to regulate chemical balance in their brains. The majority of overeaters have nothing wrong with them execept a lack of willpower.
Now the original point of this thread was discussing fast food like McDonalds and its contribution to obesity. Here I think there is a difference, thanks to lask of product and nutritional information and a massive marketing campaign, people may be aware that McDonalds is not great for you, but they remain quite unaware as a whole just HOW bad McDonalds is for you. Lack of willpower is one thing. lack of the necessary information to make an informed decision is another.
I agree with Vermillion. I have been a diabetic since I was 12 and there may have been many times that I really wanted to eat those three candy bars sitting on the table, even sometimes when I was really upset about something else, but I know it's not good for me so I don't. It's amazing to me when I go to my doctor for my check-ups and see people eating things in the waiting room that they shouldn't be eating. Type I diabetes is a good example, because with the proper diet, exercies, and insulin therapy, it is a very manageable disorder. I can honestly say that my life has really not been impacted on much at all because I am a diabetic. However, I know many people whose lives have been severely impacted on because they cheat and think they can get away with it. If I eat 6 candy bars, I am not hurting the doctor, society, the guy next door, or anybody else. I am hurting myself. Actually, if more people followed the regiment of a diabetic, they would be a lot healthier. It has caused me to have a cholesterol of 112, normal blood pressure, a healthy cardio work-up, and to be physicalle fot and not have to worry about being overweight since I am never eating food high in fat, or high in sugar.
V-
"I do not accept that theory. There is a significant medical difference between something being 'enjoyable' and something being 'addictive'. I entirely accept your point about the sense of well-being conveyed by some of less healthy foods, and that makes eating them enjoyable. Lots of things are enjoyable, running barefoot in the grass is enjoyable, but they are not addictive. Equating drugs like heroin or even tobacco, with a strong physical addictiveness, to food, which is just nice to eat is unreasonable."
Well, here you seem to agree then disagree with my statement. It seems to indicate acknowledgement with a subconscious denial of that acknowledgement because of an underlying prejudiced against people who are overweight.
The fact is, it's already been scientifically proven that sugar & fattening food do cause a chemical reaction in the blood stream which produces a sense of "well-being". That feeling can be as addictive as any other mind-altering substance. My point is, that there are those who choose and prefer food over such other (more socially accepted forms of addictive) substances, and it's just as challenging & difficult to give up the habit of excessive food indulgence as it is that of drugs, alcohol or smoking.
V-
"To draw that link is to take yet another step in the seemingly enless drive towards ending the concept of personal responsability in North America. To assume that lack of willpower is by definition some kind of medical condition makes people's actions meaningless."
I'm not denying personal responsibility when it comes to dealing with the addiction. People can chose to eat healthy foods or not. The point(s) I'm making here/(that you seem to be mission) are:
1) It is, in fact, (scientifically proven to be) addictive
2) As such, it's also valid to include it in the list of addictive substances such as drugs, alcohol, & cigarettes
3) Some people are more inclined to choose food as their "drug of choice" than others
4) It's just as difficult, if not more so, to rid oneself of the addiction because you can't eliminate food from your life completely like you can other substances.
5) Willpower is only a fraction of what it takes to resolve the problem because the issues run deeper (may even go back to childhood - psychological issues of abuse in any given form, parental neglect or death, whatever) than just telling oneself "I'm not going to overeat today, darn it!" The idea of willpower (or the lack thereof) is to take a simplistic view on the problem. It's just much more complex than that.
6) There's a direct correlation between emotional pain/attempting to fill a void in one's life, and reaching out for something to "medicate" it - in this case, food. "
VA-
"If you know fatty foods are enjoyable, but make you fat, then make a sacrifice and stop eating them. If you do not, then be aware that that is your CHOICE, and for the price of short term enjoyment you will suffer long term weight gain, but make no mistake, enjoyable or not eating fatty and unhealthy foods is still a choice." "The majority of overeaters have nothing wrong with them except a lack of willpower."
Let me ask you,..would you say the same thing to one who drinks, smokes or does drugs excessively? Don't assume that people who overeat are stupid. They KNOW about nutritional facts, they KNOW what their choices are, and they KNOW what the consequences are. That's not the point, and it's condescending & immature to imply that it is, and to imply that it's nothing more than a lack of "will power".
Again, the fact is, food addiction is just that - an addiction - to something that eases emotional pain. Underlying issues are the problem, not "lack of willpower". It takes a lot of inner work, time, commitment, & soul-searching to get to the root of the problem, and that can be a very painful process for one who's already in pain. In addition, they may not have the strength or support of others to deal with it, so they reach out to food, and the vicious cycle continues.
It's even more difficult to the overweight person who uses food in such a way because, unfortunately, discrimination is easily directed at them simply FOR being overweight. They're often viewed as being "lazy", "incompetent", "lack will power or discipline", "ignorant of nutritional facts", or told "your addiction isn't real". Their addiction is visible to the public, and because fat is so "unsightly" or "ugly", the prejudiced person feels justified in his discrimination, and in erroneously assuming an overeater's supposed "guilt".
(I know this first hand because I've been on both sides of the fence. I've been under and overweight during various times over the past 20-27 years, and have "successfully" exercised "will power" to lose the weight & eliminate junk foods. But the success to that approach was only temporary and really didn't work in the long term because the underlying issues that cause cravings resurface when triggered by challenging events in life. It's easy to fall back into that groove of (verified) addiction by using that "emotional crutch"/"drug of choice", which, ultimately perpetuates the problem. I've also noticed that people treat you entirely different when you're the "normal size" - they're MUCH more polite to you, helpful, assume you're intelligent, care about your feelings, and think you're hardworking, so one's appearance CAN and DOES affect the views of others on the subject.)
The public in general doesn't cast that cloud on those who drink, smoke or do drugs, however. The image of someone smoking or drinking is considered "glamorous" (even though it may be a sign of the very same pain the overweight person is experiencing.) What gets me is, smoking and drinking are abusive habits that can harm others (second hand smoke, drunk driving), and overeating hurts only the one who does it. Yet overeaters are subject to being ostracized more than the latter group because of their appearance, AND because people don't acknowledge or understand the legitimate deeper causes of excessive eating."
V-
"There are SOME few people who have a nervous disorder that makes them compulsive overeaters. But this obsessive compulsive behavior is a sign of a mental illness or borderline personality, and it is fairly uncommon. These people can be treated with a combination of therapy and drugs to regulate chemical balance in their brains."
I believe the incidents of Bulimia and Anorexia are far more common than you suggest. They are just another facet of the overall eating disorder epidemic going on in this country which is indicative of a larger emotional issue. - (in my opinion - a lack of love, family structure, and emphasis on materialistic & physical perfection on the part of advertisers.)
V-
"The majority of overeaters have nothing wrong with them except a lack of willpower."
Again, another example of ignorance, prejudiced & insensitivity towards those with the problem because of adherence to the "will power" view. Why would "the majority of overeaters" be lacking discipline, if obesity is now at epidemic proportions? To understand WHY someone overeats is to look further than "will power".
V-
"Now the original point of this thread was discussing fast food like McDonalds and its contribution to obesity."
Well, hmmmmm.... could McDonald's actually be one of the outlets overeaters use to obtain the foods that make them feel good? <pause> I think, yes. I think all the points I've outlined in my response relate to McDonald's or ANY OTHER source of fattening foods, so where did I lose ya?
[Is it McDonald's fault for providing the food? I think, not. However, I believe they DO know the food is fattening & tempting and bank on that to keep their business alive, which, ultimately, doesn't help those battling food addiction. Does the overeater have other choices? I think, yes. Does the overeater know this? I think, yes. Does the overeater still have the problem whether or not McDonald's modifies their menu? I think, yes. Despite all of that, does this change the fact that the overeater still has a hard time dealing with the addiction? I think, not, because the issue is not food related, it's emotionally related. Therefore, "will power" is a "Band Aid" view and an unrealistic approach to the problem's solution - just as much as telling the drug/alcohol/smoking addict to "just say no".]
"I do not accept that theory. There is a significant medical difference between something being 'enjoyable' and something being 'addictive'. I entirely accept your point about the sense of well-being conveyed by some of less healthy foods, and that makes eating them enjoyable. Lots of things are enjoyable, running barefoot in the grass is enjoyable, but they are not addictive. Equating drugs like heroin or even tobacco, with a strong physical addictiveness, to food, which is just nice to eat is unreasonable."
Well, here you seem to agree then disagree with my statement. It seems to indicate acknowledgement with a subconscious denial of that acknowledgement because of an underlying prejudiced against people who are overweight.
The fact is, it's already been scientifically proven that sugar & fattening food do cause a chemical reaction in the blood stream which produces a sense of "well-being". That feeling can be as addictive as any other mind-altering substance. My point is, that there are those who choose and prefer food over such other (more socially accepted forms of addictive) substances, and it's just as challenging & difficult to give up the habit of excessive food indulgence as it is that of drugs, alcohol or smoking.
V-
"To draw that link is to take yet another step in the seemingly enless drive towards ending the concept of personal responsability in North America. To assume that lack of willpower is by definition some kind of medical condition makes people's actions meaningless."
I'm not denying personal responsibility when it comes to dealing with the addiction. People can chose to eat healthy foods or not. The point(s) I'm making here/(that you seem to be mission) are:
1) It is, in fact, (scientifically proven to be) addictive
2) As such, it's also valid to include it in the list of addictive substances such as drugs, alcohol, & cigarettes
3) Some people are more inclined to choose food as their "drug of choice" than others
4) It's just as difficult, if not more so, to rid oneself of the addiction because you can't eliminate food from your life completely like you can other substances.
5) Willpower is only a fraction of what it takes to resolve the problem because the issues run deeper (may even go back to childhood - psychological issues of abuse in any given form, parental neglect or death, whatever) than just telling oneself "I'm not going to overeat today, darn it!" The idea of willpower (or the lack thereof) is to take a simplistic view on the problem. It's just much more complex than that.
6) There's a direct correlation between emotional pain/attempting to fill a void in one's life, and reaching out for something to "medicate" it - in this case, food. "
VA-
"If you know fatty foods are enjoyable, but make you fat, then make a sacrifice and stop eating them. If you do not, then be aware that that is your CHOICE, and for the price of short term enjoyment you will suffer long term weight gain, but make no mistake, enjoyable or not eating fatty and unhealthy foods is still a choice." "The majority of overeaters have nothing wrong with them except a lack of willpower."
Let me ask you,..would you say the same thing to one who drinks, smokes or does drugs excessively? Don't assume that people who overeat are stupid. They KNOW about nutritional facts, they KNOW what their choices are, and they KNOW what the consequences are. That's not the point, and it's condescending & immature to imply that it is, and to imply that it's nothing more than a lack of "will power".
Again, the fact is, food addiction is just that - an addiction - to something that eases emotional pain. Underlying issues are the problem, not "lack of willpower". It takes a lot of inner work, time, commitment, & soul-searching to get to the root of the problem, and that can be a very painful process for one who's already in pain. In addition, they may not have the strength or support of others to deal with it, so they reach out to food, and the vicious cycle continues.
It's even more difficult to the overweight person who uses food in such a way because, unfortunately, discrimination is easily directed at them simply FOR being overweight. They're often viewed as being "lazy", "incompetent", "lack will power or discipline", "ignorant of nutritional facts", or told "your addiction isn't real". Their addiction is visible to the public, and because fat is so "unsightly" or "ugly", the prejudiced person feels justified in his discrimination, and in erroneously assuming an overeater's supposed "guilt".
(I know this first hand because I've been on both sides of the fence. I've been under and overweight during various times over the past 20-27 years, and have "successfully" exercised "will power" to lose the weight & eliminate junk foods. But the success to that approach was only temporary and really didn't work in the long term because the underlying issues that cause cravings resurface when triggered by challenging events in life. It's easy to fall back into that groove of (verified) addiction by using that "emotional crutch"/"drug of choice", which, ultimately perpetuates the problem. I've also noticed that people treat you entirely different when you're the "normal size" - they're MUCH more polite to you, helpful, assume you're intelligent, care about your feelings, and think you're hardworking, so one's appearance CAN and DOES affect the views of others on the subject.)
The public in general doesn't cast that cloud on those who drink, smoke or do drugs, however. The image of someone smoking or drinking is considered "glamorous" (even though it may be a sign of the very same pain the overweight person is experiencing.) What gets me is, smoking and drinking are abusive habits that can harm others (second hand smoke, drunk driving), and overeating hurts only the one who does it. Yet overeaters are subject to being ostracized more than the latter group because of their appearance, AND because people don't acknowledge or understand the legitimate deeper causes of excessive eating."
V-
"There are SOME few people who have a nervous disorder that makes them compulsive overeaters. But this obsessive compulsive behavior is a sign of a mental illness or borderline personality, and it is fairly uncommon. These people can be treated with a combination of therapy and drugs to regulate chemical balance in their brains."
I believe the incidents of Bulimia and Anorexia are far more common than you suggest. They are just another facet of the overall eating disorder epidemic going on in this country which is indicative of a larger emotional issue. - (in my opinion - a lack of love, family structure, and emphasis on materialistic & physical perfection on the part of advertisers.)
V-
"The majority of overeaters have nothing wrong with them except a lack of willpower."
Again, another example of ignorance, prejudiced & insensitivity towards those with the problem because of adherence to the "will power" view. Why would "the majority of overeaters" be lacking discipline, if obesity is now at epidemic proportions? To understand WHY someone overeats is to look further than "will power".
V-
"Now the original point of this thread was discussing fast food like McDonalds and its contribution to obesity."
Well, hmmmmm.... could McDonald's actually be one of the outlets overeaters use to obtain the foods that make them feel good? <pause> I think, yes. I think all the points I've outlined in my response relate to McDonald's or ANY OTHER source of fattening foods, so where did I lose ya?
[Is it McDonald's fault for providing the food? I think, not. However, I believe they DO know the food is fattening & tempting and bank on that to keep their business alive, which, ultimately, doesn't help those battling food addiction. Does the overeater have other choices? I think, yes. Does the overeater know this? I think, yes. Does the overeater still have the problem whether or not McDonald's modifies their menu? I think, yes. Despite all of that, does this change the fact that the overeater still has a hard time dealing with the addiction? I think, not, because the issue is not food related, it's emotionally related. Therefore, "will power" is a "Band Aid" view and an unrealistic approach to the problem's solution - just as much as telling the drug/alcohol/smoking addict to "just say no".]
No one is denying any personal responsibility.
But I'll explain what it's like. I have craved carbs/sweets since my earliest days. There was only one time in my life that I wasn't obsessed with food, when I was on Phen-fen. My speculation is that it adjusted my serotonin levels, which are low due to other health issues (ones that aren't within my control, alas.) Until then, I had always considered my out-of-control issue a personal lack of control. To my surprise, it WASN'T "just me." (although that doesn't totally take away my responsibility.)
The problem that I find, is that it is VERY difficult to not have the bad stuff around. I was the binge type person, I would eat and eat until I was almost sick.
If I lived alone, I would have very little food in my house. I wasn't doing too badly (had lost some weight), then my brother moved in. He makes ME look like a junk-food hater. There are at least ten "bad things" in the house at all times.
When he moves out this summer, I will try again. I will only have my husband (who doesn't bring in bad stuff) and my daughter, who has only a little. I stand a chance of succeeding.
But you have no idea how very, very frustrating this is for me. If I could take EVERY scrap of food out of my house and not have to eat, I wouldn't have the problem. But unfortunately, we must eat.
It's not all self-control. It's part self-control, part habits, part genetics, etc.
What really blew my mind was that when on Fen-Phen, for the first time in my life (of which half was spent slim), was that I didn't think about, obsess about, crave food. I ate my three meals like everyone else when hungry and once in a while, a snack.
It was fantastic. 42 pounds dropped off of me and I COULD EAT ANYTHING I WANTED. If I wanted a sweet, I had one (but a very small amount.) I never deprived myself.
Think about it. Most thin people, do they deprive themselves? No. Most just eat, never paying it any mind. Why are the obese different and/or judged differently?
This is such a bad thing for me, I could cry. I do cry. I have never smoked, never even tried drugs (amazing in my generation from the 1960s/1970s) and if someone told me I could never have booze again, I would shrug. But food...food gets me.
But some are right. It's easier to blame the person. Did any of you who do this ever think that it's not easy? That it's not just someone being a pig?
You know, I see people smoke. I could say "why don't you stop, you're weak, it's your responsibility" blah blah de blah. But I don't. Why? Because I understand, that it ISN'T just lack of control, lack of willpower, etc. I understand that it is deeper than that and not something that one can just "turn off."
Telling folks that it's just their self-control and making them feel bad is not only not going to solve the problem, but it's more apt to worsen it. Plus - it's real easy to just blame the person totally, because then, one isn't obligated to look into the very real physical or psychological reasons why certain things happen.
As to the one who pooh-poohs the addictive qualities, I will respectfully say that as one who has not dealt with this problem, you don't really know about what you're talking. Just because something hasn't been "proven" yet, doesn't mean that it's rubbish. I can think of many things that were pooh-poohed or for which folks were blamed, that turned out to have physical causes.
Just for one example. Ulcers. They were blamed on stress (the most typical thing to blame, it's so nice and nebulous!) and bad eating (spicy foods, etc.)
Gee, turns out it was NOTHING TO DO with either (although they exacerbated the ulcers) but it was a simple Helicobacter pylori bacterium.
Who is to say that this compulsion to eat carbs/sweets is not based on a similiar biochemical thing?
Even if it turns out to be 100% the fault of the overeater and nothing is ever found, is that a reason to ridicule/blame someone? Is THAT going to solve the problem?
Of course, it's free and costs nothing to the one doing the blame to do this. Research and support costs money. And we all know too that the diet industry, which counts on failure to profit, would not be happy with any fix.
But I'll explain what it's like. I have craved carbs/sweets since my earliest days. There was only one time in my life that I wasn't obsessed with food, when I was on Phen-fen. My speculation is that it adjusted my serotonin levels, which are low due to other health issues (ones that aren't within my control, alas.) Until then, I had always considered my out-of-control issue a personal lack of control. To my surprise, it WASN'T "just me." (although that doesn't totally take away my responsibility.)
The problem that I find, is that it is VERY difficult to not have the bad stuff around. I was the binge type person, I would eat and eat until I was almost sick.
If I lived alone, I would have very little food in my house. I wasn't doing too badly (had lost some weight), then my brother moved in. He makes ME look like a junk-food hater. There are at least ten "bad things" in the house at all times.
When he moves out this summer, I will try again. I will only have my husband (who doesn't bring in bad stuff) and my daughter, who has only a little. I stand a chance of succeeding.
But you have no idea how very, very frustrating this is for me. If I could take EVERY scrap of food out of my house and not have to eat, I wouldn't have the problem. But unfortunately, we must eat.
It's not all self-control. It's part self-control, part habits, part genetics, etc.
What really blew my mind was that when on Fen-Phen, for the first time in my life (of which half was spent slim), was that I didn't think about, obsess about, crave food. I ate my three meals like everyone else when hungry and once in a while, a snack.
It was fantastic. 42 pounds dropped off of me and I COULD EAT ANYTHING I WANTED. If I wanted a sweet, I had one (but a very small amount.) I never deprived myself.
Think about it. Most thin people, do they deprive themselves? No. Most just eat, never paying it any mind. Why are the obese different and/or judged differently?
This is such a bad thing for me, I could cry. I do cry. I have never smoked, never even tried drugs (amazing in my generation from the 1960s/1970s) and if someone told me I could never have booze again, I would shrug. But food...food gets me.
But some are right. It's easier to blame the person. Did any of you who do this ever think that it's not easy? That it's not just someone being a pig?
You know, I see people smoke. I could say "why don't you stop, you're weak, it's your responsibility" blah blah de blah. But I don't. Why? Because I understand, that it ISN'T just lack of control, lack of willpower, etc. I understand that it is deeper than that and not something that one can just "turn off."
Telling folks that it's just their self-control and making them feel bad is not only not going to solve the problem, but it's more apt to worsen it. Plus - it's real easy to just blame the person totally, because then, one isn't obligated to look into the very real physical or psychological reasons why certain things happen.
As to the one who pooh-poohs the addictive qualities, I will respectfully say that as one who has not dealt with this problem, you don't really know about what you're talking. Just because something hasn't been "proven" yet, doesn't mean that it's rubbish. I can think of many things that were pooh-poohed or for which folks were blamed, that turned out to have physical causes.
Just for one example. Ulcers. They were blamed on stress (the most typical thing to blame, it's so nice and nebulous!) and bad eating (spicy foods, etc.)
Gee, turns out it was NOTHING TO DO with either (although they exacerbated the ulcers) but it was a simple Helicobacter pylori bacterium.
Who is to say that this compulsion to eat carbs/sweets is not based on a similiar biochemical thing?
Even if it turns out to be 100% the fault of the overeater and nothing is ever found, is that a reason to ridicule/blame someone? Is THAT going to solve the problem?
Of course, it's free and costs nothing to the one doing the blame to do this. Research and support costs money. And we all know too that the diet industry, which counts on failure to profit, would not be happy with any fix.
Hi Tbonz. Just wanted to thank you for expressing your views in support of mine. Seems those who don't have the problem could never understand unless they had to experience it themselves.
What's scary about that is, such individuals can and do act collectively - take the airline industry, for example. They can restrict certain passengers from sitting in the "cheaper" seats based on their weight or size, and can either force them to pay for another seat, get a first class seat, or give up their seat altogether.
What's worse, they subject them to public embarrassment & humiliation in the process, and suffer little or no repercussions as a result of it (save the customer refusing to do business with them in the future).
This is clearly discrimination, yet I don't believe it's being recognized, treated or prosecuted as such. Furthermore, if airlines valued their customers, they would take their needs into consideration - i.e., provide wider seats & more leg room (which should be a given anyway since quarters are so cramped to begin with), and treat them with the basic respect any patron in any service-oriented industry deserves. Afterall, customers are the ones who PAY their employment checks, so they should feel an obligation to, at least, treat them politely, if not do what it takes to accommodate them to ensure future business. (Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway?!)
Well, I just hope that my post and yours can help those who believe the "will power" theory, to consider the points we both made and reconsider their view.
Mrs. Pigpen... whoops - i'm sorry about the colors! I totally forgot about that.
What's scary about that is, such individuals can and do act collectively - take the airline industry, for example. They can restrict certain passengers from sitting in the "cheaper" seats based on their weight or size, and can either force them to pay for another seat, get a first class seat, or give up their seat altogether.
What's worse, they subject them to public embarrassment & humiliation in the process, and suffer little or no repercussions as a result of it (save the customer refusing to do business with them in the future).
This is clearly discrimination, yet I don't believe it's being recognized, treated or prosecuted as such. Furthermore, if airlines valued their customers, they would take their needs into consideration - i.e., provide wider seats & more leg room (which should be a given anyway since quarters are so cramped to begin with), and treat them with the basic respect any patron in any service-oriented industry deserves. Afterall, customers are the ones who PAY their employment checks, so they should feel an obligation to, at least, treat them politely, if not do what it takes to accommodate them to ensure future business. (Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway?!)
Well, I just hope that my post and yours can help those who believe the "will power" theory, to consider the points we both made and reconsider their view.
Mrs. Pigpen... whoops - i'm sorry about the colors! I totally forgot about that.
QUOTE(Ardent Muse @ May 22 2004, 09:08 PM)
What's scary about that is, such individuals can and do act collectively - take the airline industry, for example. They can restrict certain passengers from sitting in the "cheaper" seats based on their weight or size, and can either force them to pay for another seat, get a first class seat, or give up their seat altogether.
What's worse, they subject them to public embarrassment & humiliation in the process, and suffer little or no repercussions as a result of it (save the customer refusing to do business with them in the future).
This is clearly discrimination, yet I don't believe it's being recognized, treated or prosecuted as such. Furthermore, if airlines valued their customers, they would take their needs into consideration - i.e., provide wider seats & more leg room (which should be a given anyway since quarters are so cramped to begin with), and treat them with the basic respect any patron in any service-oriented industry deserves. Afterall, customers are the ones who PAY their employment checks, so they should feel an obligation to, at least, treat them politely, if not do what it takes to accommodate them to ensure future business. (Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway?!)
What's worse, they subject them to public embarrassment & humiliation in the process, and suffer little or no repercussions as a result of it (save the customer refusing to do business with them in the future).
This is clearly discrimination, yet I don't believe it's being recognized, treated or prosecuted as such. Furthermore, if airlines valued their customers, they would take their needs into consideration - i.e., provide wider seats & more leg room (which should be a given anyway since quarters are so cramped to begin with), and treat them with the basic respect any patron in any service-oriented industry deserves. Afterall, customers are the ones who PAY their employment checks, so they should feel an obligation to, at least, treat them politely, if not do what it takes to accommodate them to ensure future business. (Whatever happened to "the customer is always right" anyway?!)
You make several points that are indeed interesting but assume that 'all' obese people fall into the hormone / medical category. Do you suggest that the airlines may discriminate against people who are just lazy and like McDonald's, but not against those who have a legitimate medical condition? Should we have a new protected class of 'medically obese' people that get special benefits? What % of obese people are just lazy vs. the % that are just medical. All of my corpulent friends will readily admit that their own actions have caused their body shape - they turned 30 / 40, like eating and drinking, and don't exercise much. Are they wrong?
Airlines will make wider seats when it becomes good business. I question that airlines fail to show 'basic respect' when the deal with a large person that won't fit into one seat. It sounds like you've had a bad experience. We all know that they deal with a lot of challenges and in most cases are extremely polite, while customers tend to be the ones who break bad. Would a person that needs 2 seats but only buys 1 really be discriminating against those seated next to them?
I am NOT minimizing the psychological and medical reasons for obesity in SOME cases. I just think that we all agree that personal actions, coupled with cheap, plentiful food and a culture that encourages sedentary activity has a whole lot more to do with it in most cases.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I think this is a good example of looking at this out of the box to try and address it. Here's some hope for kids at least. Well, suburban kids with a few bucks they can spend:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/05/...t.ap/index.html
And if you don't want the arcade version, you can get it on console for $40 for the game and another $40 for the dance pad.
Pretty amazing. And I'll admit I like the appeal of this a lot more than watching those "Jared" commercials from Subway.
Doc
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/05/...t.ap/index.html
QUOTE
The premise of DDR is simple: Players stand on a 3-foot square platform with an arrow on each side of the square -- pointing up, down, left and right. The player faces a video screen that has arrows scrolling upward to the beat of a song chosen by the player. As an arrow reaches the top of the screen, the player steps on the corresponding arrow on the platform.
Sound easy? Throw in combinations of multiple arrows and speed up the pace, and the game is as challenging and vigorous as a high impact aerobics class.
Sound easy? Throw in combinations of multiple arrows and speed up the pace, and the game is as challenging and vigorous as a high impact aerobics class.
And if you don't want the arcade version, you can get it on console for $40 for the game and another $40 for the dance pad.
QUOTE
"At first I was playing it for fun, but when you see results you're like, 'Yeah!"' said Matt Keene, a 19-year-old from Charleston, South Carolina, who used to weigh more than 350 pounds and wear pants with a 48-inch waist.
Also aided by better eating habits, the 6-foot-5 Keene explained in a phone interview he had dropped to about 200 pounds. Now he works out on a weight bench to bulk up because he thinks he's too skinny.
Also aided by better eating habits, the 6-foot-5 Keene explained in a phone interview he had dropped to about 200 pounds. Now he works out on a weight bench to bulk up because he thinks he's too skinny.
Pretty amazing. And I'll admit I like the appeal of this a lot more than watching those "Jared" commercials from Subway.
Doc
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AM You make several points that are indeed interesting but assume that 'all' obese people fall into the hormone / medical category.
No. I don't assume they all fall into a "medical category" at all. I'm very well aware that the obese population are made up of those who may have an emotional addiction to sugar, those who may have a medical condition, those who may not care, etc.. In fact, I never called it a "medical/hormonal" issue. I called it "an Emotional condition that creates an addiction to a chemical reaction caused by sugar" - the point being, the cause (a psychological/emotional/mental issue or state of mind) that causes one to overeat - just as it might cause someone to do drugs, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or overindulge in sex. I'm trying to outline the existence and conditions of this category (the "emotional eater") to enlighten those who don't think it's a real condition and/or tend to see obese people as simply "fat and lazy".
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AM Do you suggest that the airlines may discriminate against people who are just lazy and like McDonald's, but not against those who have a legitimate medical condition?
I am saying that airlines can and do discriminate against ANYone who's overweight regardless what causative category they fall under, period.
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AM Should we have a new protected class of 'medically obese' people that get special benefits?
As a matter of fact, it exists already. If a person weighs, I believe, 300-320 pounds, they can legally be categorized as "disabled" and therefore qualify for benefits offered under such conditions.
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AMWhat % of obese people are just lazy vs. the % that are just medical. All of my corpulent friends will readily admit that their own actions have caused their body shape - they turned 30 / 40, like eating and drinking, and don't exercise much. Are they wrong?
Well, I think it would be interesting to actually do a survey on that and find out, but I still think the % of emotional eaters might just turn out higher than expected. It's good that your friends recognize and acknowledge their own habits, but they're probably only 10-30 pounds overweight, and don't have terribly serious issues with it - in other words, they're probably not in the category of "obese" or "morbidly obese" which is what's at epidemic proportions right now. Given that, I personally think that the underlying issue causing that is emotional in nature.
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AMAirlines will make wider seats when it becomes good business. I question that airlines fail to show 'basic respect' when the deal with a large person that won't fit into one seat. It sounds like you've had a bad experience. We all know that they deal with a lot of challenges and in most cases are extremely polite, while customers tend to be the ones who break bad.
No, I haven't had any personal experiences, but I have seen airline discrimination stories on The News that really upset me - especially since one airline in particular (Southwest) aggressively carries out the restrictive policy and in front of other customers. If it weren't discriminatory, why aren't ALL airlines doing it? And if they're going to do that, then why do they chose a customer that's purchased a 2-way ticket and then enforce their policy upon one or the other destination (departure/arrival) and not both? Are they trying to ca$h in on hopes of a customer default? Why can't they address the issue before the customer purchases the ticket at all by creating some sort of private "testing" room or something?
QUOTE
=carlitoswhey Posted on May 24 2004, 07:29 AMWould a person that needs 2 seats but only buys 1 really be discriminating against those seated next to them?
Well, for one, airline tickets are expensive and not everyone, skinny or not, can afford to pay for 2 seats or 1st class, so it's a slightly different issue here. You never heard of such restrictions taking place before, so why do they think it's ok to do it now? I think airline quarters are cramped enough as it is (whether or not you're overweight) and should be adjusted, if not for comfort reasons, then for safety reasons: (fire/the ability to access escape doors with ease, for those who are disabled to board/unboard with ease, and to allow for freedom of movement about the cabin during flight in order to prevent blood clots from forming in the legs due to sitting for hours on end, etc. Ever started to walk down the isle to "use the facilities" only to find the flight attendant coming down the isle in the opposite direction with the food & beverage cart? You have to back up like two cars going up/down the same hill in opposite directions and wait til one clears out of the way before the other can continue moving on. It's a pain, let alone a potential safety hazard.)
Well, they have, in fact, made adjustments in the seating on American Airlines by putting the seats further back to create more leg room. These adjustments were made because of consistent customer requests. Obviously they heard a need for it and felt it was worth changing for the sake of their customers, and probably saw it as a good business move as well. So why shouldn't widening the seats be any different? There's clearly a need now, so why not make the changes instead of alienating the customers who have chosen your airline with which to do business? Afterall, people come in different sizes - so do the clothes, shoes, hats & jewelry they wear, so why not create coordinating seats, too? No one should have to be uncomfortable - and that includes the slim as well as the overweight.
Its hard to have a lot of sympathy for the "emotional eater" who eats themselves in obesity (and all of its consequences). Obesity is a serious health concern and just like other health concerns a person has a personal responsiblity to themself to minimize this risk via changing habits. Not to say it isn't an unfortunate situation.
Your argument (Ardent Muse) that obesity is at times caused by emotional issues IS solid. People overeat for many reasons (depression, boredom, habit etc.) However, not dealing with the underlying emotional problem and letting one's weight spiral out of control IS laziness or at the least lack of self regard for one's health. Many times packing on weight via comfort foods only causes greater emotional problems (ie: lower self esteem, depression etc) vicious cycle. This sucks, its unfortunate, and sad. However, though one may not be able to control emotions one does have the power to control actions. I have minimal sympathy for the person who recognizes this behavior pattern and does little to stop it OR makes vain attempts to do so. Sure it may be hard to put back the carton of ben & jerry's cherry garcia or phish food and take a walk instead but its doable especially if your weight is tottering on the brink of a health concern. Its a matter of trading what you want at the moment for what you want longterm. Some people will never be "skinny" its just not genetically in the cards for them but this does not mean they have no control over their weight. There is a difference between overweight and obese. In any case, putting this argument aside...
I DO NOT believe that MOST of the obesity issues in the US today are the result of emotional disorders. I think a lot of it is attributable to lifestyle changes of the recent decades. Many of the lifestyle changes favor laziness with regards to preparing properly balanced meals and the convienience of fast food options. It probably doesn't help that there are so many gimmicks and so much false information out there about eating and exercise. All the same, some things are undeniably bad for you and many people indulge frequently in them anyway (either out of laziness or lack of concern for their own well being). I could list a string of reasons for the obesity epidemic...I think most of them would fall under the catagory of lifestyle.
Your argument (Ardent Muse) that obesity is at times caused by emotional issues IS solid. People overeat for many reasons (depression, boredom, habit etc.) However, not dealing with the underlying emotional problem and letting one's weight spiral out of control IS laziness or at the least lack of self regard for one's health. Many times packing on weight via comfort foods only causes greater emotional problems (ie: lower self esteem, depression etc) vicious cycle. This sucks, its unfortunate, and sad. However, though one may not be able to control emotions one does have the power to control actions. I have minimal sympathy for the person who recognizes this behavior pattern and does little to stop it OR makes vain attempts to do so. Sure it may be hard to put back the carton of ben & jerry's cherry garcia or phish food and take a walk instead but its doable especially if your weight is tottering on the brink of a health concern. Its a matter of trading what you want at the moment for what you want longterm. Some people will never be "skinny" its just not genetically in the cards for them but this does not mean they have no control over their weight. There is a difference between overweight and obese. In any case, putting this argument aside...
I DO NOT believe that MOST of the obesity issues in the US today are the result of emotional disorders. I think a lot of it is attributable to lifestyle changes of the recent decades. Many of the lifestyle changes favor laziness with regards to preparing properly balanced meals and the convienience of fast food options. It probably doesn't help that there are so many gimmicks and so much false information out there about eating and exercise. All the same, some things are undeniably bad for you and many people indulge frequently in them anyway (either out of laziness or lack of concern for their own well being). I could list a string of reasons for the obesity epidemic...I think most of them would fall under the catagory of lifestyle.
QUOTE
=erratic_energy Posted on May 25 2004, 10:02 PM Its hard to have a lot of sympathy for the "emotional eater" who eats themselves in obesity (and all of its consequences). Obesity is a serious health concern and just like other health concerns a person has a personal responsiblity to themself to minimize this risk via changing habits. Not to say it isn't an unfortunate situation.
Your argument (Ardent Muse) that obesity is at times caused by emotional issues IS solid. People overeat for many reasons (depression, boredom, habit etc.) However, not dealing with the underlying emotional problem and letting one's weight spiral out of control IS laziness or at the least lack of self regard for one's health.
Your argument (Ardent Muse) that obesity is at times caused by emotional issues IS solid. People overeat for many reasons (depression, boredom, habit etc.) However, not dealing with the underlying emotional problem and letting one's weight spiral out of control IS laziness or at the least lack of self regard for one's health.
QUOTE
=erratic_energy Posted on May 25 2004, 10:02 PM I have minimal sympathy for the person who recognizes this behavior pattern and does little to stop it OR makes vain attempts to do so.
First you say my argument is solid, then you oppose it by saying obesity is entirely attributed to "laziness". It can't be both. Either you believe that there's an emotional issue causing the addiction, or that those who eat "just don't care about themselves and are just too lazy to do anything about it." I think this viewpoint is erroneous and shows a lack of comprehension behind the impetus that causes addiction (of any kind).
You say you have no sympathy for those who overeat, but tell me, ... do you feel that way towards, and would you go up to and say the same thing ("you're just too lazy to do anything about your addiction") to a drug addict, a smoker, a drinker, or a sex addict? Probably not. ... And to call someone's attempt at trying to fix the problem "VAIN" shows an incredible lack sensitivity and understanding. The common denominator here is the underlying cause, which is emotional and/or psychological in nature, yet I don't believe the latter groups are targeted as being "lazy" in dealing with their problems as much as those who chose overindulgence in food. In my opinion, that amounts to nothing more than prejudice based on appearance.
Again, it's not a simple matter of "just saying no". Overcoming the problem is a difficult, painful & long process, and the withdrawl process is just as legitimate as that of the drug addict, for example. I think overweight/obese emotional eaters are very well aware of the health risks that result from overindulgence, just as much as a smoker knows smoking can cause cancer. Once you understand WHY one indulges in addictive behaviors, then you'll understand WHY the consequences may not necessarily motivate the addict to change his/her ways. (Here's a hint - it's not "laziness".)
QUOTE(Ardent Muse @ May 26 2004, 01:13 AM)
You say you have no sympathy for those who overeat, but tell me, ... do you feel that way towards, and would you go up to and say the same thing ("you're just too lazy to do anything about your addiction") to a drug addict, a smoker, a drinker, or a sex addict?
Yes. If an alleged simpleton like GW Bush can put down the Jim Beam, then Suzy homemaker can skip McDonald's for a few months and walk instead of driving.
All of the overweight people that I know readily admit that they are overweight because they A - like to eat and drink and B - don't exercise. Additionally, especially in mid-lower economic groups, there frankly isn't any stigma about being fat anymore. In the mid-west there are so many fat people that it's perfectly fine for a guy to weigh 250 with a huge gut - wear sweats and no one cares. Look around - something like 1/3 of people are fat, there just aren't that many emotional problems. Your argument is sound for a small fraction of overweight people. For the remainder it's a matter of laziness, genetics, personal choice and personal responsiblity.
Firstly, people throw around the word 'addictive' far too much. Now watching TV is 'addictive', playing football is 'addictive', chewing gum is 'addictive'.
None of those are addiuctive. They are entertaining, habit forming, and once you start doing them regularily it can be difficult to break out of that cycle because it is something you enjoy. But they are NOT addictive.
Lets go medical for a moment: There are two primary kinds of addiction: Physical and mental addiction. Physical addiction is actually very rare, only a few drugs are actually physically addictive: the most well know of these is opiates such a morphine and heroin. Building up a habit of these and then quitting causes actual physical symptoms which can be harmful and in extreme cases even lethal. Extreme alcohol addiction causes physical addiction.
The other kind is mental addiction. This is where withdrawl off a regimen of the substance causes significant mental symptoms and side effects. Cocaine is extremely mentally addictive, as are amphetamines and some hallucenagens. Side effects charictarised by mental addiction can include hallucinations, incoherence, altered perceptions, paranoia, mania and in extreme cases schizophrenia or psychosis. Tobacco is slightly mentally addictive.
Doing something that you enjoy, and like to do because you enjoy it is NOT an addiction.
If the only side effect of ceasing the activity is that you miss the actrivity and the enjoyment you get from it, the the activity is not addictive, it is rather habit forming. There is a significant movement in psychiatry right now to try and change the terminology of 'addiction' because of how everything is starting to be 'addictive'.
If you eat because you have low self esteem, the the problem is low self esteem, not the 'addictive' quality of food. Some people with emotional disorders harm themselves, cutting or burning for example, and cannot stop doing so. That does not mean that cutting yourself is addictive, it is simply a release. The problem is with the personality disorder, cutting yourself is a SYMPTOM' not the problem. The same for overeating.
I am sorry, but it IS a lack of willpower in most cases. In other cases there may be underlying mental problems, and overeating is a convenient (and common) outlet. But the overeating itself is not addictive, it is an entirely learned response to emotional problems.
This has been proven many times, people with these problems can EASILY be taught to substituter another semi-obsessive behaviour for overeating, and transition with no prioblem. Thus the overeating was clearly not addictive, it was simple a compulsive outlet of something that people enjoyed doing.
Yes eating bad foods can feel good. Thats the whole point of junk food, it it tasted bad and made you feel awful it would not sell very well. That does NOT make it addictive.
None of those are addiuctive. They are entertaining, habit forming, and once you start doing them regularily it can be difficult to break out of that cycle because it is something you enjoy. But they are NOT addictive.
Lets go medical for a moment: There are two primary kinds of addiction: Physical and mental addiction. Physical addiction is actually very rare, only a few drugs are actually physically addictive: the most well know of these is opiates such a morphine and heroin. Building up a habit of these and then quitting causes actual physical symptoms which can be harmful and in extreme cases even lethal. Extreme alcohol addiction causes physical addiction.
The other kind is mental addiction. This is where withdrawl off a regimen of the substance causes significant mental symptoms and side effects. Cocaine is extremely mentally addictive, as are amphetamines and some hallucenagens. Side effects charictarised by mental addiction can include hallucinations, incoherence, altered perceptions, paranoia, mania and in extreme cases schizophrenia or psychosis. Tobacco is slightly mentally addictive.
Doing something that you enjoy, and like to do because you enjoy it is NOT an addiction.
If the only side effect of ceasing the activity is that you miss the actrivity and the enjoyment you get from it, the the activity is not addictive, it is rather habit forming. There is a significant movement in psychiatry right now to try and change the terminology of 'addiction' because of how everything is starting to be 'addictive'.
If you eat because you have low self esteem, the the problem is low self esteem, not the 'addictive' quality of food. Some people with emotional disorders harm themselves, cutting or burning for example, and cannot stop doing so. That does not mean that cutting yourself is addictive, it is simply a release. The problem is with the personality disorder, cutting yourself is a SYMPTOM' not the problem. The same for overeating.
I am sorry, but it IS a lack of willpower in most cases. In other cases there may be underlying mental problems, and overeating is a convenient (and common) outlet. But the overeating itself is not addictive, it is an entirely learned response to emotional problems.
This has been proven many times, people with these problems can EASILY be taught to substituter another semi-obsessive behaviour for overeating, and transition with no prioblem. Thus the overeating was clearly not addictive, it was simple a compulsive outlet of something that people enjoyed doing.
Yes eating bad foods can feel good. Thats the whole point of junk food, it it tasted bad and made you feel awful it would not sell very well. That does NOT make it addictive.
I was thinking about this today, with the news that the British parliament's Health Committee has published a report making recommendations into the boestiy "problem". (Here is the committee's report as a PDF document
The report, which I haven't read in full myself, is very wide ranging, covering transport policy (walking and cycling need to be encouraged at the expense of cars, buses, taxis and trains), schools policy (the standard of meals provided, the presence and quality of vending machines in schools, the levels of exercise included in the curriculum), health service provision (projections indicate obestiy will become a bigger public heath problem than smoking within 10 years on current trends - a big issue for everyone in the UK, since our health provision is mostly funded through taxation), food industry practices (advertising of "junk" foods targeted at children, during children's TV programming; formulation of snack foods; food labelling standards; and so on).
Most of this I've gleaned from the news coverage, and the main piece of good news for us on this side of the pond is that our politicians are tkaing the issue seriously, and have produced a thoughtful piece of work that doesn't oversimplify the problem by suggesting that people become obese ONLY because they are lazy and it's all down to personal responsibility, or ONLY because big business exploits consumers, or ONLY because health.
While personal responsibility has to be a central part of any health strategy, the other areas cannoot but play a part - surely we should arrange our society to make it easy to make the right choices?
Indeed, one thing that occurred to me is the very idea that unlimited and ever-widening choice might in itself be part of the problem. Most people do not and will not devote their every waking minute to making conscious and rationally-argued purchase decisions - the very existance of the concept of "impulse purchases" that many food businesses take advantage of (particularly in the snack, fast food, and confectionary sectors) demonstrates this.
Our working patterns also have an impact - Anglo-Saxon business and social practices are exerting upward pressure on working hours, so many of us simply don't have the time any more to prepare food from raw ingredients ourselves. This wouldn't be a problem, necessarily, but advancements in food technology means that rather than doing exactly what we would do in our own kitchens, preservatives and flavour enhancers allow increased shelf life and allow cheap bulk ingredients (often vegetable starches, vegetable oils, or corn syrup) to be used instead of more traditional ingredients with no noticeable difference in taste because of all the process and chemical tricks that can now be done. At one time a milkshake was made from milk, fruit or fruit syrup, and icecream. Nowadays you can still make it that way but it is far cheaper (for the manufacturer, retailer and consumer) to use water, corn syrup, modified vegetable starch, et cetera.
Marketing of products is also far more advanced now than it was even 20 years ago. Talk to a retail marketing or merchandising specialist, and the whole layout of stores these days is designed to make you buy stuff you don't really need without thinking about it.
Human willpower has not grown in the last few decades, but the amount of time, effort and resources devoted to by-passing or suppressing it have got vastly more sophisticated in the same period.
We aren't automata, but we are far more predictable and manipulable than the standard libertarian response of "fat people are fat because they decide to eat too much so society need not change, only the fat individuals need to, and only if they decide they want to" allows. Saying that it's all a matter of individual choice may make us feel empowered, or even superior to those other "weak" fat people, but it just is not that simple.
The report, which I haven't read in full myself, is very wide ranging, covering transport policy (walking and cycling need to be encouraged at the expense of cars, buses, taxis and trains), schools policy (the standard of meals provided, the presence and quality of vending machines in schools, the levels of exercise included in the curriculum), health service provision (projections indicate obestiy will become a bigger public heath problem than smoking within 10 years on current trends - a big issue for everyone in the UK, since our health provision is mostly funded through taxation), food industry practices (advertising of "junk" foods targeted at children, during children's TV programming; formulation of snack foods; food labelling standards; and so on).
Most of this I've gleaned from the news coverage, and the main piece of good news for us on this side of the pond is that our politicians are tkaing the issue seriously, and have produced a thoughtful piece of work that doesn't oversimplify the problem by suggesting that people become obese ONLY because they are lazy and it's all down to personal responsibility, or ONLY because big business exploits consumers, or ONLY because health.
While personal responsibility has to be a central part of any health strategy, the other areas cannoot but play a part - surely we should arrange our society to make it easy to make the right choices?
Indeed, one thing that occurred to me is the very idea that unlimited and ever-widening choice might in itself be part of the problem. Most people do not and will not devote their every waking minute to making conscious and rationally-argued purchase decisions - the very existance of the concept of "impulse purchases" that many food businesses take advantage of (particularly in the snack, fast food, and confectionary sectors) demonstrates this.
Our working patterns also have an impact - Anglo-Saxon business and social practices are exerting upward pressure on working hours, so many of us simply don't have the time any more to prepare food from raw ingredients ourselves. This wouldn't be a problem, necessarily, but advancements in food technology means that rather than doing exactly what we would do in our own kitchens, preservatives and flavour enhancers allow increased shelf life and allow cheap bulk ingredients (often vegetable starches, vegetable oils, or corn syrup) to be used instead of more traditional ingredients with no noticeable difference in taste because of all the process and chemical tricks that can now be done. At one time a milkshake was made from milk, fruit or fruit syrup, and icecream. Nowadays you can still make it that way but it is far cheaper (for the manufacturer, retailer and consumer) to use water, corn syrup, modified vegetable starch, et cetera.
Marketing of products is also far more advanced now than it was even 20 years ago. Talk to a retail marketing or merchandising specialist, and the whole layout of stores these days is designed to make you buy stuff you don't really need without thinking about it.
Human willpower has not grown in the last few decades, but the amount of time, effort and resources devoted to by-passing or suppressing it have got vastly more sophisticated in the same period.
We aren't automata, but we are far more predictable and manipulable than the standard libertarian response of "fat people are fat because they decide to eat too much so society need not change, only the fat individuals need to, and only if they decide they want to" allows. Saying that it's all a matter of individual choice may make us feel empowered, or even superior to those other "weak" fat people, but it just is not that simple.
Well said Julian. You covered exactly what I was trying to get across in my statement that lifestyle and lifestyle changes in recent decades are probably the main cause (enveloping other smaller causes). (Only you said it a bit better 
)
Ardent Muse- I was merely pointing out that the initial cause may indeed be for some people emotional eating (you are right in this sense) but that once one recognizes that they are an emotional eater and it is causing grave health concerns it IS laziness or lack of regard for self to NOT take steps to correct the habit that has been formed of using food as comfort. I did not say I had NO sympathy, I said I have MINIMAL sympathy (big difference in my book). I was not saying laziness is the ONLY cause it is just ONE (happens to be major) cause that is exploited by fast food and snack manufacturers. You are by all means correct that many people are emotional eaters and eat out of depression, sadness, joy, boredom etc) I do not agree with all the finer points of your argument (that's all).
)Ardent Muse- I was merely pointing out that the initial cause may indeed be for some people emotional eating (you are right in this sense) but that once one recognizes that they are an emotional eater and it is causing grave health concerns it IS laziness or lack of regard for self to NOT take steps to correct the habit that has been formed of using food as comfort. I did not say I had NO sympathy, I said I have MINIMAL sympathy (big difference in my book). I was not saying laziness is the ONLY cause it is just ONE (happens to be major) cause that is exploited by fast food and snack manufacturers. You are by all means correct that many people are emotional eaters and eat out of depression, sadness, joy, boredom etc) I do not agree with all the finer points of your argument (that's all).
Exercise can only do so much. A lot of this could be prevented if proper nutrition is held through out life. The BBC reported today of a three year old dying of obesity. If its parents had known proper nutrition, then this could have been prevented. I think eating habits form early in life so it's up to parents to give the child a good start. For example, my mom is a cook and therefore everything was made fresh, I have never eaten a TV dinner my entire life. Now that I live by myself and can only modestly cook, it surprises me that TV dinners have never been an option to me.
QUOTE(Rev_DelFuego @ May 27 2004, 01:35 PM)
Exercise can only do so much. A lot of this could be prevented if proper nutrition is held through out life. The BBC reported today of a three year old dying of obesity. If its parents had known proper nutrition, then this could have been prevented. I think eating habits form early in life so it's up to parents to give the child a good start. For example, my mom is a cook and therefore everything was made fresh, I have never eaten a TV dinner my entire life. Now that I live by myself and can only modestly cook, it surprises me that TV dinners have never been an option to me.
I totally agree (!)
The thing that bugs me, and makes me stress responsibility so much, is that most of us were taught healthy eating in our childhood. All of my age peers (mid-30's) remember the food Pyramid with little fats, 5 fruits and veg, and lots of bread. We had homework in 2nd and 3rd grade, where we had to report what we ate and compare to the pyramid. Also, all of my age peers took gym class, and were taught that you should exercise 2-3 times a week.
You can lead a horse to water...
What to do stop obesity epidimic? Is obesity a fault of corporation like McDonalds, Burrger King, KFC and food manufacturing industriy; or every individual is culpable of his own "sins"?
Corporations, the Government and Individuals share the blame here. Corporations clearly are partly to blame because they are the ones making the products that are unhealthy in the first place, and the portions just keep getting bigger and bigger.
Case in Point: If you go to McDonalds and get the Super Sized Coke, you are drinking 42 Oz of liquid, that is almost 1.5 Liters! If you go to any restaurant in Europe, the largest beverage you can get is smaller than the smallest drink size at McDonalds. I distinctly remember being shocked by the portion differences when I went to France and Italy last year.
Secondly, corporations are doing everything they can to market to our kids. There are vending machines in schools and the vast majority of advertising is targeted at kids. McDonalds has playgrounds in a lot of its restaurants and in a lot of neighborhoods it is the only safe playground.
The government shares responsibility because no one will speak out about the dangers of fast food or pass any kind of legislation to regulate that industry. Fast Food lobbyists are very well paid and they make sure that nothing unfoavroable is said or passed.
Case in Point: In March 2004, The Cheeseburger Bill was passed. This bill prevents you from suing fast food companies for expanding waistlines and health problems.
Secondly, the government should be doing more to regulate and/or fund schools so they can serve healthy food. Many kids have a healthy lunch consisting of french fries, a coke, and a hamburger or pizza every day.
Finally, the individual is responsible as well. The average American walks 400 yards a day (with the notable exceptions of New York and San Francisco). Most people never get anywhere near a gym, and most jobs now result in you sitting in front of a computer 8 hours a day.
People also make really bad food choices for both themselves and their children. I didn't really start thinking about this until recently, but my neice (who is 3 years old) frequently eats ketchup and several bowls of coco puffs for dinner or lunch. Quite a few of my friends are parents and they do the same thing. There is no reason that kids need to be eating that kind of stuff.
What should be done to prevent early overeating habits among kids? IS the major problem in input (healthy nutrition in reasnoable amounts) or uotput (exercise, calorie-burning activities)
Both. Parents need to be much more responsible in their food choices with children. I read a stat somewhere that the average american eats 40% of their meals outside of the home. For parents with children I'm sure that means lots of visits to McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, etc.
Parents need to focus on preparing healthy meals at home (or at the very least eating healthy meals in restaurants) and reducing the portions their children eat.
Secondly, parents need to actively control the kind of recreational activities their kids do. This was beginning when I was growing up and is certainly prevalent now. Many kids don't do anything during their spare time other than watch TV, play video games or mess around on the internet. Parents need to encourage their kids to do more active types of things and restrict the aforementioned sedentary activities to a few hours a week.
Corporations, the Government and Individuals share the blame here. Corporations clearly are partly to blame because they are the ones making the products that are unhealthy in the first place, and the portions just keep getting bigger and bigger.
Case in Point: If you go to McDonalds and get the Super Sized Coke, you are drinking 42 Oz of liquid, that is almost 1.5 Liters! If you go to any restaurant in Europe, the largest beverage you can get is smaller than the smallest drink size at McDonalds. I distinctly remember being shocked by the portion differences when I went to France and Italy last year.
Secondly, corporations are doing everything they can to market to our kids. There are vending machines in schools and the vast majority of advertising is targeted at kids. McDonalds has playgrounds in a lot of its restaurants and in a lot of neighborhoods it is the only safe playground.
The government shares responsibility because no one will speak out about the dangers of fast food or pass any kind of legislation to regulate that industry. Fast Food lobbyists are very well paid and they make sure that nothing unfoavroable is said or passed.
Case in Point: In March 2004, The Cheeseburger Bill was passed. This bill prevents you from suing fast food companies for expanding waistlines and health problems.
Secondly, the government should be doing more to regulate and/or fund schools so they can serve healthy food. Many kids have a healthy lunch consisting of french fries, a coke, and a hamburger or pizza every day.
Finally, the individual is responsible as well. The average American walks 400 yards a day (with the notable exceptions of New York and San Francisco). Most people never get anywhere near a gym, and most jobs now result in you sitting in front of a computer 8 hours a day.
People also make really bad food choices for both themselves and their children. I didn't really start thinking about this until recently, but my neice (who is 3 years old) frequently eats ketchup and several bowls of coco puffs for dinner or lunch. Quite a few of my friends are parents and they do the same thing. There is no reason that kids need to be eating that kind of stuff.
What should be done to prevent early overeating habits among kids? IS the major problem in input (healthy nutrition in reasnoable amounts) or uotput (exercise, calorie-burning activities)
Both. Parents need to be much more responsible in their food choices with children. I read a stat somewhere that the average american eats 40% of their meals outside of the home. For parents with children I'm sure that means lots of visits to McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, etc.
Parents need to focus on preparing healthy meals at home (or at the very least eating healthy meals in restaurants) and reducing the portions their children eat.
Secondly, parents need to actively control the kind of recreational activities their kids do. This was beginning when I was growing up and is certainly prevalent now. Many kids don't do anything during their spare time other than watch TV, play video games or mess around on the internet. Parents need to encourage their kids to do more active types of things and restrict the aforementioned sedentary activities to a few hours a week.
There is a week long report on NBC I believe on Obesity(station may be wrong, I saw it in passing) and I just saw this on CNN.com Study: Junk about One-Third of US Diet
Admittedly, this *is* an area where parenting and personal discipline can make a difference. If 1/3rd of the calories in your diet comes from this stuff, some fairly simple changes can make a world of difference. I've personally cut pastries down to about once a week and have eliminated sugared soft-drinks entirely. Ironically, our company-wide meeting had Krispy Kreme (aka, the devil) en force available for breakfast. Our CEO even joked about serving "Atkins Friendly" donuts for breakfast. Supposedly KK is working on a low carb donut (evidently Atkins is putting the hurt on them) but bottom line is consumption of these delicacies of concentrated evil should be done sparingly, not as a daily party of your diet.
Doc
QUOTE
A study of 4,700 adults showed that, despite the increased popularity of low-carbohydrate diets, soft drinks and pastries pile on more calories in the daily diet than anything else.
"What is really alarming is the major contribution of 'empty calories' in the American diet," said Gladys Block, a professor of epidemiology and public health nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley, who led the study.
Writing in the June issue of the Journal of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Bock and colleagues said that sweets and desserts, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages account for nearly 25 percent of all calories consumed by Americans.
"What is really alarming is the major contribution of 'empty calories' in the American diet," said Gladys Block, a professor of epidemiology and public health nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley, who led the study.
Writing in the June issue of the Journal of Food Chemistry and Analysis, Bock and colleagues said that sweets and desserts, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages account for nearly 25 percent of all calories consumed by Americans.
Admittedly, this *is* an area where parenting and personal discipline can make a difference. If 1/3rd of the calories in your diet comes from this stuff, some fairly simple changes can make a world of difference. I've personally cut pastries down to about once a week and have eliminated sugared soft-drinks entirely. Ironically, our company-wide meeting had Krispy Kreme (aka, the devil) en force available for breakfast. Our CEO even joked about serving "Atkins Friendly" donuts for breakfast. Supposedly KK is working on a low carb donut (evidently Atkins is putting the hurt on them) but bottom line is consumption of these delicacies of concentrated evil should be done sparingly, not as a daily party of your diet.
Doc
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.