Interesting Article on Obesity
- Thread starter Sad Max
- Start date
Gee, it is hard to sell "genetic propensity" for obesity when 2/3 of a nation is overweight. Bad food, lack of physical exercise and most of all, cars -- these are the reasons. Take back cars, let people either walk or ride a bike, or have them tak a bus, then subway, then run 5 blocks to get to their office in time, and you will have slender nation. Just compare people living in large cities, in suburbs and on farms. Farmers work hard day and night and they are slim. City dwellers walk more and they are slim. It is the suburban residents who drive cars to and from work, to a store and to the movies, and these people are obese.
So, the root of the problem is SUBURBAN LIFESTYLE.
Have you watched Wall-E? It is such a great movie on so many levels.
So, the root of the problem is SUBURBAN LIFESTYLE.
Have you watched Wall-E? It is such a great movie on so many levels.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I have to respectfully disagree... I grew up around agriculture (my parents and most of the rest of the family were either dairy or raspberry farmers at one point or another, and I worked in a farm supply store as a kid), and while few were morbidly obese, there were plenty of fairly overweight farmers. I also work in downtown Seattle... and even though it's one of the "fittest" cities, I see plenty of overweight people who live in the city. It's a lot more complicated just cars or lack of them. Actually, most of the fittest people I see live in the 'burbs, at least around here.
But you are right about crap food. Or more specifically, eating too much of it. I've seen people eat crap and be in decent shape, but they also make a point of getting some exercise. I've seen people eat healthy, but eat too much, sit on their butts all day, and end up fat. And then there are the folks that eat crap and eat a lot of it and sit on their butts. :smile:
The laws of physics have not been suspended. They still apply.
Energy Intake* > Energy Output* = Fat
Energy Intake < Energy Output = Weight Loss
Energy Intake = Energy Output = Stable weight
*Energy intake - Accessible Calories in Food & Drink
*Energy output - Through exercise, voluntary movement (everyday activities: walking, blinking, etc.), semi voluntary movement (fidgeting), involuntary movement (breathing, etc.), base metabolic rate (just being alive).
You can control all of Energy Input - that control alone allows you to be any desired weight. But wait, there's more! You also can control a lot of the Energy Output - exercise and voluntary movement, a bit of the involuntary, and even some metabolic processes (keep your room cold, and don't put on a sweater, and you're forcing the body to use energy to heat itself, drink ice cold drinks etc.).
That's all there is to it, folks, genetics has absolutely nothing to do with it. Tons of studies have proven this, including environmental and cross-cultural studies. One example: before the Communists were overthrown in Albania, there were practically no fat people in Albania - there were practically no cars in Albania, almost everyone walked everywhere, there was barely enough food do eat. Within 5 years after Communism was overthrown, there were more cars, people moved less, ate more, and the first fat then obese people appeared and spread... today they almost match the surrounding countries obesity statistics.
And genetics did not change in the US from the 80's when there were 1/3 as many overweight people. What changed was the availability of cheaper (mostly crap) fast food (adjusted for inflation relative to income) and the exploding consumption of high-energy soft drinks.
You have 100% control over your weight, barring: you are force fed, or you have a psychiatric illness that makes it impossible for you to control the intake of food. What you may NOT have, is knowledge - you may not know what to eat to avoid hunger yet not eat too much - learn about nutrition. Lack of knowledge translates into lack of control.
Energy Intake* > Energy Output* = Fat
Energy Intake < Energy Output = Weight Loss
Energy Intake = Energy Output = Stable weight
*Energy intake - Accessible Calories in Food & Drink
*Energy output - Through exercise, voluntary movement (everyday activities: walking, blinking, etc.), semi voluntary movement (fidgeting), involuntary movement (breathing, etc.), base metabolic rate (just being alive).
You can control all of Energy Input - that control alone allows you to be any desired weight. But wait, there's more! You also can control a lot of the Energy Output - exercise and voluntary movement, a bit of the involuntary, and even some metabolic processes (keep your room cold, and don't put on a sweater, and you're forcing the body to use energy to heat itself, drink ice cold drinks etc.).
That's all there is to it, folks, genetics has absolutely nothing to do with it. Tons of studies have proven this, including environmental and cross-cultural studies. One example: before the Communists were overthrown in Albania, there were practically no fat people in Albania - there were practically no cars in Albania, almost everyone walked everywhere, there was barely enough food do eat. Within 5 years after Communism was overthrown, there were more cars, people moved less, ate more, and the first fat then obese people appeared and spread... today they almost match the surrounding countries obesity statistics.
And genetics did not change in the US from the 80's when there were 1/3 as many overweight people. What changed was the availability of cheaper (mostly crap) fast food (adjusted for inflation relative to income) and the exploding consumption of high-energy soft drinks.
You have 100% control over your weight, barring: you are force fed, or you have a psychiatric illness that makes it impossible for you to control the intake of food. What you may NOT have, is knowledge - you may not know what to eat to avoid hunger yet not eat too much - learn about nutrition. Lack of knowledge translates into lack of control.
Well, some people can eat a lot and crap it out right away, barely processed. Other people digest and store everything they eat. Your energy theory applies to the latter category, but not to the former. So it is not that simple, and it is much easier for people from the first category to stay fit than for people from the second category. But yes, there were no obese people in German concentration camps.
People who 'store everything they eat' only do so until their metabolic rate forces their body to start burning the stored fat, for lack of sufficient caloric intake. There's no escape from physics and chemistry.
With the advent of air-conditioned cab tractors with satellite navigation, internet, radio and tv feeds, I don't think that farming is quite as much of a labor-intensive proposition as it used to be...
With the advent of air-conditioned cab tractors with satellite navigation, internet, radio and tv feeds, I don't think that farming is quite as much of a labor-intensive proposition as it used to be...
Mike Harvey
Veteran
Most of the raspberry farms had harvesters that steered themselves going down the rows. My brother (a large man himself) routinely fell asleep behind the wheel due to boredom.
Farming is hard work, don't get me wrong (I learned enough about farming to know that television/video production was an excellent vocational choice for me)... but no matter how hard you work, if you're taking in more calories than you burn, you'll gain weight.
When it starts to overburden the health-care system, and people who maintain a healthier physical condition begin disproportionately paying for care for those who don't.
And when people begin dying younger from complications of obesity. Although that's admittedly mostly their own business, it's the kind of thing to which societies often pay attention.
And when people begin dying younger from complications of obesity. Although that's admittedly mostly their own business, it's the kind of thing to which societies often pay attention.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Around here we call those people editors.
Zing! Sad but true...Although I take issue with the standard measurement of obesity...BMI. It doesn't take into account muscle mass. According to BMI I am obese because I weigh 245 lbs. But I'm 6'5", work out three times a week and have a 36 inch waist. So when I hear 2/3" of Americans are overwieght I do question their measuring stick.
Weeding population?
Pointing out that obesity is bad for you will make people less likely to breed...?
The whole point is that in the main obesity is not a consequence of disease; it's a cause.
Maybe you don't consider vast pointless medical expenditures news-worthy, at a time when access to affordable medical care in the US is increasingly problematic. A lot of other people do.
Pointing out that obesity is bad for you will make people less likely to breed...?
The whole point is that in the main obesity is not a consequence of disease; it's a cause.
Maybe you don't consider vast pointless medical expenditures news-worthy, at a time when access to affordable medical care in the US is increasingly problematic. A lot of other people do.
Mike Harvey
Veteran
I remember reading a op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a while ago from the head of Safeway about their company owned insurance for the non-union employees that they're also trying to get the union ones on as well. Basically, his point was that the four leading causes of health expenditures by a long shot were obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease... all of which were preventable to one degree or another.
They basically took a carrot and stick approach. If you worked out and were in good shape and ate well you paid less for insurance than if you were obese and out of shape and ate crap and smoked. The company mandated periodic health check ups that the insurance covered to get all your vitals and determine your insurance rates and such. Even if you were in bad shape but showing improvement, your premiums went down. The result was apparently a decrease in the amount the company had to fork out for health coverage because their employees were suddenly all getting healthy. Many employees found out for the first time they had heart disease or high blood pressure or something. There was also the added benefit of now that the employees were getting healthier, they tended to not call in sick as much.
That all sounds wonderful.
But can you imagine the howling, if someone were to mandate actually taking responsibility for maintaining your own health, and facing consequences for not doing so?
Socialism! Communism! Sharks walking on dry land and eating up little baby children, all because them durned pinkos expect us to manage our health!
But can you imagine the howling, if someone were to mandate actually taking responsibility for maintaining your own health, and facing consequences for not doing so?
Socialism! Communism! Sharks walking on dry land and eating up little baby children, all because them durned pinkos expect us to manage our health!
This article has a pretty major flaw, or at least something it doesn't go into: there is a big difference between morbidly obese and overweight. Overweight is taken too far. A lot of people are built big, and being skinny shouldn't be necessary. Certainly not the anorexic extent that popular media proposes, which is just as unhealthy.
Responding angrily at fat people isn't productive, either. At the same time, I strongly believe that people should be taught and encouraged to practice healthier behavior, including walking instead of driving and eating well. In addition to reducing health care costs in can increase those people's quality of life to a level I don't think most understand. For the not driving thing, I see more than health issues in that one. People and economies suffer from being too insular. Getting in a car, sealed off from the world, for every trip helps people not be stimulated by the environment, not have any connection with the people they pass and contribute to all sorts of social and environmental issues. I think about how much the situation sucks everytime I drive somewhere, which I have to do to get pretty much anywhere. This place is not even close to bike friendly, and everything is ridiculously spread out due to being built just for cars, as well as being a rural area. And for some reason the city council thinks bike paths are ridiculous. Not like the heavy traffic reduces business visits and tourism or anything reasonable like that. But that's a different topic.
Extra note: it's not all suburbs or cities, some of us live in neither.
Responding angrily at fat people isn't productive, either. At the same time, I strongly believe that people should be taught and encouraged to practice healthier behavior, including walking instead of driving and eating well. In addition to reducing health care costs in can increase those people's quality of life to a level I don't think most understand. For the not driving thing, I see more than health issues in that one. People and economies suffer from being too insular. Getting in a car, sealed off from the world, for every trip helps people not be stimulated by the environment, not have any connection with the people they pass and contribute to all sorts of social and environmental issues. I think about how much the situation sucks everytime I drive somewhere, which I have to do to get pretty much anywhere. This place is not even close to bike friendly, and everything is ridiculously spread out due to being built just for cars, as well as being a rural area. And for some reason the city council thinks bike paths are ridiculous. Not like the heavy traffic reduces business visits and tourism or anything reasonable like that. But that's a different topic.
Extra note: it's not all suburbs or cities, some of us live in neither.
craigbowman
Veteran
I cut out eating anything with refined sugar in it and have lost 66 lbs. so far this year. That was it. Nothing else special. I was at 250 and am now at 184. Oh and I'm exactly 6 ft. tall.
I'm as active as I've always been, drink as much beer as the next guy and made no other changes to my lifestyle. I made the decision after learning that refined sugar is converted directly to fat and that fat is maintained by the constant consumption of items with refined sugar which also creates the urge to consume more. The logic was, if I stopped my intake of items which contained refined sugar the excess weight should dissappear and it did.
So much for the multi-billion dollar weight loss industry! Yawn, too easy! The couch potato's guide to zero effort weight loss.
I'm as active as I've always been, drink as much beer as the next guy and made no other changes to my lifestyle. I made the decision after learning that refined sugar is converted directly to fat and that fat is maintained by the constant consumption of items with refined sugar which also creates the urge to consume more. The logic was, if I stopped my intake of items which contained refined sugar the excess weight should dissappear and it did.
So much for the multi-billion dollar weight loss industry! Yawn, too easy! The couch potato's guide to zero effort weight loss.
Chris Light
Veteran
i respectfully agree. i've been 6'2" / 155 lbs since graduating high school 15 years ago, only i've added thousands and thousands of beers, burgers, and all the crap that lazy people eat, and i just weighed myself before fininishing this sentence. I am 154.6 lbs. and i drive for a living, the only exersise i get is at work (never intentional), and when i'm home, i watch movies, or do this. i should throw in that i played drums actively in bands from 1987-2006...that qualifies as exercise i guess, but that's my point.
i smoke a lot, drink a lot, i eat a lot, and nothing i put into my body is good for me. i am alive, well, and my doctor picked up a textbook for the first time since med school to determine why i don't have health problems. i'll probably die before he finds out, but i've lost .4 lbs in the last 15 years, and i'll die happy. because i live in the suburbs.