|
Series DD Funding posted:What would have caused willpower to change then? Culture has changed through various methods and has created a nation of emotional children with little maturity.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Counting calories = "drastic changes to lifestyle".
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Obese adults I should say. Obese kids tend to grow up to be obese adults. For some, there may be a magical point in their lives where they forget all the preferences, tastes and experiences imparted on them their entire life but for the most part they don't. At which point does the responsibility shift from that of the obese kid's parents to the obese adult's self? I don't think you've thought about this at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Healthy eating is a lot more than just the number of calories you take in. It is hard to get the right combinations of what you need unless most of your diet revolves around good eating. Most people miss the mark big time in several areas even if they are counting calories and only calories. If you are eating horribly all the time, it definitely is a lifestyle change to begin eating completely healthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Obese kids tend to grow up to be obese adults. For some, there may be a magical point in their lives where they forget all the preferences, tastes and experiences imparted on them their entire life but for the most part they don't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Neato, how do you plan on doing that? I don't, honestly I expect the obesity epidemic to remain a major issue up until someone invents a pill to better suppress appetite or otherwise prevent it from happening. There are no simple policy solutions to obesity, the only suggestions I have seen that I think would be helpful are development practices that encourage people to walk around and be active. Suburbia often makes it really difficult to walk around to get places. I hate driving in crowded areas and enjoy walking everywhere so if I want to visit a few stores close together I want to park one place and walk around, lovely development often makes this very difficult to do rather than encouraging it like it should.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Ok yes I guess I did not state the assumption that you should eat a balanced diet when you count calories. Man this is getting more and more like building a house!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Ok yes I guess I did not state the assumption that you should eat a balanced diet when you count calories. Okay, your point was mocking that healthy eating is lifestyle change, and it definitely is, and I took it an extra step to explain to you why. That's how good debating happens. Master debating, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
I agree that starker labeling is probably the best we can do, because that way even when someone goes to a restaurant that's not covered by the PPACA's requirement to put calorie info on menus (which is a great first step), they'll be able to extrapolate from what they've seen. Frankly I think the key nutrition info (calories, sugar, protein) should be more prominent than the logo. I've noticed some labels have some on the front now, which is a step up, but still too easy to ignore. It needs to be impossible for your attention system to leave it out. Maybe even have a color-coded bar showing what proportion of calories will absorb at different stages after ingestion. Perhaps it's time to say we're tired of food manufacturers churning out hyperstimulation in order to get more resources devoted to their foods. loving excise tax poo poo that uses X or more salt per ounce, Y or more sugar per ounce, etc. We'll get people switching to cooking unhealthy poo poo at home just because they love it, maybe, and we'll always have entertaining loons on tumblr, but at least we can shift behaviors on a macroscopic level, and that's what public health policy is all about. Of course there are loads of barriers at the margins, but even working two jobs and only getting 4 hours of sleep is not a one-to-one determinant of obesity. Ultimately, most fat people simply don't pay enough attention to what they eat because they don't have to. Even people who are trying to lose fat, tend not to have that goal on their minds at every waking hour, and so a lapse when donuts are around can be common. Finally, to bring it back to the OP, while I recognize that negative reinforcement is no way to encourage a healthy body composition (or any goal that takes weeks or months to see results), I think that pressure from standards of beauty and concepts such as a "beach body," though seasonal, have anecdotally spurred my way to a healthier lifestyle, and those that do not believe fat people are sufficiently accepted by society, must acknowledge the trade-off between eating indiscriminately and being/looking healthy. Also raise the minimum wage, have skill training-based safety nets to provide escape routes from 2 jobs. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Hmmm when is a kid no longer considered a kid? Okay, cool. There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that maybe the mother's diet, even before she is pregnant, may have effects on the birth weight of the child and the subsequent health of the child. Who bears the responsibility there? The mother? The mother of the mother who may have ate poorly? How far does the cycle go? Do you play by catholic rules that responsibility is imparted on conception? Or does it go much farther back? Does it start at birth? What about legal rules? In some cultures and legal systems the child is not a child at a much earlier date than most would consider. If a woman is expecting to have a child at some point in her life should she be required, via the mantra of personal responsibility, to think of the health of her unborn child even before she's aware of that possibility? Should she be told this when she's a child? Should that responsibility be delegated to the parents? After all, the child has no responsibility, it's the parents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well for instance salad is pretty non-filling too. And a ton of people think it's ok to dump dressing all over it anyway because salad is healthy, right? And the dressing doesn't make it much more filling at all, but oh boy them calories. Yeah. Limiting caloric intake is the key. Series DD Funding posted:Oh there are ways: MaxxBot posted:The problem is that you can't collectively increase the willpower of an entire population of people. People on average put the same amount of effort into diet and exercise as they always have, basically gently caress all, but the environment around them now happens to be very conducive to obesity. You can't expect them to collectively work harder to counteract that environment, the only solution is to change the environment. YES YES YES to all of this. Pressure one way has greatly increased, so you ratchet up the pressure the other way to compensate. People clearly aren't doing it themselves either because they care more about short-term eating pleasure or they don't care or we wouldn't be this pickle. So you make them do it. euphronius posted:Culture has changed through various methods and has created a nation of emotional children with little maturity. Saying it's impossible to lose weight or that you're a 400lb. beautiful butterfly who is just as healthy as anyone else (I guess you can run marathons like anyone else as a corollary?) is like the health version of Mizzou protestors' idea of a safe space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:05
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Ddraig posted:Okay, cool. There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that maybe the mother's diet, even before she is pregnant, may have effects on the birth weight of the child and the subsequent health of the child. Who bears the responsibility there? The mother? The mother of the mother who may have ate poorly? How far does the cycle go? So I guess some kids are just destined to be obese huh
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Okay, cool. There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that maybe the mother's diet, even before she is pregnant, may have effects on the birth weight of the child and the subsequent health of the child. Who bears the responsibility there? The mother? The mother of the mother who may have ate poorly? How far does the cycle go? If you have to eat less because of genetics to achieve the same amount of health, that's the way it is. The responsibility should be delegated to whoever's in the hot seat to make the difference. We have Surgeon-General warnings against women drinking while pregnant. Responsibility also lies with the parents until the kid is an adult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah lmk when the child buys its own food
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Honestly even just listing amounts of calories and and all that such doesn't help much. After all, that's been radically improved by making that stuff on all the food at the stores since the 90s mandated nutrition facts labels, but it only tells you for a "2000 calorie diet" based on a certain model person and yadda yadda. Maybe we could do with an effort to get everyone worked up by doctors on a regular basis to determine what balances of stuff each given person needs, so they know that this burger is about 12% of Carl's daily needs but 40% of Sally's, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Counting calories = "drastic changes to lifestyle". It almost seems like a better question is with how much cheap easy and high calorie food there is out there, why do some people stay lean even if they don't track their food very well, or at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because in most other situations "personal responsibility" will brand you as a Libertarian. It's kind of hard to see why it wouldn't here, especially since this is an issue that's highly correlated with poverty. Haven't you been following this thread? Nothing is wrong with the current system, positive options are available, people are just failing themselves, end of story. There's no reason to consider any larger social changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I don't, honestly I expect the obesity epidemic to remain a major issue up until someone invents a pill to better suppress appetite or otherwise prevent it from happening. There are no simple policy solutions to obesity, the only suggestions I have seen that I think would be helpful are development practices that encourage people to walk around and be active. Suburbia often makes it really difficult to walk around to get places. I hate driving in crowded areas and enjoy walking everywhere so if I want to visit a few stores close together I want to park one place and walk around, lovely development often makes this very difficult to do rather than encouraging it like it should. I live in a dense urban city and I honestly think it sucks in general, plus all the smog cant be good either. It's probably easier to change people's attitudes toward food than heavily urbanize them. I'm personally much more hopeful since the obesity trend seems to be improving among young children, and ultimately that's where the key to change is at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Solenna posted:
That's simple, being cheap, easy, and calorie dense doesn't inherently mean you're going to gorge yourself on it - and aside from all that it's necessary to have that around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:I live in a dense urban city and I honestly think it sucks in general, plus all the smog cant be good either. It's probably easier to change people's attitudes toward food than heavily urbanize them. I'm personally much more hopeful since the obesity trend seems to be improving among young children, and ultimately that's where the key to change is at. Not necessarily urbanizing, just adding sidewalks and logical places for people to get from point A to point B without a car. Things are so bad around my workplace that when I briefly was without a car I had to walk on the loving street with cars to get around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Why are obesity and overweight rates significantly higher across the board for women compared to men?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Culture has changed through various methods and has created a nation of emotional children with little maturity. A nation of emotional children who work more hours more productively than almost anywhere else in the world. That makes no sense. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Okay, cool. There's increasing amounts of evidence to suggest that maybe the mother's diet, even before she is pregnant, may have effects on the birth weight of the child and the subsequent health of the child. Who bears the responsibility there? The mother? The mother of the mother who may have ate poorly? How far does the cycle go?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Not necessarily urbanizing, just adding sidewalks and logical places for people to get from point A to point B without a car. Things are so bad around my workplace that when I briefly was without a car I had to walk on the loving street with cars to get around. It doesn't matter how many sidewalks and bike lanes you lay if you still need to go a long ways. Hell there's a lot of places where the suburbs are full of sidewalks and with hard road shoulders wide enough to be considered bike infrastructure under some standards: people still drive a ton in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Honestly even just listing amounts of calories and and all that such doesn't help much. After all, that's been radically improved by making that stuff on all the food at the stores since the 90s mandated nutrition facts labels, but it only tells you for a "2000 calorie diet" based on a certain model person and yadda yadda. Also a 2000 calorie diet is actually far below what most people need, especially if they're actually active.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also a 2000 calorie diet is actually far below what most people need, especially if they're actually active. Yeah but on the flip side, a lot of people, if they stick to the 2000 calorie diet, they're going to balloon up over time until they reach the point that 2000 calories is now a stable weight diet (due to extra metabolism of the fat cells and associated things)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah but on the flip side, a lot of people, if they stick to the 2000 calorie diet, they're going to balloon up over time until they reach the point that 2000 calories is now a stable weight diet (due to extra metabolism of the fat cells and associated things) By "a lot of people", you must mean females that are under 130 lbs, because that is who that number is targeting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:By "a lot of people", you must mean females that are under 130 lbs, because that is who that number is targeting. That's a pretty large segment of the population. Also it targets that with moderate exercise, not sedentary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Cooking nutritious meals doesn't take enormous amounts of time or effort unless you want it to Though in my case I didn't end up gaining weight because that barrier meant that I sometimes just didn't eat. So instead of eating more crap, I ate less food that was made up of more crap. I might not have gained weight, but it was sure as gently caress unhealthy, and I felt the effects when I forced myself back into exercising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:By "a lot of people", you must mean females that are under 130 lbs, because that is who that number is targeting. It's probably too much for a majority of females and too little for the majority of men, as with most things using one single number is was too simplistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It's probably too much for a majority of females and too little for the majority of men, as with most things using one single number is was too simplistic. 130lbs is about the 25th percentile of weight for women, but yes, a single number is never going to be accurate for everyone, which is why I still believe education is the key here. Everyone takes a health class. Everyone should leave 5th grade knowing what a calorie is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:130lbs is about the 25th percentile of weight for women, but yes, a single number is never going to be accurate for everyone, which is why I still believe education is the key here. Everyone takes a health class. Everyone should leave 5th grade knowing what a calorie is. Knowing what a calorie is doesn't stop people from eating too much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Knowing what a calorie is doesn't stop people from eating too much. Yeah, good point. gently caress education. Lets just hope people figure out that the 12 billion dollar diet pill industry is full of poo poo by themselves while they continue to dump money and resources into programs and drugs that don't work. That's a better alternative than teaching basic nutrition including, but not limited to, what a calorie is and what a carbohydrate is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Yeah, good point. gently caress education. Lets just hope people figure out that the 12 billion dollar diet pill industry is full of poo poo by themselves while they continue to dump money and resources into programs and drugs that don't work. Teaching nutrition isn't going to make people not overeat. We had that mandatory in my high school. There didn't seem to be any difference in proportion of fat people in classes and then years on at the reunion compared to the general public. Most people already get the basics of what calories are, and what the different macronutrients are, this has little effect on getting them to stick to a permanent diet plan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Ervin K posted:Where does this myth keep coming from? Because it makes absolutely no sense from an economics perspective. Why would paying someone to prepare your food be any cheaper than preparing it yourself? What myth? Isn't that obvious that if you have someone else professionally cook your food you also have to pay for the service of it? I don't see what point you are making. quote:Maybe you should stop forming your opinions on other countries base on the sayings of some idiot professor Who said I simply formed my opinion based on what he said? If I was, why would I ask others here to confirm it? quote:sheer butthurt. Also here is a list of annual hours worked per hour published by the OECD: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS Looking at the year 2014 the USA are in the upper middle bracket, Mexico having the highest working hours according to the statistic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:For most of recorded history food has been at such scarcity that to commit the sin of gluttony was not just taking more than your fair share, it was literally taking food out of the mouth of someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Knowing what a calorie is doesn't stop people from eating too much. The personal responsibility canard is bullshit I agree as a public health solution. So you make them stop same way we sin tax cigarettes or regulate portions like other aspects of food service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The personal responsibility canard is bullshit I agree as a public health solution. So you make them stop same way we sin tax cigarettes or regulate portions like other aspects of food service. Again you're going to unfairly punish fit people as a solution for obesity, it's entirely unworkable and impractical. Smoking a pack of cigarettes is pretty much objectively bad, eating a large portioned meal is in no way objectively bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Again you're going to unfairly punish fit people as a solution for obesity, it's entirely unworkable and impractical. Smoking a pack of cigarettes is pretty much objectively bad, eating a large portioned meal is in no way objectively bad. Also, leaving aside for the time being that sin taxes are stupid and regressive, there's no way to categorize what sort of things would be taxed (except perhaps all caloric beverages except milk). A stick of butter is unhealthy if you eat it all at once, but if you use a stick of butter over the course of two weeks or something it's fine. Mayonnaise is high in calories too, but a tiny bit on a sandwich is no problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
You pay an extra percentage of income tax equal to the amount over your ideal bmi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:47
|
|