|
The key issue at play here is that if obesity was solely a matter of people overeating or developing bad habits, there would not be an epidemic of it. The epidemic means that there are societal factors that are, in the end, more important than all the diet advice people can toss out when it comes to dealing with this public health issue. The overall approach of telling people "eat healthier, exercise more" on an individual level and on national levels has been going for more than twenty years, and it has failed continually. Part of this, of course, is due to the exploitative diet industry and its promotion of useless and worse-than-useless diets, and another part of it is due to "common sense" bad advice circulating around. But these, too, are societal factors that must be overcome or circumvented.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:05 |
|
OneEightHundred posted:Oh look you fell for their stupid labeling trick. Nice job missing the sarcasm there chief. SlipUp posted:I have heard overweight people who didn't want to weight train because they were concerned that the muscle would be unattractive. Some people just don't have the will to lose weight or the will to admit their own short comings. This is entirely irrelevant to the obesity epidemic, however. The obesity epidemic is a crisis of public health that requires public solutions, and the approach of telling people to exercise or eat less on an individual level is not only a failure, it produces the justifications for treating obesity as an inherent and unescapable condition.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 23:03
|
|
Onion Knight posted:Weight training is way better for losing fat, though, because muscle maintenance will passively burn more calories. A totally idle person with very little muscle will burn far fewer calories than an idle person with lots of muscle. There are a lot of benefits to building some muscle, besides. This is a public health issue, not a religious one. Keep your conversion stories out of this thread, goddammit.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Treating it as an addiction, though inferior for the purposes of dealing with the epidemic, would be superior to the religious narrative people have around obesity, where the people who manage to drop in weight and keep it off commonly hate those who haven't with the fervor of the fresh convert.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 18:38
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I really don't understand why this is the case. If everyone out there were fit then your accomplishment of losing the weight would be basically invalidated. From a purely selfish standpoint I'd think you'd want more fat people around because you look better in comparison. It's because we have a hosed-up relationship with food and our bodies, where we obsess about good and evil and morality as it comes to eating, drinking, and being merry, no matter if we are fat or thin. This is also a fairly recent phenomenon, and probably a large part of why the obesity epidemic is so impervious.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 18:52
|
|
Squalid posted:That's not new at all. Victorians related physical appearance and well-being with the moral state. Many believed physical ailments, pimples, obesity, gout, etc were caused by moral "degeneracy." Literally that ugly people ugly because they were immoral. For a good example of this mindset see the Picture of Dorian Gray I'm talking about our relationship with food and the body. Victorians didn't emphasize food-as-sin, because that was an insanity (and remains so) when starvation is an obvious issue. It's only in our world of glutted food that we can approach it like that.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
"The obesity epidemic" is a bad term, too, because there's also an increasing percentage of overweight people. While there's probably more to the obesity portion than the decline in cooking knowledge, it does seem to explain a lot of the overall increase in weight, as people become dependent on trusting prepared or prepackaged food for portion sizes. Of course, reversing this decline runs into other major problems, which is why one of the few efforts that successfully tackled obesity consisted of a Finnish (IIRC) effort which brought in nutritionists and doctors to work with a couple small towns and completely reorient the way people lived. Not only is this not practical, I believe it would face too much pushback from large companies to even enter public discourse.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:38
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:I forgot the full context and latched onto that phrase, my bad: The main issue is that this is going to get latched onto as "added sugar is bad", just like with carbohydrates, fat, sodium, etc. It also might not decrease sugar intake as people go to fruit juices and so on.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:44
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not even clear that "home cooking" would save the day anyway. In Mexico a lot of their foods are fatty and calorically dense but because they're (at least historically) very active you don't notice that much. Mexico also has an increasing obesity epidemic.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:44
|
|
computer parts posted:Hence historically. In both cases the issue isn't "people forgetting their food culture in favor of capitalism" or whatever, it's them not being as active as they were in the past. The obesity epidemic in the USA trails the shift to a more sedentary society by decades, though. It's a contributing factor for sure, but it's hard to see it as decisive.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 01:47
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Fishmech's primary objections are in part: people don't wanna and they'll riot ohnoes. To which the obvious answer is gently caress them. What are fatties going to do anyway? Whine at you and sit on you? Invest in riot gear futures I guess. Banning transfats alone would save more lives yearly than literally any other law we have. Yeah, dude, only fatsos drink beer.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Every law requires sacrifices on the part of people who were never going to harm society. What's your point? I see you're a prissy, teetotaling-without-being-an-alcoholic sort, so I fear you're too stupid to understand the point, which is that your dismissal "oh we'll just kill them all and Science will sort them out", apart from being monstrous and evil, is also based on ignorance as to the actual scope involved.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 02:17
|
|
Cole posted:How come South Korea, a very Americanized country that has everything we have here (including the same addicting sugar items, fast food, etc), doesn't have a problem like we do with obesity? South Korean obesity and overweight rates are climbing, as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:11
|
|
Cole posted:It may be climbing, but it is a fraction of what it is here. I spent eight months there in 2012 and can't count on one hand the number of Koreans I saw that would be considered fat by American standards. Nope. South Korea has an obesity+overweight rate of 35-40%, the U.S. has one of 60-65%. A noticeable gap, but not a huge one.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:18
|
|
Cole posted:I guess I was seeing things then. Or not seeing things, however you want to frame it. I mean, it's also likely that obesity is concentrated in more rural areas too, like in the U.S..
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 05:20
|
|
khwarezm posted:You know who you're talking to don't you? Reducing the average workday would be a good start, as would distributing sports fields out more equitably and teaching cooking and nutrition in secondary schools. People need to have a more intuitive understanding of how much they need to eat for a given weight, they need enough free time to make exercising something that doesn't eat away at time for things they enjoy more, and they need a way to be able to exercise from a young age that won't trigger as much fear for children. Now, these are on the edge of plausibility, really.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
People seem to be ignoring the central question, which is, "Why do people overeat, and why have more people been doing so?" One aspect that has largely been ignored is that food is a source of pleasure the absolute majority of people are, no matter their working and living conditions, going to have access to. Not just stress eating, but eating as a source of enjoyment for people who have demanding lives and so can't engage in other pleasurable activities they enjoy. Thus, it may be that one of the more important factors is simply dysfunctional work-life balance and economic uncertainty, which in turn demands changes much more radical than any serious proposal.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
I mean, we could focus on developing genuinely nutrition-free fat and sugar replacements that are also not potentially damaging to the body in high doses, and subsidize their production to the extent that they're cheaper than real fat and sugar, and figure out how to also make them roughage as well, such that people can overeat and be less fat. And we could also hope that this doesn't prompt even greater amounts of overeating that erase any gains. Seems ridiculous, though.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 05:40
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Why? Fat categories are subdivided. Vitamins are divided. The majority of labels don't provide %DV for unsaturated fats. Vitamins aren't interchangeable. None of the micronutrients are.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
sitchensis posted:No one walks anywhere anymore. In North America, our built environment is completely devoid of any kind of human scale or walkability. A huge amount of our infrastructure and development is 100% oriented towards automobile access. When you build everything to convenience auto drivers, everyone will become an auto driver. This likely plays into the reason why most urban centres and walkable communities built prior to WWII tend to have lower rates of obesity (however, I am definitely not referring to those urban areas that have very little access to fresh food aka "food deserts"). This happened decades before the obesity epidemic, and walking/biking everywhere will never be practical compared to mass transit or a car except in the event of a total societal collapse.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
The kind of society where everything used in daily life is in walking distance and all transportation is necessary for is traveling between arcologies is one that is extremely implausible to ever emerge. This is another hobbyhorse, even if an arguably beneficial one when we ignore the full inanity, latching onto the obesity epidemic for legitimacy.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
PT6A posted:Say what? That's basically my life, and it has been my life since I left the suburbs when I went to university. I have a car to use for those times I don't want to walk, or it's too far, or I have too much poo poo to carry, but I use it maybe once a week at most. I do 90% of the things I need to do simply by walking. Think about what would be necessary to make everyone's workplace in walking distance, so that we can avoid sedentary notions like light rail or busses or subways. Think about the sort of cultural experiences that would be possible in a society like that which could be built today.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:38
|
|
PT6A posted:What? Of course I was including transit in that. It's not like you just step out your door, hop onto transit, and it shows up exactly where you want to go. There's a lot more walking involved than just hopping in your car and driving wherever you need to go, and you're frequently standing (or at least I am, because I don't like sitting next to strangers that frequently smell bad). Oh, OK, so you actually agree with the broader point, but are convinced walking to and from bus stops is more similar to walking all the way than driving.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:43
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm convinced that some walking is better than no walking, and it's feasible to have a society in which walking forms a significant portion (time-wise if not necessarily distance-wise) of the average person's personal travel. I think if I took transit to work, my average daily walking would be about the same as if I worked within walking distance, too. I think you're being purposefully obtuse. I think you're ignoring the basic problem people are suggesting is the matter- a sedentary society where it is very easy to ignore physical activity. Mass transit doesn't resolve this issue, but thankfully it doesn't seem to be decisive.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
It would be nice if people complaining about simplistic solutions didn't offer simplistic platitudes themselves in response. Jabbering about "a dozen small things" and promoting one of those things alone does not make you look like saints of reason repelling the archdemon fishmech, it makes you look like a monomaniac with an inexpert disguise.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:05
|
|
SlipUp posted:That was the one fishmech wanted to talk about, are you actually interested or are you just here to cheerlead? You're a terrible liar, thinking people can't look back ten, eleven posts and see that this was the only idea your quite limited brain could put forth. Since you're a liar, and so bad at it, discussion doesn't seem fruitful, now does it? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 19:10
|
|
SlipUp posted:Oh hey more research. Success rates of 20% actually suggest this is worse than doing nothing, as obesity+overweight rates aren't yet at 80%. So, um, your data doesn't support your claims.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
SlipUp posted:If you fail to keep the weight off, than it wasn't that easy was it? So why do you assume that it's easier to get people to follow your program, fuckface? The data you've provided shows it to fail 80% of the time.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:24
|
|
SlipUp posted:I'm still waiting for you to respond to my previous post, or do I need to show you how to use the "show posts by user" button again. I'm not going to respond to a stupid lil dickweed's insane misunderstanding except in ways that are illegal to mention on this forum. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:25
|
|
SlipUp posted:Because people fail to keep the weight off they lost at an alarming rate all the drat time, regardless of method. The data I provided showed it was the most successful plan, more successful than just eating less. How about actually reading a thing? It shows greater weight lost in comparison to other methods, and doesn't say anything about relative success rates. In the absence of such data, we can assume that proposals which necessitate smaller modifications of lifestyle will be more successful, because they are, literally, easier to do.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:32
|
|
SlipUp posted:I agree, many smaller changes are much easier to implement than one massive change. Glad to see you agree. This doesn't follow from what I said. Your gotcha fails. Shameful, shameful. I guess you don't have anything else. You're almost totally used up, aren't you?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Exercise has several major problems from a social standpoint. First of all, the kind of exercise necessary to put a significant dent in a 3500-4000 Calorie diet is not practical to expect a lot of people to do, so any program would be dominated by reducing food intake for morbidly obese and obese people. Second of all, obese and overweight people have an appetite adapted to their current diet. Exercising more would make them hungrier, which means that reducing food intake would still be dominant. Third of all, reducing the amount you eat has immediate benefits that exercise doesn't inherently have, and is inherently easier to do for the vast majority of people. Finally, the basic problem here is that despite constant calls for people to exercise, they aren't doing it, or aren't doing it enough.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 20:32
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But with more specific digs at the pedantry and insanity of some of the poo poo being said in the effort to 'win'. Could you stop lying about what people say before you are condemned to Hell for 1.2 trillion years of torment before being reborn as a bacterium? I said that from a social perspective, reducing what people eat is easier. This was put forward as part of a conversation, you sack of poo poo. Instead of offering a response, your decaying brain cogitated mightily and spat out passive-aggression and lies. So, do you have a substantive response, or does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment, illegal under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to demand one of your minuscule intellect?
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 00:01
|
|
Brannock posted:I think you're overestimating how aware people are of this stuff. I think you're insane to look at Cosmo or GQ and conclude they are pushing/normalizing fatness. Or to look at the movies and conclude that they are normalizing fatness.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 21:40
|
|
Brannock posted:No, but I do know that people will gripe and complain that the people depicted in those magazines and movies aren't "real" people, nor representative of them. Those people aren't the media, and I have a hard time viewing them as a huge problem when you look at anorexia and bulimia incidence rates.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 21:49
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You're making a whole lot of assumptions that data doesn't really support. They were once fat, and expiate their self-loathing on fat people.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Psychologically, the vast majority of obese people are more healthy than people who insist they have a need to insult "fatties", because deriving pleasure from food is psychologically normal and deriving it from abstract cruelty is not.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
If we take the position that the only way to eat a satisfactory meal is for it to mostly be indigestible stuff like cellulose, or water, why not put effort into developing ways to simulate foodstuffs with indigestible elements that aren't harmful to the body, and allow people to eat as much "ice cream" as they want?
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Lots of food science is about trying to do that, but anything you eat has to come out somewhere. Things like the sugar alcohols and olestra lower calories at the expense of GI issues. Okay, but I'm talking about dedicated public funding and advocacy, rather than leaving it up to the vagaries of the private sector.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 03:05 |
|
ChairMaster posted:There's no such thing as solving problems on a large scale, individual willpower is the only way to stop being fat. I'm sure I would like to join you in this fantastical world where we can eliminate all poo poo foods and stop people from wasting their money on stupid poo poo and also stop corporations and developing nations from polluting the world to the point of uninhabitaility but here in the real world the only way to stop being fat is individual willpower. There's no such thing as a "poo poo food" beyond actual poo poo, or Soylent.
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 22:02
|
|