Where's the government intervention on obesity?


jimshort19
#31
Zzarchov, "Their is no good moral or economic reason not to help people lose weight and prevent people from being overweight."

You assume a good means of doing so. Are the children not aught how to eat? Education is ultimately the best, is it not? Is it not our system's backbone? If not education, law? If not law, both? If not either, what? Fat farms and therapy? Pills?

Pills will come, and fat farms and doctors and government, to milk the cows because they're gone, but the foremost cure goes to cause.
 
karrie
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

You assume a good means of doing so. Are the children not aught how to eat? Education is ultimately the best, is it not?

Obesity wouldn't be the only issue we educate on, yet need other measure for those who develop a problem anyway. Children are also taught not to drink in excess... yet alcohol rehabs exist. They're taught not to do drugs, yet drug rehab exists. Our health care system recognizes that education falls short of the goal in many cases, and sets up programs for those who slip up.
 
Zzarchov
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

Zzarchov, "Their is no good moral or economic reason not to help people lose weight and prevent people from being overweight."

You assume a good means of doing so. Are the children not aught how to eat? Education is ultimately the best, is it not? Is it not our system's backbone? If not education, law? If not law, both? If not either, what? Fat farms and therapy? Pills?

Pills will come, and fat farms and doctors and government, to milk the cows because they're gone, but the foremost cure goes to cause.

I agree education is key. At least when I went through school, there was no course in anything but the bare bones. Their is no class on how to cook, or eat right beyond the four food groups in the early years (but hey, Pizza has all 4), which isn't that valid or useful.

Most things people my age know are either from schooling or self taught. Its not in school and few people bother teaching themselves things until they need to know.

That being said, education isn't enough. If the fast food companies aren't going to try to sell to kids (even if it makes kids obese) when its perfectly legal to do so, then their CEO's should be brought up on charges as they are not acting in the best interests of the company.

And thats not a swipe at corporations, they were created to generate wealth using the laws of the land. Its not their job to police themselves, thats why we HAVE A legislature.

We legislate lots of things you shouldn't need to, we have to pass laws to tell people not to pee in public places even though you should be able to trust people to just not do those kinds of things (and thats before you add in a financial reward to do something).
 
Lester
#34
Some people have a slow metabolizm - some others may have a genetic reason they are over weight. I have always been overweight ,I was a construction worker for most of my life, worked ten hours a day doing physical labor and still never got to my Ideal weight -
I would go on diets and lose thirty pounds but after I quit the diet my body would go into starvation mode and immediatly store everything as fat and I would gain forty pounds back: I have suffered a series of work related injuries over the years that has reduced my ability to exercise considerably. Although I still try to get exercise by going to West Edmonton Mall once in a while and do a walk about, it's not as much as I would like. I live in the country and popping out to the Gym is'nt really feasible - so now I eat healthy foods- but I don't skimp on the calories I just Maintain the weight at the present level about 260 - I am not going to spend my life on a diet. yoyo dieting will kill you faster than obesity will.
 
Zzarchov
#35
Yes, yo-yo dieting will kill you.

Just being on a diet will not.

3500 calories (about) is a pound of fat. Your body burns a certain amount (based on metabolism) just sitting there.

Some people burn more, some people burn less. That doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You gain weight by eating more calories than you burn, and lose weight when you burn more than you eat.

With a slow metabolism you just can't eat much food without gaining weight. For many that is a blessing, it means you can live on less food.

However, our culture has eating as a fun passtime. Its something you do when your bored, unhappy, have company over or want to meet up with company.

If you eat as a passtime, then yes, having a slow metabolism will suck. But thats just nature and nature is unfair. Hopefully nature balanced it out in some other way (like brains, or looks or long life).
 
gerryh
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Yes, yo-yo dieting will kill you.

Just being on a diet will not.

3500 calories (about) is a pound of fat. Your body burns a certain amount (based on metabolism) just sitting there.

Some people burn more, some people burn less. That doesn't change the fact of the matter.

You gain weight by eating more calories than you burn, and lose weight when you burn more than you eat.

With a slow metabolism you just can't eat much food without gaining weight. For many that is a blessing, it means you can live on less food.

However, our culture has eating as a fun passtime. Its something you do when your bored, unhappy, have company over or want to meet up with company.

If you eat as a passtime, then yes, having a slow metabolism will suck. But thats just nature and nature is unfair. Hopefully nature balanced it out in some other way (like brains, or looks or long life).


You really don't have a clue....do you.
 
Kreskin
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I say we start a campaign. Push for a government 'Prescription Gym Plan'.

They have something similar for kids. It should be age-universal.
 
Zzarchov
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

You really don't have a clue....do you.

Yes, I do. You cannot gain weight without eating more than you need to.

No one will die if they don't eat enough to gain weight. The problem is eating is a social and recreational activity in western culture.

You can gain other health issues from how you eat, but gaining weight is in and of itself caused by eating more than you need to.
 
gerryh
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by ZzarchovView Post

Yes, I do. You cannot gain weight without eating more than you need to.

No one will die if they don't eat enough to gain weight. The problem is eating is a social and recreational activity in western culture.

You can gain other health issues from how you eat, but gaining weight is in and of itself caused by eating more than you need to.


of course, and all obese( fat ) people are like that because they are basically lazy pigs. Sitting around on their fat asses stuffing their faces all day long.
 
jimshort19
#40
Zzarchov, "At least when I went through school, there was no course in anything but the bare bones...That being said, education isn't enough. ...CEO's should be brought up on charges... thats why we HAVE A legislature. We legislate lots of things you shouldn't need to..."

Agreed that this thread has merit. The number of heart disease casualties that we accept as normal is staggering. The first resort to an alcoholism epidemic should not be to build new dry-out centres, or prohibition. Not pills and government treatment programs. The educational system was the same for me as you. It is not being effectively utilized.

The public must be mobilized to co-operate in any voluntary initiative. If and when that initiative should fail to reach objective targets, legislative aid would be in order. Revised food labelling, outlaw trans fats, lower saturated fats (fat trading al carbon credits?), and tighter regulation of restaraunts, that sort of thing may prove neccessary. We need targets and we need to meet them. I suggest that death by obesity simply be taken as the one or two most common causes of death, such as heart disease and whatever comes second - and they should be cut in half over 20 years.

What's for lunch?
 
karrie
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

The first resort to an alcoholism epidemic should not be to build new dry-out centres, or prohibition. Not pills and government treatment programs. The educational system was the same for me as you. It is not being effectively utilized.

Joe's getting sicker and sicker every day, dying of obesity, and you figure the answer is to teach kids more thoroughly about healthy living? What about Joe? We just leave Joe to burden the health care system? More doctor's appointments than other people need because of the various health problems that arise. More trips to emergency rooms because the extra weight makes him more prone to work place injuries. Eventually a hospital stay to have a foot removed because he came down with diabetes. Finally, an expensive lapband procedure to try to save what's left of his life.

But, at least we educated his kids.
 
MikeyDB
#42
Karrie

I hear ya girl ...but you can't legislate common sense.

How long did it take for people to accept a legal system that can lay fines for not wearing a seatbelt that's proven to reduce the likelihood of serious injuries that can be avoided by being strapped-in? People don't care what the speed limits are on our highways and there's plenty of legislation to coerce compliance...but it doesn't.

Do you suppose the numbers (stats) of people killed or seriously injured as the result of not wearing their seatbelts is larger or smaller than the number who are suffering because it's more important for MacDonald's and Burger King and Wendy's and all the drive-thru eateries to intice patrons with multi-million dollar advertising campaigns..?

It's about the money Karie...always has been and always will be.
 
karrie
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

Karrie

I hear ya girl ...but you can't legislate common sense.

It's about the money Karie...always has been and always will be.

I haven't suggested any kind of legislations Mikey.

I'm merely talking about therapeutic interventions. Physiotherapy essentially. Pools, equipment, trainers, or even just government vouchers for these existing infrastructure, so that people who need to be pushed and motivated can get the help they need.

It's all about the money Mikey.... and the money makes the most sense if we spend it to help get people healthy, rather than to try to fix them when it's critical.
 
jimshort19
#44
Poor Joe. Fell through a health care crack and died. Died of eating too much.

There's nothing wrong with that malingerer that man-hauling a 200 pound sledge to the South Pole and back wouldn't cure. No point giving him dogs. He'd eat them.

The problem is huge. There are millions to be saved. You worry first about old Joe. I'll worry first about the children and the millions who die of obesity related illness. You save a few old overfeeders and leave the millions to me. Between the two of us we'd lick the platter clean.

Sometimes it happens that small measures assure the public, distract the public, consume a lot of money, and substitute for things that actually are feasible, sustainable and effective. But the public's attitude to any additional expenditure after wasting so much money is by then ruined. I worry that we'll ruin our chance to save the children by investing in old overeating Joe first.
 
Zzarchov
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

of course, and all obese( fat ) people are like that because they are basically lazy pigs. Sitting around on their fat asses stuffing their faces all day long.

I never said that at all, im saying they eat more than they burn, thats just scientific fact. With modern lifestyles people can subsist on very tiny portions of food.

My wife for example, does not have a desk job, her job involves a fair bit of physical work, constantly on her feet or crawling through ducts fixing things.

She needs under a thousand calories a day, that means if she has a bagel (plain) with a glass of water she has her three meals right there (and is already gaining weight if she adds butter)

Alot of people have desk jobs and need even less food than that. But they are used to eating the meal sizes they did when they were younger or when they had more demanding jobs.

Alot of people figure, I'll eat three light meals a day, but don't realise they don't need three meals a day (at least with the standard portion sizes one finds these days).

Normally I run and work out alot (because I have a desk job) and eat a fair amount, but around this time of year when its busy Im usually at a desk 14-16 hours a day so do very little. For calorie intake I hover around 900 and still put on weight.

Thats coffee for breakfast and lunch and a piece of meat the size of a deck of cards and a light salad for supper.


Alot of people really don't know how little food they need in a modern lifestyle.
 
jimshort19
#46
Zzarchov, "Alot of people really don't know how little food they need in a modern lifestyle."

True. Education is key. Discipline follows. At some point an acknowledgement that they are out of control, that the mouth behaviour does not match the mind, is required if the patient is not to be taken into some sort of custody. Such medical/therapeutic'pharmacological custody is the wish of some, but not most.

I am addicted to cigarettes. I persist, though increasingly socially marginalized. But this doesn't mean that we should let fat people stand within 30 metres of doors or be fat in public.
 
Unforgiven
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

Some people like to eat all day. They eat until they are fat. Then they keep eating. My theory is that it has as much to do with the spoons and forks as the food, the eating is the thing.

Just stop eating (it's cheap). We need the government to make us stop eating too much. It will cost too much to hide the food. Rationing is the only way.

Please Sir, may I be rationed?

Sure but then alcoholism is just drinking. Stop drinking and it's simple right? Wrong. You can't just stop eating. You have to eat or you die. For some it's like telling an alcoholic or a pack and a half a day smoker to just have one or two and that's it. Good luck with that.

I don't think we need to government to do anything. If you ask me, the make a mess more often than anything else so what leave it to those bozos?

We need to change our culture starting with kids to change the way we see food, exercise and lifestyle. In changing the view to nutrition within North American culture, we change what happens in middle age. One of the first things to do is to stop demonizing over weight people and recognize that they need some help. Everyone has hurdles to get over and the more we take the time to help someone over theirs the faster we'll get over our own.
 
Unforgiven
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

Zzarchov, "Alot of people really don't know how little food they need in a modern lifestyle."

True. Education is key. Discipline follows. At some point an acknowledgement that they are out of control, that the mouth behaviour does not match the mind, is required if the patient is not to be taken into some sort of custody. Such medical/therapeutic'pharmacological custody is the wish of some, but not most.

I am addicted to cigarettes. I persist, though increasingly socially marginalized. But this doesn't mean that we should let fat people stand within 30 metres of doors or be fat in public.

Simple, just have one or two smokes a day. That will work right?
 
jimshort19
#49
Unforgiven, well and rightly said. For all it's worth, I agree. How is it that your 'social' concerns do not catch on? Somebody doesn't care.
 
Zan
#50
Targeting one area of the problem isn't going to be enough. You make good points Unf, and I agree with you - starting from the ground up with the kids is a great idea. Problem is, it's not the kids teaching the kids. It's their parents, who learned their eating and cooking habits from their parents...

You can teach a kid to make healthier food choices and exercise regularly, but if the message isn't being reinforced consistently at home, in the marketplace and in all other areas the child is exposed to this particular issue of lifestyle, it'll become a very diluted message.

I think we need an inclusive approach that encompasses all aspects of the problem - from the most severe manifestations of addiction, to education, to more accountability from producers, marketers and last but most definitely not least, personal responsibility from the consumers of food products. As always, the buck stops here, no?
 
karrie
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

I worry that we'll ruin our chance to save the children by investing in old overeating Joe first.

But we're already targeting the children. We're already doing what we can there... and still we shell out for pricey procedures to try to save the obese (JOE being Just Obese Everyone I guess). By the time the children get to the front of the line as the most obese, as all the obese adults before them have dropped off, there will be little money left. And the chance to 'save the children' will have been missed altogether because, rather than going and getting help at a center with that forty extra pounds and a bad diet, the government decided to not create any intervening measures until they were at least 80 lbs overweight and their health was in severe danger.
 
jimshort19
#52
Karrie, "By the time the children get to the front of the line as the most obese, as all the obese adults before them have dropped off, there will be little money left."

Exactly. Children first. Joe, back of the line. Joe may die because the line isn't moving, but the line order remains morally correct.
 
karrie
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

Exactly. Children first. Joe, back of the line. Joe may die because the line isn't moving, but the line order remains morally correct.

Why? Why wouldn't you try to find a less expensive, more successful way of treating Joe? That makes no sense to me. And it certainly doesn't seem overly moral.
 
YoungJoonKim
#54
I blame TV, Video, and Car industry.
Within a decade, our world has become "fat." Meanwhile, TV and video gaming industry boomed.
Strong correlation?
Heck yeah.
Our parks, our playgrounds, etc all abandoned. Local and federal government thinking about reducing natural preservation, etc.
 
jimshort19
#55
Karrie, "Why? Why wouldn't you try to find a less expensive, more successful way of treating Joe? That makes no sense to me. And it certainly doesn't seem overly moral."

A general initiative is warranted. There being no immediate prospect of it, and needing to walk before we can run, you are only unrealistic. Joe is better a victim of economic and moral triage than a priority over the children. Children first, and if the boat is big enough, men still last.
 
Unforgiven
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by jimshort19View Post

Unforgiven, well and rightly said. For all it's worth, I agree. How is it that your 'social' concerns do not catch on? Somebody doesn't care.

Thin is sexy. Marketing works. Pointing the short comings of others is often an exhilarating and uplifting experience.

I can tell you, you can tell someone else, but there are huge corporations with thousands of employees working diligently to tell millions the exact opposite.
 
Unforgiven
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

Targeting one area of the problem isn't going to be enough. You make good points Unf, and I agree with you - starting from the ground up with the kids is a great idea. Problem is, it's not the kids teaching the kids. It's their parents, who learned their eating and cooking habits from their parents...

You can teach a kid to make healthier food choices and exercise regularly, but if the message isn't being reinforced consistently at home, in the marketplace and in all other areas the child is exposed to this particular issue of lifestyle, it'll become a very diluted message.

I think we need an inclusive approach that encompasses all aspects of the problem - from the most severe manifestations of addiction, to education, to more accountability from producers, marketers and last but most definitely not least, personal responsibility from the consumers of food products. As always, the buck stops here, no?

Most responsible parents try to teach their kids a healthy lifestyle. Some do better than others and I would say that it's only a small portion of parents who actually don't care enough to make an effort. So I don't think that the problem is the parents really. Tasty food is addictive and some people, as with other forms of addiction are susceptible to that particular addiction, and so become over eaters. Alcohol and drugs are addictive yet not everyone is addicted to them. Same with smoking. Few people are willing to admit that there are any addictive qualities to food.

You want to make a kid happy take them out for a treat. Instant gratification and a short lived happiness follows. That so much of our food is bad for us in all but the smallest quantities, coupled with the ability to add unhealthy things to good food neutralizing it's benefits.

Parenting as you know, ain't easy. And some have it harder than others. But you can't teach an old dog new tricks. While that isn't very accurate really, it does point to the ability to catch more and educate them when they are young, through age relevant programming, to develop a better skill set when finding their food and intake. This is what they will pass on to their children and so on. I doubt obesity will ever be gone, but we can make some changes for the better and reduce the pandemic to individual cases.

But this is where we fall into the problem with rights.

Is it just to limit the rights of a company in advertising their product if it is beneficial to the consumer to do so?
 

Similar Threads

47
The logic of Humanitarian Intervention
by darkbeaver | May 22nd, 2006
no new posts