• Is Obesity Really the Problem, or is it Lack of Education on the Subject?
    55 replies, posted
Before I go any further, I should mention that, yes, obesity has become almost an epidemic in some countries and in some areas of some countries. For this thread specifically, I am focusing on the fact that the United States has overwhelmingly high obesity rates, although technically this could apply to any country. I intend to make it clear, however, that this is not what I am arguing against; I know that rates of obesity are already high and are increasing. That is not the focus of the argument that I am presenting. The argument that I am presenting is whether or not obesity is truly a problem in the traditional sense of the word. My reasoning is simple: obese people do what they want to do, and that is to eat. Obese people tend to eat a lot, and they tend to eat unhealthily as well. Is this really a problem? Why do people urge the government to go to lengths to insure that children, teens, and adults alike do not eat the food that they want due to the fact that it poses health risks if eaten in excess? Why not simply educate the public and allow them to make their own decision? I personally feel that if people were more educated about short and long term health risks associated with obesity and the difficulties associated with the daily living of an obese person, that rates of obesity would decrease. I think that the methodology behind this should the the same as with cigarettes. If people better knew the risks associated with it, much like with cigarettes (school lectures, ads, commercials), rates of obesity would see a decrease. Even if the rates didn't decrease, where would the problem lie? People do what they want and they pay for it in the end. I don't know why you should force someone to stop doing something that they are free to do simply because it has negative consequences. Let people kill themselves if they want to. My reason behind making this argument is simple as well. Many things, now, seem tailored for overweight and obese people. 100 calorie packs of food, healthier restaurant menus, the list stretches on. In spite of this, many overweight people continue to eat in massive portions and tend to eat very unhealthy foods as well. I feel that if people were more educated about the effects of being obese, other than "it can cause heart problems" and "I walk slower", with actual, REAL effective propaganda against obesity, that obesity rates would become lower. My proposition is not to say fuck all and let people keep their false preconceptions of the consequences of obesity... nor is it to put every effort into [I]forcing[/I] people to eat healthy. [B]TL;DR:[/B] Is obesity itself really the problem? Maybe we should better educate people more on the consequences of obesity and let them make their own decision about whether they want to continue eating unhealthily. Maybe instead of attempting to force healthier foods in schools and shove low calorie menus and low calorie snacks and diet drinks into peoples faces, we should teach them what it means to be obese. A trend I see is that education on obesity is declining whilst products tailored for obese people are increasing in prevalence. I feel that this is backwards. What is your take on this? (for people who are fat and want to lose weight but find themselves unable to, I find this website effective [url]http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/[/url] )
No, and no. Obesity is not the problem itself, it is but a symptom. It does not stem from a lack of education either, it's hardly a new concept that if you eat tons of shitty food and don't move around you get fat and that getting fat causes health issues. I think the problem is a mixture of the economy making people not buy healthy food out of cost issues, people not knowing how to cook healthy food, and people just simply not wanting to eat healthy food for wahtever reason. Our lifestyle also plays in, the west is increasingly sedentary. Desk jobs don't promote much movement and sap so much time and energy that people can't or don't want to move about. People are often having to have two jobs to keep a roof over their head, leaving no time for exercise. The solution isn't mass education on the consequences of being fat or trying to force-feed everyone healthy food, the solution is to make it easier for people to find time to exercise and teach them how to cook healthy food. It also relies heavily on self control, all the "This is how to cook healthy food and here's some hours off work to exercise" in the world is for naught if the person in question lacks sufficient self control to not eat enough for four people with each meal.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37275488]No, and no. Obesity is not the problem itself, it is but a symptom. It does not stem from a lack of education either, it's hardly a new concept that if you eat tons of shitty food and don't move around you get fat and that getting fat causes health issues. I think the problem is a mixture of the economy making people not buy healthy food out of cost issues, people not knowing how to cook healthy food, and people just simply not wanting to eat healthy food for wahtever reason. Our lifestyle also plays in, the west is increasingly sedentary. Desk jobs don't promote much movement and sap so much time and energy that people can't or don't want to move about. People are often having to have two jobs to keep a roof over their head, leaving no time for exercise. The solution isn't mass education on the consequences of being fat or trying to force-feed everyone healthy food, the solution is to make it easier for people to find time to exercise and teach them how to cook healthy food. It also relies heavily on self control, all the "This is how to cook healthy food and here's some hours off work to exercise" in the world is for naught if the person in question lacks sufficient self control to not eat enough for four people with each meal.[/QUOTE] So someone has a desk job and seems to have no time to do anything after work, but somehow they still have time to eat 3000 calories a day? Excess calories in = fat out. Having a sedentary lifestyle does not lead to obesity, eating a lot of food does. A simple way to remedy this is that, since you're not burning any calories sitting at a desk, don't eat so many fucking calories and you won't need to worry about piling on the pounds. In other words, if you burn 1500 calories a day only from sitting down and walking to and from your car, don't eat 3000 calories a day. Because those 1500 calories that you don't need turn into fat. Furthermore, I do think that if there was more education about the fact that obesity can lead to: Coronary heart disease Type 2 diabetes Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon) High Blood Pressure Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides) Stroke Liver and Gallbladder disease Sleep apnea and respiratory problems Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint) Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility) Premature Death (by various means) Very similar to how people show the consequences of smoking by displaying images of blackened lungs, lectures on the increased likelihood of lung cancer, etc., that more people would realize that eating in excess is bad for them and that they should stop if they want to live healthily. If they don't want to live healthily, that's their choice. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Also, cooking healthy food isn't rocket science either. You just need a fucking food pyramid and you're set. [img]http://skincarehub.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/new-food-pyramid.jpg[/img] If you adjust the amounts to your lifestyle but keep the same proportions, you really shouldn't be gaining excessive amounts of weight. That just means don't eat a tray of brownies and a few packs of cookies. Eat some fruit and vegetables instead.
[QUOTE=zzzz;37275586]So someone has a desk job and seems to have no time to do anything after work, but somehow they still have time to eat 3000 calories a day? [/quote] It's not hard to do actually. You're sitting at your desk typing with one hand and munching a big mac with the other. Two of those in the day and you're hovering around 3K. [quote]Excess calories in = fat out.[/quote] No fucking shit! I could have sworn I said that already. [quote] Having a sedentary lifestyle does not lead to obesity[/quote] Yes, yes it does. If you're not moving about you're not using calories, and you're bound to eat more calories than you need getting the rest of the nutrients you need. Moving about is essential. You can't be healthy without it. [quote] Furthermore, I do think that if there was more education about the fact that obesity can lead to: Coronary heart disease Type 2 diabetes Cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon) High Blood Pressure Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides) Stroke Liver and Gallbladder disease Sleep apnea and respiratory problems Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint) Gynecological problems (abnormal menses, infertility) Premature Death (by various means) [/quote] People already know that. [quote]Very similar to how people show the consequences of smoking by displaying images of blackened lungs, lectures on the increased likelihood of lung cancer, etc.,[/quote] Yeah that worked real well to curb smoking. [quote] that more people would realize that eating in excess is bad for them and that they should stop if they want to live healthily.[/quote] People already know that. You don't need to keep hammering on about something they already know. That's a good way to get them to ignore every word that comes out of your mouth.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37275715]It's not hard to do actually. You're sitting at your desk typing with one hand and munching a big mac with the other. Two of those in the day and you're hovering around 3K. No fucking shit! I could have sworn I said that already. Yes, yes it does. If you're not moving about you're not using calories, and you're bound to eat more calories than you need getting the rest of the nutrients you need. Moving about is essential. You can't be healthy without it. People already know that. Yeah that worked real well to curb smoking. People already know that. You don't need to keep hammering on about something they already know. That's a good way to get them to ignore every word that comes out of your mouth.[/QUOTE] You're completely avoiding my main point. You say someone, at their desk job, eats all day and piles on 3000 calories, but my point is, it's not the fact that you're sitting in a desk that is making you fat, it's the fact that you're eating so much damn food. I'm not saying being 100% sedentary is healthy, I'm simply saying it does not lead to obesity in itself. In order to be obese you need food, and if you simply adjust your calorie intake to the fact that you do fucking nothing all day long, then you wouldn't get fat. But people decide regardless to wolf down a bunch of chips or maybe a few cheeseburgers. THAT is what causes obesity. Not being sedentary. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] And no, you're not "bound to eat more calories than you need," that's shit. The people who say that are those who lack self control to not eat as much with regards to the fact that they don't need to since they aren't active very often. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] My point in saying this is that simply telling someone to be active is not a fix-all for obesity. You could burn 5000 calories a day doing triathlons or running marathons, but that doesn't mean you can't eat 7000 calories afterwards. EATING IS THE CAUSE OF OBESITY, not being inactive. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Also, to your smoking comment, [url]http://www.smokeless.org.nz/smostats_files/image006.gif[/url] [url]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439792/Untasdasditled.png[/url] [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Although they are both rather old, it is difficult to find statistics on teen smoking for whatever reason [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Here's a more updated article [url]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/teen-smoking-drinking-historical-lows/story?id=15148934#.UC1ucN1lS00[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-drugs-teens-survey-idUSTRE7BD1Q320111214[/url]
[QUOTE=zzzz;37275774]You're completely avoiding my main point.[/quote] I addressed it directly before you ever made it. [quote] You say someone, at their desk job, eats all day and piles on 3000 calories, but my point is, it's not the fact that you're sitting in a desk that is making you fat, it's the fact that you're eating so much damn food. [/quote] If you're not moving you're not burning off excess calories, and you are bound to take in more calories than you need eating enough healthy food to get the other nutrients you need. You HAVE to move around if you don't want to be fat. There's no two ways around it. [quote]The people who say that are those who lack self control to not eat as much with regards to the fact that they don't need to since they aren't active very often.[/quote] Your body is not a car engine. You cannot just 'throttle it back' and call it a day. You [b]need[/b] given amounts of various nutrients in order to stay alive. To get those nutrients, you've got to eat quite a bit, and for many with a desk job this leads to a surplus in calories. If they don't exercise they get fat. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. [quote]My point in saying this is that simply telling someone to be active is not a fix-all for obesity. [/quote] I never said it was. You need to read the entire post, not just pick one part and spaz out on it. I clearly said it's a mixture of not being able to eat right and not moving, I never said it's [i]just[/i] not moving. [quote]Also, to your smoking comment, [img]http://www.smokeless.org.nz/smostats_files/image006.gif[/img] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1439792/Untasdasditled.png[/img] [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] Although they are both rather old, it is difficult to find statistics on teen smoking for whatever reason[/QUOTE] Nice graphs. While you're at it plot smoking tax increases alongside it. You should notice the two line up nicely. Showing tarred up lungs does not curb smoking in any way. What does seems to be making it incredibly expensive to smoke. Besides that, teenage smoking is just a tiny subset of the problem, and likely won't go anywhere as long as their parents are smoking too. On top of that, ask any random smoker if what they're doing is healthy. I bet you not a single one will say "Yup". They already know it's killing them one puff at a time. [quote] Also, cooking healthy food isn't rocket science either. You just need a fucking food pyramid and you're set. [/QUOTE] The food pyramid does not tell you a goddamn thing regarding how to cook healthy food. All it tells you is how many portions of what you should have. The problem isn't "Oh, I'd love to have some veggies, but I don't know how many I need", it's "How the fuck do I cook this broccoli so it doesn't taste like a worn out truck tire?!" It's not even accurate, they change the damn thing fairly often as new research comes out, and few people require the caloric content it bases itself on. For many, following the food pyramid to the letter without also moving about a lot is going to make them fat anyway, despite eating a proper diet.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37276042]I addressed it directly before you ever made it. If you're not moving you're not burning off excess calories, and you are bound to take in more calories than you need eating enough healthy food to get the other nutrients you need. You HAVE to move around if you don't want to be fat. There's no two ways around it. Your body is not a car engine. You cannot just 'throttle it back' and call it a day. You [b]need[/b] given amounts of various nutrients in order to stay alive. To get those nutrients, you've got to eat quite a bit, and for many with a desk job this leads to a surplus in calories. If they don't exercise they get fat. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I never said it was. You need to read the entire post, not just pick one part and spaz out on it. I clearly said it's a mixture of not being able to eat right and not moving, I never said it's [i]just[/i] not moving. Nice graphs. While you're at it plot smoking tax increases alongside it. You should notice the two line up nicely. Showing tarred up lungs does not curb smoking in any way. What does seems to be making it incredibly expensive to smoke. Besides that, teenage smoking is just a tiny subset of the problem, and likely won't go anywhere as long as their parents are smoking too. On top of that, ask any random smoker if what they're doing is healthy. I bet you not a single one will say "Yup". They already know it's killing them one puff at a time. The food pyramid does not tell you a goddamn thing regarding how to cook healthy food. All it tells you is how many portions of what you should have. The problem isn't "Oh, I'd love to have some veggies, but I don't know how many I need", it's "How the fuck do I cook this broccoli so it doesn't taste like a worn out truck tire?!" It's not even accurate, they change the damn thing fairly often as new research comes out, and few people require the caloric content it bases itself on. For many, following the food pyramid to the letter without also moving about a lot is going to make them fat anyway, despite eating a proper diet.[/QUOTE] The fact that you keep saying that you're bound to eat more calories than you need while sedentary perplexes me because its absolute bullshit. Take a multivitamin if you need nutrients that you're somehow not getting (because if you actually ate some nutritious food, you would be getting them anyway) In spite of what you're saying, it's not only possible, but easily possible to get the nutrition you need by eating small amounts of healthy food, without taking a multivitamin, which is another option. You are ABSOLUTELY NOT [I]bound[/I] to eat more calories than you need just because you're sedentary, there is not a single grain of truth in that statement. You may be more LIKELY, but that's simply because people, again, eat more calories than they burn, which is something else entirely. The follow up statement that "you HAVE to move around if you don't want to be fat. There's no two ways around it" is also not true. [B]You burn 1700-2000 calories a day doing absolutely nothing. Bedridden people still burn 1500 calories a day. It is only a matter of eating less than that number of calories to not be fat.[/B] For the last year and a half I have exercised absolutely nil after quitting the last high school sport team I was on, and I am still of a healthy weight and healthy BMI because I don't fucking shovel food into my mouth 24/7. I don't take a multivitamin, and as per my last blood test have a healthy amount of nutrients in my body and suffer no food related aliments. It's not impossible. In spite of what you say, general knowledge of the unhealthiness of things such as cigarettes has increased rapidly starting in the 1950s, which is also when the percentage of high school teen smoking went drastically downward. But this is offtopic. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;37276042] On top of that, ask any random smoker if what they're doing is healthy. I bet you not a single one will say "Yup". They already know it's killing them one puff at a time. [/QUOTE] And if you read my OP you'd know that this is my point exactly. Don't force smokers to stop. Don't make smoking illegal, don't arbitrarily increase the price of cigarettes; if they want to kill themselves, let them go right ahead so long as they know the dangers of doing so. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] I think you should treat physical activity as a medicine for a sickness. Taking medicine can indeed make it so that you are not sick anymore, but you do [I]not[/I] need to take medicine to not be sick. Similarly, exercise can indeed make it so that you are not fat anymore, but you don't necessarily need to exercise to not be fat.
[QUOTE=zzzz;37276237]The fact that you keep saying that you're bound to eat more calories than you need while sedentary perplexes me because its absolute bullshit.[/quote] Enjoy being malnourished then. [quote] Take a multivitamin if you need nutrients that you're somehow not getting [/quote] Good luck with those. None of them are FDA regulated or checked for efficacy. Most of them do exactly fuck all, and many of them withhold quite a bit of what they contain. You're better off just eating right in the first place, then getting off your fat, lazy ass and moving around to deal with the excess calories. [quote]For the last year and a half I have exercised absolutely nil after quitting the last high school sport team I was on, and I am still of a healthy weight and healthy BMI because I don't fucking shovel food into my mouth 24/7. I don't take a multivitamin, and as per my last blood test have a healthy amount of nutrients in my body and suffer no food related aliments. It's not impossible. [/quote] Good for fucking you. Doesn't mean it's true for everyone. Also, BMI doesn't really mean a goddamn thing. Athletes tend to have really high BMIs, higher even than some fat people, yet they're as healthy as someone could possibly be. If what you say is true then why aren't all the doctors saying it? Why aren't the docs saying "Oh, just eat less and you'll be fine"? They all advocate quite a bit of exercise ON TOP OF eating right. I'd trust what they have to say faaaaaar more than what some random guy on the internet has to say, seeing as they have a six figure student loan and eight or nine years of formal education on how the body works behind their words. You just have anecdotal evidence about what worked for you and only you. You really think I'm going to take your word over the word of actual licensed doctors worldwide?! If you want to keep living in some little bubble wherein you can simply 'throttle back' and be fine, feel free. When you come back to the real world we'll have some exercise equipment set aside for you.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37276390]Enjoy being malnourished then. Good luck with those. None of them are FDA regulated or checked for efficacy. Most of them do exactly fuck all, and many of them withhold quite a bit of what they contain. You're better off just eating right in the first place, then getting off your fat, lazy ass and moving around to deal with the excess calories. Good for fucking you. Doesn't mean it's true for everyone. Also, BMI doesn't really mean a goddamn thing. Athletes tend to have really high BMIs, higher even than some fat people, yet they're as healthy as someone could possibly be. If what you say is true then why aren't all the doctors saying it? Why aren't the docs saying "Oh, just eat less and you'll be fine"? They all advocate quite a bit of exercise ON TOP OF eating right. I'd trust what they have to say faaaaaar more than what some random guy on the internet has to say, seeing as they have a six figure student loan and eight or nine years of formal education on how the body works behind their words. You just have anecdotal evidence about what worked for you and only you. You really think I'm going to take your word over the word of actual licensed doctors worldwide?! If you want to keep living in some little bubble wherein you can simply 'throttle back' and be fine, feel free. When you come back to the real world we'll have some exercise equipment set aside for you.[/QUOTE] My father is a doctor and I plan to become one too. That doesn't necessitate that I have experience, but I do have reliable sources of information. Again, you ignore parts of my post in your quote that contain key evidence in favor of my argument, Again, never did I say you can be perfectly healthy without exercise. There is a difference between being healthy and not being fat. This thread is about not being obese, it's not about being healthy, as those are two separate things entirely. In fact, this whole time you've been treating my argument as though I've been saying you can live a perfectly healthy worry free lifestyle simply by eating less, while that is not what I have been saying. What I am saying is that for the people who were never going to exercise in the first place, if they would simply fucking eat less they wouldn't be so obese. You take that argument and stretch it into me saying "you never need to exercise, you will be healthy if you just eat less" when that is not at all what I'm saying. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [h2]I am not saying that you don't need exercise to be healthy, I am saying you don't need exercise to not be fat[/h2] [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;37276390]Enjoy being malnourished then.[/QUOTE] Except that I'm not malnourished. [editline]16th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;37276390] If what you say is true then why aren't all the doctors saying it? Why aren't the docs saying "Oh, just eat less and you'll be fine"? They all advocate quite a bit of exercise ON TOP OF eating right. I'd trust what they have to say faaaaaar more than what some random guy on the internet has to say, seeing as they have a six figure student loan and eight or nine years of formal education on how the body works behind their words. You just have anecdotal evidence about what worked for you and only you. You really think I'm going to take your word over the word of actual licensed doctors worldwide?! .[/QUOTE] "I don't trust the experts who made the food pyramid but I trust the experts who are in favor of my argument"
[QUOTE=zzzz;37276457] "I don't trust the experts who made the food pyramid but I trust the experts who are in favor of my argument"[/QUOTE] That made my day.
You can eat like a total lardass and still be skinny as long as you work out. I eat massive portions at meals, munch on candy every single day and drink no less than 4 cans of pop daily and yet I only weigh 185 because I do at least 6 hours of strenuous physical activity daily.
It's a culture thing more than anything. We, as people of western nations, have developed a culture of impulsiveness and excess. That applies to eating as well. How many people do you know who only eat when they are hungry or other need nourishment? Very few I will wager. Conversely there are large amounts of people who eat out of boredom, eat out of comfort, etc and gorge themselves until they can't stomach anymore food. People are bombarded with food advertisements presented as "lifestyle objects", i.e they are advertised as something someone living the high life would be using, just like any clothing, ipod, accessories etc would be advertised. Leading to people going out and buying drinks they aren't even acknowledging as something they ate. Energy drinks are one example, most 500ml energy drinks contain somewhere in the realm of 50-95g of sugar. Most people will down one or two of those bastards without even thinking "I just ate the equivalent of two very large meals", even if they are full (which you undoubtedly would be after eating nearly 200g of sugar in a short time period).
It's extremely easy to underestimate the amount of calories in food. For instance, a serving of cereal is about one cup. Let's say said cup is 200 calories. Most people, however, fill a whole bowl with cereal, and additionally use milk that is more fatty than skim, which is the kind that most nutritional facts include on thr box. What most people think is 200 calories is actually well in excess, around 500 - one fourth of the daily expended calories of the average male. Everyone wants to eat healthy - the issue is that most people don't know that they are eating poorly.
If that was their entire breakfast I would figure it would optimally be 33.33% of their daily caloric intake (unless they eat lots of snacks) but I see your point. Speaking of snacks as well, many people have a similar problem where their meals equal out to 2,000 calories but they are still getting fat, which can be confusing until you realize those people are also eating shitloads of garbage snack food like chips and whatnot
[QUOTE=zzzz;37278289]If that was their entire breakfast I would figure it would optimally be 33.33% of their daily caloric intake (unless they eat lots of snacks) but I see your point. Speaking of snacks as well, many people have a similar problem where their meals equal out to 2,000 calories but they are still getting fat, which can be confusing until you realize those people are also eating shitloads of garbage snack food like chips and whatnot[/QUOTE] Or it could be the fact that they're not getting any exercise along with ingesting 2000 calories a day. Just cutting back on your caloric intake doesn't mean you won't get fat.
It does if you cut back enough
A lot of factors in play with this issue. I'll list a few. -Subsides to various industries increase the supply of junk food, thus also reducing the cost. The unseen damage to this is that farmers are more likely to corn due to the profitability given by the subsides, which decreases the supply of more healthy crops, which increases the price, which lowers demand. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/farm-subsidies-junk-food_n_975711.html[/url] [url]http://type1diabetes.about.com/b/2011/09/28/government-subsidized-junk-food-its-everywhere-you-look.htm[/url] -There is a tremendous surplus of food in modern countries. Starvation was a very real threat to all countries around 200 years ago. Most were underweight due to the lack of supply and high price of food. In the pre-industrial era, it was quite common for villages to starve to death. It is quite logical that with a large surplus of food that there would also be a significant increase in weight. -Childhood abuse is correlated with weight gain in adulthood. Verbal, sexual, and physical abuse is disturbingly present in modern society. An objection to this might be that childhood abuse was far more common in previous eras, and because of this, the obesity rate should have been much higher then. A simple response to that is that people can't gain weight when they barely have enough food the make it by. [url]http://www.livescience.com/1257-study-reveals-spanked.html[/url] [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120702134736.htm[/url] [url]http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/child-abuse-and-neglect-statistics.html[/url] [url]http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951240,00.html[/url] -Obesity is correlated with depression. Depression is quite rampant in modern society. Though only around 10% of Americans have been clinically diagnosed, the rate is estimated to be much higher. This is because many people who have depression do not seek treatment or are not aware they are depressed. Personally, I would have never guessed that I had chronic depression. [url]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/166617.php[/url] [url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080602152913.htm[/url] [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200305/the-obesity-depression-link[/url] [url]http://www.upliftprogram.com/depression_stats.html#6[/url] It is of course easy to focus on more concrete ideas, such as someone consistently consuming more calories than they burn. One might be quick to say that the solution is then to inform people who don't want to be obese that they just need to burn more they consume, but the issue is proposing that this is the ultimate cause, as opposed to an approximate cause. A simple and well known example of this is the phenomenon where sexually abused girls tend towards being morbidly obese. The proximate cause for this would have something to do with caloric intake. The ultimate cause would be the psychological issues that sexual abuse inflicts on children. With this issue, focusing on the proximate cause is not particularly valid considering that obesity is often an effect of something else. Of course the ultimate cause with some people will be that they simply consume more calories than the burn, but it isn't very likely that this is the ultimate cause with most people. As a caveat, the other tendency that sexually abused girls have is to dress very attractive and to have a lot of casual sex. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_and_ultimate_causation[/url]
[QUOTE=reedbo;37278380]Or it could be the fact that they're not getting any exercise along with ingesting 2000 calories a day. Just cutting back on your caloric intake doesn't mean you won't get fat.[/QUOTE] It does actually. Fat people are literally the only people on this earth who think they defy the laws of thermodynamics. If you are only roughly eating enough to support your current state, it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to become obese. Ricky Gervais makes the joke "Nobody ate and ate, then suddenly went “what the fuck is that?”. It’s not a surprise, it’s a gradual process… there’s plenty of time to back out from this project." which, while funny, is absolutely right. From a physiological perspective, there is absolutely zero justification for "I got fat by accident." Whether or not other factors make it harder to do this, such as societal pressures, poor habits etc etc while legitimately an issue, is a moot point in this particular case. Physiologically, you cannot argue that you cannot get fat by only eating as much food as you need.
I completely agree. And while people pin it on lack of exercise, that's not the case. Granted, exercise is good and should definitely be practiced by everyone, you cannot say that lack of exercise leads to obesity. That's like saying lack of medicine leads to sickness. People need to realize that, while exercise can promote weight loss, the #1 best way to lose weight is to stop shoveling food into your mouth 24/7 Though it would be doubly effective to both do that AND exercise, but that's not really my point.
Another part of the problem is what I call fat sympathizers or fat acceptance groups Yes, it's very commendable that you are trying to make people feel better about themselves and not be shunned etc, but did you people ever stop to consider that shame or regret is a natural part of the process that makes us change something we don't like, for the better? When you are a kid and you do something stupid in a social situation, you get embarrassed, and the embarrassment is mentally painful to the point where you eliminate that lapse in social behavior and you don't do it again. You change for the better. You can't say it isn't changing someone for the better, it absolutely is. Being obese isn't just sexually unattractive, it's compromising your health. It becomes even worse when these groups try to compare being obese to being gay or being black - that is so fucking wrong it isn't funny. You can't choose your race, you can't choose your sexuality. Being fat on the other hand, is something you can absolutely choose to do something about. These groups are as much as a part of the problem as is excess, bad habits and advertising. You are essentially trying to tell people who are already locked in a pit of bad habits and are looking for any excuse not to have to deal with their problem that it's okay to revel in their bad habits and to keep getting fatter (and dig themselves into a deeper hole) and to keep making their health worse. You may think you're doing the right thing, but you are objectively not. Stop it.
I find it terrible that it happens to the point of people being offended that you describe them as fat. Look in the fucking mirror, you weigh 300 lbs, you have gigantic rolls of the stuff, you can hardly walk and you sweat while just standing around and you are upset when someone calls you fat? It's not like fat is a swear word, look at a goddamn dictionary. [B]YOU ARE FAT[/B] quit being offended and do something about it Furthermore, the people who take the word "fat" as offensive know it is wrong. If being fat were a good thing, then it would never be offensive to call someone that. Being kind is a good thing, and nobody is offended when you call them kind. That raises the question, if they take it as an offense and they know it is bad why don't they [I]fucking do something about it[/I]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37277556]It's a culture thing more than anything. We, as people of western nations, have developed a culture of impulsiveness and excess. That applies to eating as well. How many people do you know who only eat when they are hungry or other need nourishment? Very few I will wager. Conversely there are large amounts of people who eat out of boredom, eat out of comfort, etc and gorge themselves until they can't stomach anymore food. People are bombarded with food advertisements presented as "lifestyle objects", i.e they are advertised as something someone living the high life would be using, just like any clothing, ipod, accessories etc would be advertised. Leading to people going out and buying drinks they aren't even acknowledging as something they ate. Energy drinks are one example, most 500ml energy drinks contain somewhere in the realm of 50-95g of sugar. Most people will down one or two of those bastards without even thinking "I just ate the equivalent of two very large meals", even if they are full (which you undoubtedly would be after eating nearly 200g of sugar in a short time period).[/QUOTE] While this is a factor, it's more to do with the fact that we're biologically programmed to seek as many calories as we can ingest per sitting, because they were hard to come by when our species was in its infancy.
[QUOTE=ice445;37279599]While this is a factor, it's more to do with the fact that we're biologically programmed to seek as many calories as we can ingest per sitting, because they were hard to come by when our species was in its infancy.[/QUOTE] Lmao no. I eat until I feel satiated, not gorging myself until i literally can't stomach anymore food without being sick.
[QUOTE=ice445;37279599]While this is a factor, it's more to do with the fact that we're biologically programmed to seek as many calories as we can ingest per sitting, because they were hard to come by when our species was in its infancy.[/QUOTE] No we're not. It's biologically FUCKED UP how people get used to eating WAY over the limits. They are not biologically programmed to do so, it's just their wealth and position in their place of living that allows them to eat as they please.
No one chooses to be obese. It's an addiction to food. And with the amount of cheap, addictive food available to most first world countries it poses a problem, especially in the US. Everyone needs to eat. With food you're going to get a lot of addictions happening. And it's not like drugs or cigarettes or alcohol where you can pretty much place the blame on the user.
[I]Preventing [/I]obesity is far easier than curing it. Thus I would sway towards the latter, being that education enables a better understanding of the consequences of overeating. The argument for obesity being the result of a food addiction raises a good point: Too much addictive food is available at ease. Furthermore from an evolutionary standpoint obesity shouldn't occur naturally, as hunter gatherers would expend physical exertion to obtain food to survive. The desire to eat is a constant as it is such a basic primal instinct, it was necessary to be constantly motivated to eat/hunt. Thus, just because food can be obtained by doing so little, the instinct to continue eating does not adjust according to how easy it may be to obtain food.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37283901]Lmao no. I eat until I feel satiated, not gorging myself until i literally can't stomach anymore food without being sick.[/QUOTE] You misunderstood. We seek high calorie foods by default. This is why fats and sugars are the best tasting to us. I'm not saying we're all driven to eat until we are physically sick, what I am saying is that the innate desire for these "unhealthy" foods (which are only unhealthy because people don't balance them with proper exercise) is a major factor in leading to obesity. After all, we all know how bad fast food and other delicious things are for us. But most of us don't have the self control and restraint to resist them.
[QUOTE=ice445;37294445]You misunderstood. We seek high calorie foods by default. This is why fats and sugars are the best tasting to us. I'm not saying we're all driven to eat until we are physically sick, what I am saying is that the innate desire for these "unhealthy" foods (which are only unhealthy because people don't balance them with proper exercise) is a major factor in leading to obesity. After all, we all know how bad fast food and other delicious things are for us. But most of us don't have the self control and restraint to resist them.[/QUOTE] You fucking up your assertion =/= me misunderstanding "we're biologically programmed to seek as many calories as possible [B]as we can ingest per sitting[/B]" This is literally what you said, which is not only ridiculous and baseless, but is not even remotely close to: "we seek high calorie foods by default" Fats and sugars don't taste the best to us simply because they are calorically dense. Again this is fundamentally wrong: carbohydrates are just as calorically dense (or lack there of) as proteins. And proteins are an essential macronutrient, sugars are not. Secondly I dare you to eat a bucket of lard by itself and try tell me it's delicious. Calorically dense?? Fuck yes it is. Delicious? Fuck no. If you want to extrapolate survival mumbo jumbo, why isn't anyone having to force themselves to stop eating chicken breasts, protein is essential to your survival (quite literally, you will eventually die without protein or fat in your diet, carbohydrates on the other hand, are not necessary to survival) and it's just as "calorically dense" as carbohydrates are.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37297298]You fucking up your assertion =/= me misunderstanding "we're biologically programmed to seek as many calories as possible [B]as we can ingest per sitting[/B]" This is literally what you said, which is not only ridiculous and baseless, but is not even remotely close to: "we seek high calorie foods by default" Fats and sugars don't taste the best to us simply because they are calorically dense. Again this is fundamentally wrong: carbohydrates are just as calorically dense (or lack there of) as proteins. And proteins are an essential macronutrient, sugars are not. Secondly I dare you to eat a bucket of lard by itself and try tell me it's delicious. Calorically dense?? Fuck yes it is. Delicious? Fuck no. If you want to extrapolate survival mumbo jumbo, why isn't anyone having to force themselves to stop eating chicken breasts, protein is essential to your survival (quite literally, you will eventually die without protein or fat in your diet, carbohydrates on the other hand, are not necessary to survival) and it's just as "calorically dense" as carbohydrates are.[/QUOTE] Maybe I should change "high calorie" to "unhealthy? It's not that hard to see what I'm trying to get at. People like unhealthy food more than healthy. It's simple observation. Why is this? I don't have the answer nor am I trying to provide one. I'm just stating simple cause and effect. You did nothing different earlier when you claimed American culture is the leading factor in obesity. And yes, I used the wrong wording. That's why I explained what I meant in a subsequent post.
Obesity is the fault of the obese.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.