An unhealthy culture: What do we do?

whygohome

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47211549/ns ... 57YuuxJhnM

A good read. This figure stuck out.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

gimmesometruth27

whygohome wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47211549/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.T57YuuxJhnM

A good read. This figure stuck out.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

another thing i read this past weekend showed that in a new study teenage diabetes is much more difficult to control these days and that some kids in the study did not respond to any of the measures we use today to contol diabetes. it is pretty scary actually.

josevolution

Only here in USA , When i was in Italy a few YRs back i did not see any obese folks at all and the one that was the heaviest was from Wisconsin ....

Jason P

Damn you, Mr. Frito Lay!!!

It's stupid amazing on how many calories you can purchase for $1.00.

We need to start making fun of overweight people again, perhaps??? :geek:

RW81233

I hate articles like these...they perpetuate a false science driven by the corporate takeover of the university, and FDA by food and pharma companies. Put differently the BMI is a bullshit way to make causal conclusions about an individual's health - insurance companies since the 1980s have been giving up on it (see: Campos, 2003). Secondly, by making obesity a problem of the individual person to overcome it makes it all too easy to shield us from the real issues driving the obesity marketplace. More specifically, fatness or thinness is not a reliable marker for us to use when it comes to health outcomes, but the very things that do make us less healthy (namely the shitty nutrition in our overprocessed, steroid injected, pink-sludge, food) is much more closely linked to poor health (see: Gard, 2011; Gard & Wright, 2005). That shit makes us less healthy if we are fat or thin. However, with a marketing plan and billions of dollars to donate to the University where academics are supposed to become entrepreneurs by taking on corporate grant funding to make up for the fact that tax dollars aren't paying them anymore it's much easier to make false claims about obesity or overstate how bad it is (cf. Campos, 2003; Oliver, 2004).

What we should be doing instead of worrying about how fat or thin everyone is and sending them on some sort of workout regime is to look closely at the food and drinks that we are consuming. Often these companies like Pepsi, Coke, Pfizer, and others are grant sources for academics. Is it any wonder then that researchers say that pepsi and coke can be consumed in moderation with no ill-effect despite the fact that soda is strongly linked to cancer? Is it any wonder that the best way to combat "obesity" is by consuming some miracle pill that will lose you weight produced by Pfizer? Obesity is a fucking hoax, and it's sad that the President's wife fell for it - along with many others. Importantly, and following Gard (2008) whose anti-obesity research has been taken up by corporations and libertarian organizations who say "if obesity isn't bad then we can sell and eat whatever on the free market" that's not the case either. We should be concerned with the nutrition or lack thereof in the food system, but we shouldn't necessarily be concerned with how fat people are other than it is an indication of how capitalism has ruined nutrition.

gimmesometruth27

another trend that i read about last month is that surgeons are refusing to operate on morbidly obese patients. too many co-morbidities associated with obesity. i can't remember if it was a news article or a medical journal. if it was a journal i have it here in the office. if it was a news article i would have to try to find out.

know1

We rely on people to stop letting themselves get so fat.

RW81233

but in a capitalist system whereby profit is the chief concern isn't that untenable with a public consuming less? unless they are consuming overprocessed "diet" foods? put differently if profit is the only way to gauge success in the food industry how is producing nutritious food developed slowly but less cost-effectively, and selling it to a public that needs to "eat less" ever going to work?

chadwick

RW81233 wrote:

but in a capitalist system whereby profit is the chief concern isn't that untenable with a public consuming less? unless they are consuming overprocessed "diet" foods? put differently if profit is the only way to gauge success in the food industry how is producing nutritious food developed slowly but less cost-effectively, and selling it to a public that needs to "eat less" ever going to work?

larger folks will eat smaller folks

RW81233

chadwick wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

but in a capitalist system whereby profit is the chief concern isn't that untenable with a public consuming less? unless they are consuming overprocessed "diet" foods? put differently if profit is the only way to gauge success in the food industry how is producing nutritious food developed slowly but less cost-effectively, and selling it to a public that needs to "eat less" ever going to work?

larger folks will eat smaller folks

but their productivity apparently falters so companies will probably keep small folk hidden in some clandestine work camp while bigger people are contained on eating farms...

_

RW81233 wrote:

I hate articles like these...they perpetuate a false science driven by the corporate takeover of the university, and FDA by food and pharma companies. Put differently the BMI is a bullshit way to make causal conclusions about an individual's health - insurance companies since the 1980s have been giving up on it (see: Campos, 2003). Secondly, by making obesity a problem of the individual person to overcome it makes it all too easy to shield us from the real issues driving the obesity marketplace. More specifically, fatness or thinness is not a reliable marker for us to use when it comes to health outcomes, but the very things that do make us less healthy (namely the shitty nutrition in our overprocessed, steroid injected, pink-sludge, food) is much more closely linked to poor health (see: Gard, 2011; Gard & Wright, 2005). That shit makes us less healthy if we are fat or thin. However, with a marketing plan and billions of dollars to donate to the University where academics are supposed to become entrepreneurs by taking on corporate grant funding to make up for the fact that tax dollars aren't paying them anymore it's much easier to make false claims about obesity or overstate how bad it is (cf. Campos, 2003; Oliver, 2004).

What we should be doing instead of worrying about how fat or thin everyone is and sending them on some sort of workout regime is to look closely at the food and drinks that we are consuming. Often these companies like Pepsi, Coke, Pfizer, and others are grant sources for academics. Is it any wonder then that researchers say that pepsi and coke can be consumed in moderation with no ill-effect despite the fact that soda is strongly linked to cancer? Is it any wonder that the best way to combat "obesity" is by consuming some miracle pill that will lose you weight produced by Pfizer? Obesity is a fucking hoax, and it's sad that the President's wife fell for it - along with many others. Importantly, and following Gard (2008) whose anti-obesity research has been taken up by corporations and libertarian organizations who say "if obesity isn't bad then we can sell and eat whatever on the free market" that's not the case either. We should be concerned with the nutrition or lack thereof in the food system, but we shouldn't necessarily be concerned with how fat people are other than it is an indication of how capitalism has ruined nutrition.

I'm a little confused here. I agree that poor nutrition is a systemic issue. But you seem to also be saying obesity is not a problem. (And, further, insulting the people who say it is.) Is that what you're saying?

RW81233

i'm not insulting those that believe in it, i am insulting those that perpetuate it. i definitely said obesity is a hoax and there is a growing set of research out there that suggests the very same thing. To my way of thinking the best writer on the topic is Michael Gard:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Obesity-Epide ... 105&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/The-Obesity-Epide ... gy_b_img_b

Monaghan et al. (2010) speak to the ways that capitalism engenders a stunted science on obesity in lieu of entrepreneurial ends
http://bod.sagepub.com/content/16/2/37.abstract

there's research in the sociology of sports journal on the social construction of fat
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/a ... rnal-25-01

If that doesn't get you started I have more that shows what a joke obesity as a health concern is - it's a social stigmatism.

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

but in a capitalist system whereby profit is the chief concern isn't that untenable with a public consuming less? unless they are consuming overprocessed "diet" foods? put differently if profit is the only way to gauge success in the food industry how is producing nutritious food developed slowly but less cost-effectively, and selling it to a public that needs to "eat less" ever going to work?

I don't think food was any more healthy in the 70's and 80's. I was able to eat a Tombstone pizza in one setting and follow up with a whole sleeve of saltines and not gain a pound all the way though high school. I noticed my first weight gain w/ the freshman 15, which was directly associated with a severe drop in physical activity. There are several issues that I see.

* Major food companies will use cheaper ingredients over the more expensive / healthy options. That's business 101. Or you can make it more expensive / healthy and steer the product towards a niche "whole foods" market. Either way, your trying to turn a profit.

* Serving sizes are outrageous

* It is easier to spend $5 on a frozen, preservative laden, calorie busting meal that can be nuked in 4 minutes versus buying vegetable that require prep time and will spoil with ten days

* Entertainment choices are so absurd today, I don't blame kids for not running around and climbing trees anymore.

* Unhealthy food has major advantages over healthy food: It's cheaper; lasts longer; easier to prep; widely available, tastes good.

If there is an uber-conspiracy taking place between big pharma and big food, then it will be up to the individual to fight back.

(and aren't we all supposed to be standing in bread lines due to the 1% right now anyway? isn't close to 20% of the population claiming they don't have enough money for groceries? how did we get so fat?)

RW81233

is neoliberal capitalism the one link between all of the things you just pointed out?

Jason P

RW81233 wrote:

is neoliberal capitalism the one link between all of the things you just pointed out?

I don't know what that means.

It is an interesting problem to have. Your society is set up where people have to get on exercise equipment because there are too many calories available in a given day. That must be a hard concept for someone in a non-capitalist country like Somalia to fathom.

catefrances

Jason P wrote:

...We need to start making fun of overweight people again, perhaps??? :geek:

lets all stand in a circle and point and yell fat fat fatty boom bah why are you so fat. and then slap whatever food theyre eating out of their hands. or maybe we can put signs on their backs that say, kick me im fat. :roll:

Jason P

catefrances wrote:

Jason P wrote:

...We need to start making fun of overweight people again, perhaps??? :geek:

lets all stand in a circle and point and yell fat fat fatty boom bah why are you so fat. and then slap whatever food theyre eating out of their hands. or maybe we can put signs on their backs that say, kick me im fat. :roll:

I was thinking more along the lines of Yo Mama's so fat ....

anywho, i jest, i jest ....

gimmesometruth27

"do i look fat in this dress, or is it because of this glazed donut???"

it is a vicious cycle. to keep weight off you need to restrict calories and exercise. but when you are heavy it hurts to be active. that leads to depression, and then people eat more carbs and comfort food, thus making them heavier.

it is really sad.

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

"do i look fat in this dress, or is it because of this glazed donut???"

it is a vicious cycle. to keep weight off you need to restrict calories and exercise. but when you are heavy it hurts to be active. that leads to depression, and then people eat more carbs and comfort food, thus making them heavier.

it is really sad.

I can't stop eating. I eat because I'm unhappy, and I'm unhappy because I eat. It's a vicious cycle. Now, if you'll excuse me, there's someone I'd like to get in touch with and forgive... myself.

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

"do i look fat in this dress, or is it because of this glazed donut???"

it is a vicious cycle. to keep weight off you need to restrict calories and exercise. but when you are heavy it hurts to be active. that leads to depression, and then people eat more carbs and comfort food, thus making them heavier.

it is really sad.

i say ban donuts!!!

oh and heres an observation ive made when ive been in the US(and not just this time)... your portions are rather big. i had this bowl of salad last night that was big enough to wear as a hat. yeah yeah i know its salad but....

RW81233

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

is neoliberal capitalism the one link between all of the things you just pointed out?

I don't know what that means.

It is an interesting problem to have. Your society is set up where people have to get on exercise equipment because there are too many calories available in a given day. That must be a hard concept for someone in a non-capitalist country like Somalia to fathom.

or like scandanavia...or some crazy capitalist country that supposedly has an obesity crisis but has enough of a food disparity that many are going hungry like, like oh shit America. Which brings us to the real indicator of health in the U.S. wealth. If you are rich it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin you live longer, and if you are poor it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin you die faster.

catefrances

RW81233 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

RW81233 wrote:

is neoliberal capitalism the one link between all of the things you just pointed out?

I don't know what that means.

It is an interesting problem to have. Your society is set up where people have to get on exercise equipment because there are too many calories available in a given day. That must be a hard concept for someone in a non-capitalist country like Somalia to fathom.

or like scandanavia...or some crazy capitalist country that supposedly has an obesity crisis but has enough of a food disparity that many are going hungry like, like oh shit America. Which brings us to the real indicator of health in the U.S. wealth. If you are rich it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin you live longer, and if you are poor it doesn't matter if you are fat or thin you die faster.

now that is food for thought.

riotgrl

What do we do? We stop listening to conventional "diet" wisdom. CV says to eat low fat everything but all this is still processed, artificial food. We don't feel full or satisfied and in fact are addicted to our industrial food supply. Certainly, we have to take responsibility for our actions but unless we are eating nutrient dense WHOLE foods we will never lose weight, become healthier, and increase our physical activity. Is there a conspiracy between industrial food and big pharma? Not sure, but I do question why our doctors throw pills at us for every ill we have and it STILL doesn't fix the underlying problem. Food can heal our chronic illnesses, like heart disease and cancer, if we eat the right foods. Check out the Weston A. Price Foundation for his research on the health of nonindustrial peoples and their typical diet and related health. It is quite eye opening. http://www.westonaprice.org/

USARAY

I know a lot of happy fat people the thin freaks assume they are unhappy
I call them freaks cause they act like freaks check out the definition
just like the last thread how about not telling other people how to live their lives
heres something for everyone

cause plus or skinny or just right you are

MotoDC

catefrances wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

"do i look fat in this dress, or is it because of this glazed donut???"

it is a vicious cycle. to keep weight off you need to restrict calories and exercise. but when you are heavy it hurts to be active. that leads to depression, and then people eat more carbs and comfort food, thus making them heavier.

it is really sad.

i say ban donuts!!!

oh and heres an observation ive made when ive been in the US(and not just this time)... your portions are rather big. i had this bowl of salad last night that was big enough to wear as a hat. yeah yeah i know its salad but....

Yes, in the US we have salads that are as unhealthy as anything else. It's insane, really.

"Here's to you, Mr Giant Taco Salad Inventor Guy..."

MotoDC

RW81233 wrote:

but in a capitalist system whereby profit is the chief concern isn't that untenable with a public consuming less? unless they are consuming overprocessed "diet" foods? put differently if profit is the only way to gauge success in the food industry how is producing nutritious food developed slowly but less cost-effectively, and selling it to a public that needs to "eat less" ever going to work?

I get what you're saying, but cooking good food healthfully is really, really expensive. Partly because non-processed foods and healthfully-sourced fish are pretty expensive, but also because of the waste (the amount of produce my wife and I throw out because we can't finish it before it goes bad is embarrassing).

In other words, companies can and are making a profit by selling nutritious food in lower volumes. It's definitely "niche" compared to the amount of processed foods that Americans eat, but it's there.

I think you make a lot of good points, but it's hard to take a big yummy bite out of your point of view when you seem to be selling the idea that obesity isn't a problem. It's not the ONLY health problem in the US, but it's a major one. One that is partially solved by getting people active again, even if again, it's not the ONLY piece of that puzzle.

Jason P wrote:

* Unhealthy food has major advantages over healthy food: It's cheaper; lasts longer; easier to prep; widely available, tastes good.

It only tastes good until you start cooking your own stuff with proper ingredients. Then you wonder how you ever ate it. Kentucky Fried Taco Hut, I'm looking at you.

catefrances

MotoDC wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i say ban donuts!!!

oh and heres an observation ive made when ive been in the US(and not just this time)... your portions are rather big. i had this bowl of salad last night that was big enough to wear as a hat. yeah yeah i know its salad but....

Yes, in the US we have salads that are as unhealthy as anything else. It's insane, really.

"Here's to you, Mr Giant Taco Salad Inventor Guy..."

they become unhealthy when you start adding shit to them. when i order salad i dont have dressing on it. or cheese. tho having said that, the salad i ordered last night had chicken in it that was already 'dressed' with some yummy hot spicy stuff so why would i add any more dressing, even if it was 'for the salad'? it was yummy tho.

gimmesometruth27

this is the result of teenage obesity...

Heavy teens with diabetes have trouble managing it, study finds

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/h ... z1tZFl0Xfv

LOS ANGELES • New research sends a stark warning to overweight teens: If you develop diabetes, you'll have a very tough time keeping it under control.

A major study, released Sunday, tested several ways to manage blood sugar in teens newly diagnosed with diabetes and found that nearly half of the teens failed within a few years and 1 in 5 suffered serious complications. The results spell trouble for a nation facing rising rates of "diabesity" — Type 2 diabetes brought on by obesity.

The federally funded study is the largest look yet at how to treat diabetes in teens. Earlier studies have mostly been in adults, and most diabetes drugs aren't even approved for youths. The message is clear: Prevention is everything.

"Don't get diabetes in the first place," said Dr. Phil Zeitler of the University of Colorado Denver, one of the study leaders.

A third of American children and teens are overweight or obese. They are at higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, in which the body can't make enough insulin or use what it does make to process sugar from food. Until the obesity epidemic, doctors rarely saw children with Type 2 diabetes. The more common kind of diabetes in children is Type 1, which used to be called juvenile diabetes.

Doctors usually start Type 2 treatment with metformin, a pill to lower blood sugar. If it still can't be controlled, other drugs and daily insulin shots may be needed. The longer blood sugar runs rampant, the greater the risk of suffering vision loss, nerve damage, kidney failure, limb amputation — even heart attacks and strokes.

The goal of the study was simple: What's the best way for teens to keep diabetes in check?

The study involved 699 overweight and obese teens recently diagnosed with diabetes. All had their blood sugar normalized with metformin then were given one of three treatments to try to maintain that control: metformin alone, metformin plus diet and exercise counseling, or metformin plus a second drug, Avandia.

After nearly four years, half in the metformin group failed to maintain blood sugar control. The odds were a little better for the group that took two drugs but not much different for those in the lifestyle group.

Even so, Zeitler said doctors would not recommend this combination drug therapy because Avandia has been linked to higher risk of heart attacks in adults. Those risks became known after this study had started.

Another study leader from Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Dr. Mitchell Geffner, agreed that Avandia can't be recommended for teens, but said the study makes clear they will need more than metformin to control their disease.

"A single pill or single approach is not going to get the job done," he said.

Among all the teens in the study, 1 in 5 had a serious complication such as very high blood sugar, usually landing them in the hospital.

The results were published online Sunday by the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at a pediatric meeting in Boston. The National Institutes of Health funded the study and drug companies donated the medications.

The "discouraging" results point to the need to create "a healthier 'eat less, move more'" culture to help avoid obesity that contributes to diabetes, Dr. David Allen of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Judith Garcia, 19, still struggles to manage her diabetes with metformin and insulin years after taking part in the study at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. She has to remember to watch her diet and set aside time to exercise.

"Trust me, I'm working on it," said Garcia, who lives in Commerce, Calif.

Kelsi Amer, 14, a high school freshman from Patriot, Ind., knows how tough it is to keep her blood sugar from skyrocketing. Diagnosed at age 12, she takes metformin and gives herself insulin shots before school and at bedtime.

There are times when she has to miss class because she has to prick her finger to check her blood sugar or go with her mother to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center for checkups.

"I try real hard and all of a sudden, I'm back to high blood sugar" levels, said Kelsi, who was not part of the research.

Smellyman

In Hong Kong people are pretty dang skinny and meals are usually not processed, just meat, veggies, rice etc.

then I watch Man vs. Food.....


it all seems so clear.

inlet13

whygohome wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47211549/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.T57YuuxJhnM

A good read. This figure stuck out.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

We stop trying to act like we can control people and we focus on incentives. Let me give an example,...

1) We try to promote economic and job growth (via incentives, not via pretending like gov't "creates" jobs)
2) As the economy improves and people gain more "real" money, they are less likely to buy shit fast food (this has been shown statistically)
3) Companies would be more likely to move towards more wellness programs as they realize there are cost-saving benefits (in healthcare, that is, if we go towards a more market-based system).

RW81233

inlet13 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47211549/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/#.T57YuuxJhnM

A good read. This figure stuck out.

Nationally, that comes to $190 billion a year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity, calculated Cawley, or 20.6 percent of U.S. health care expenditures.

We stop trying to act like we can control people and we focus on incentives. Let me give an example,...

1) We try to promote economic and job growth (via incentives, not via pretending like gov't "creates" jobs)
2) As the economy improves and people gain more "real" money, they are less likely to buy shit fast food (this has been shown statistically)
3) Companies would be more likely to move towards more wellness programs as they realize there are cost-saving benefits (in healthcare, that is, if we go towards a more market-based system).

via point 3 isn't that big government intervention in the market?