U.S. obesity problem intensifies

[Cuddles]

I think those making claims of eating disorders and glandular problems should supply some supporting data so we can determine what percentage of obese people we're actually talking about.

Indeed. I tried looking for information on it, but anything related to eating disorders is dominated by anorexia and bulimia.

I absolutely did not suggest this. I merely pointed out that there are medical conditions which can cause some people to be fat. I in no way suggested that all fat people suffer from these conditions.

Sure, but the point is that people always point that out whenever any mentions obesity, and it's completely irrelevant. Yes, there are medical conditions, but I have never seen any evidence presented to suggest that accounts for anything more than a tiny minority of obese and overweight people. There never seems to be any reason to bring it up at all other than to try to provide excuses for being fat that avoid any personal responsibility.

1) "discipline" around weight is universally a good thing and

Why would it not be a good thing? Being too fat or too thin is unhealthy. Being unfit, no matter what your weight, is unhealthy. Eating a poor diet, no matter what your weight or fitness, is unhealthy. Of course having some discipline and paying attention to what you put in your body and what you do with your body is a good thing. That doesn't mean being fat is necessarily bad, and if that's your choice then it's really none of my concern, but to argue that looking after yourself might not be a good idea is just plain weird.

2) that all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant. I have not even once seen an "except for eating-disordered people" disclaimer in a weight-related thread on this forum.

Well, firstly I have never seen anyone say that. Ever. If you can find somewhere here where anyone has claimed that all people are fat because they're lazy, feel free to show me. Secondly, the reason no-one bothers with a disclaimer is because, as I say in my reply to Arthwolipot, it's irrelevant. It's like complaining that people say things like everyone should walk to the shops to save on petrol without putting a disclaimer "except for those without any legs" on the end. No-one bothers with the disclaimer because the number of people it applies to is tiny, and it's extremely obvious to anyone with half a brain so there would be no point in saying it anyway.

What I am trying to say, in my clumsy way, is that any given fat person you meet could be like me, and that demonizing all fat people as lazy and self-indulgent is not helpful, original, or interesting.

Again with your "demonising all fat people" straw man. However, in case you forgot to the read the OP, we're not talking about specific individuals here, we're talking about a statistical fact about a large population. The fact that you may not be sure that a particular person you meet does not have a disorder has nothing to do with the fact that the vast majority of fat people do not.

Has there been a discussion I missed that was a little more thoughtful than "put the fork down"?

What exactly do you expect anyone to say? For the majority of fat people who do not have an eating disorder and simply eat too much, what else is there? Eat less and do more exercise. We'll stop saying that either when people start doing it.

What drives the average dude/dudette to gain weight in today's (presumably Westernized) society, where slenderness is next to godliness?

Are you going to accept the laziness answer here? People gain weight because eating high calorie fast food is generally easier, and often faster, than eating a sensible diet. They exercise less because it's generally easier and to not do exercise.

How do appetite and satiety work/how are they related/unrelated?

That's really more for the science forum. Basically, it all comes down to chemicals. If you eat lots, your body gets used to things and you have to eat more to get the same feeling of satiety. If you snack constantly you never reach the point of actually feeling full, and so end up eating a lot more than if you just have a few meals in a day. We still don't understand everything about appetite, but we do know quite a lot about it. I'd recommend starting a thread in the science section, since this certainly isn't my area of expertise.

How has becoming a "car culture" affected general activity levels of the population? Why don't people compensate with other activities?

What do you mean "compensate"? People didn't used to exercise for fun, they used to exercise because it was the only way they could get things done. Now that we can drive everywhere and have machines to do so many things for us, that is no longer the case. People don't compensate for the lack of exercise because they never wanted to exercise in the first place. They mostly still want to just get on with their lives without having to make too much effort.

What have been the historical advantages of overeating behavior/craving certain foods/etc, and how have they become disadvantages?

Again, that's more for the science forum, but it's a pretty easy question really. We evolved to eat particular foods as much as possible because that gave a higher chance of surviving when food became harder to find. A fat person can live longer without eating than a thin person. This has become a disadvantage because for most people in the West food, particularly high carbohydrate and fatty food, is no longer scarce.

For some reason, I just can't seem to will myself to start very often. It's more a matter of perpetual procrastination than actual laziness.

That seems to be pretty much the definition of laziness. I have exactly the same problem, but I don't pretend it's anything other than what it is.

Thank you for making my point for me. "It's their own damn fault", they'll get no sympathy from me certainly is the prevailing attitude.

Why should they get any sympathy? Whether its an active choice or simply the result of not paying enough attention to your diet and activity, becoming fat is something you do to yourself, it's not something you have done to you (and yes, that's obviously excluding people with a medical condition for those who need obvious disclaimers spelled out explicitly every time). You'll get no sympathy from me for that. If it's something you don't care about, or have done deliberately, you'll get no mockery or pity from me either, I simply won't care at all. It's the people who do it to themselves and then desperately flail around trying to blame anyone and anything other than themselves that get my mockery. And as far as I'm concerned, they fully deserve it.

 

[ZirconBlue]

That seems to be pretty much the definition of laziness. I have exactly the same problem, but I don't pretend it's anything other than what it is.

To me, "laziness" means unwilling to do hard work. I am perfectly willing to do hard work, but just put it off. I have difficulty with self-motivation, not with work, per se.

For years, I marched in a Drum & Bugle Corps, which is about as much hard work as most people see. 14 hour rehearsal days in the hot summer sun, 7 days a week, all summer long. In those days, in addition to meals served and the occasional pint of ice cream, I would drink about a quart of whole milk at each meal, and still lose weight over the course of the summer. Pretty grueling. But I never shied away from the work. It was tough, but rewarding.

But now, I have no one to schedule my days and make sure I stick to those schedules. Additionally, between work and commute time, cooking dinner, and having a 6-year-old child, I only have a couple of hours a day to relax. I find it pretty darn hard to make myself use up those few precious hours with exercise.

Why should they get any sympathy? Whether its an active choice or simply the result of not paying enough attention to your diet and activity, becoming fat is something you do to yourself, it's not something you have done to you (and yes, that's obviously excluding people with a medical condition for those who need obvious disclaimers spelled out explicitly every time). You'll get no sympathy from me for that.

Maybe I was unclear, but I was talking about the people who are overweight, but are (mostly unsuccessfully) trying to lose weight. Some people are overweight because they don't make any effort not to be, but many of the "lazy" fat people you see are trying very hard to lose weight. Looking at the size of the diet & fitness business, I'd say those people number in the millions. And you can't necessarily tell which is which just by looking at them. So, yeah yeah, they did it all to themselves and all that, but now they're trying to do the right thing -- perhaps have been trying for years -- they still deserve no sympathy for the difficulty of their situation?

People who smoke "did it to themselves", too. If they're having difficulty quitting, they deserve no sympathy?

Alcoholics and drug addicts chose to drink/do drugs. No sympathy for them, either?

Although perfectly true, "eat less, exercise more" is real easy to say, but much harder to do. And if you (the general you, not you, in particular) truly find it easy, then it's because you're lucky, not because you're better than all those lazy fatsos. If they found it just as easy as you (again general) do, they'd probably be thin, too.

Of course, maybe it would be easier if they had more "willpower" and "self-discipline". I know it would be for me. So. Can you tell me where to go get some more willpower and self-discipline? Do they carry them at Wal-Mart?

People like to think that you can just will yourself out of any situation, if you just "want" it "enough". But it's pretty circular reasoning, isn't it? If you try and fail, you just didn't want it enough, right? No matter how hard you tried. And if you succeeded easily? Well then, you did want it "enough", by definition. But what if you know (know know know) that you absolutely must lose weight -- but you fail? Can you pick up an extra bottle of "want", next to the "willpower" and "self-discipline" at the Costco?

It's the people who do it to themselves and then desperately flail around trying to blame anyone and anything other than themselves that get my mockery. And as far as I'm concerned, they fully deserve it.

Exactly who are these people? I suspect they're just as common as the people think "that all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy" that you dismissed as non-existent earlier.

 

[Kaylee]

Just to play devil’s advocate – could there be something else behind the obesity epidemic besides greed and sloth?

Many people are very concerned about their physical appearance. For example, it’s obvious that many people of both genders spend a great deal of money on their clothes and cars. Its not logical that so many people would put so much effort towards these areas and be completely indifferent to how much food they put into their mouths.

And personally, I don’t think that most of the people I know are lazy. Many of them work hard at their jobs and also at taking care of their families. I don't think the people I know are unusual in this regard and I think it's reasonable to assume that this is true of most people in our society. I don’t accept that people who are hard working in so many areas of their life will all somehow have their discipline break down when it comes to food.

Also, it doesn’t’ seem to me that people live more automated lives now than they did in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s. Plus every few years there’s been a fitness fad. According to this article, in 2005 Curves (a fitness franchise for women) was number one on the list of fastest growing franchises.

We do know that at the same time the obesity epidemic started growing it became less expensive for manufacturers to add sugar (usually in the form of HFCS) to our foods. That being the case, perhaps the amount of processed food that has hidden sugars in it is much higher after the late ‘70s than before. When buying processed foods, it can be rather difficult to find foods that don’t have unnecc. sugars added to them.

Many nutritionists talk about how carbs drives insulin which in turn drives fat accumulation. (Sugar and HFCS are carbs.)

Perhaps most of us do have more sugar in our diets post the late ‘70s and the higher levels of sugar really does make it more likely for us to fatten up. It may also make us hungrier by causing our insulin levels to spike and therefore trigger our appetites more frequently.

I'm not suggesting this idea as an excuse for us not to take responsibility for our weight. But this obesity epidemic simply doesn't make sense to me. It really shouldn't be so difficult for most people to maintain a healthy weight.

Just a thought.

ETA: I struggle with my weight, and have been doing so off and on since the mid '90s.

 

[casebro]

I don't think these two charts will come through as pics, but they are annual consumptions of HFCS and Sugar, 1970-2008.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/HFCSconsumption2008.png

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/Sugarconsumption2008.png

The total of the two was 70# in 1970, and 90# in 2008. But I don't know if the 23% increase would be offset by the water content of the syrup? But there are a lot of other carbs whose consumption might have increased. Like Fructose, Cane Syrup Solids, Sugar Cane Syrup, Molasses...

But I could believe that we are eating more carbs.

 

[Delscottio]

Thank you for making my point for me. "It's their own damn fault", they'll get no sympathy from me certainly is the prevailing attitude.

It's funny. I don't remember making any such choice. Fifteen years ago I could eat whatever I wanted without gaining any weight. Somewhere along the line that stopped being true. I don't know when. I just know that my clothes didn't fit anymore.

Just because you didn't make the conscious choice you, you and you alone made the decision to put more into your body then you burn off. Whether you like it or not it is in the vast majority of cases the obese persons fault they are obese. I hold nothing against them as long as that point is recognized. Its the denial I have a massive problem with

Why anyone would want or expect sympathy for that is baffling, but nevermind

I struggle to believe any adult in the US or UK doesn't understand that smoking leads to a variety of health problems, including cancer.

Everyone has a personal choice to make, the fact some people went down the route of smoking cigarettes doesn't afford them any sympathy or special pleading in my book.

Smokers who have difficulty quitting don't deserve any sympathy?

Or is it that now that you've successfully quit you're better than them?

What are you going on about? I agree with everything above except me being better. I just didn't want to smoke anymore. Its that simple, when I smoked it was my decision I didn't deserve anyones sympathy it was up to me to sort the situation out if I wanted to reduce my chances of premature death.

I agree support should be offered in the form of NRT and obese people should get similar support which in the UK is available.

Well, personally, I'd prefer evidence that this even happens before I start worrying about it.

Fair enough, but personal responsibility is the only way forward to a personal problem which obesity is.

 

[Kaylee]

I don't think these two charts will come through as pics, but they are annual consumptions of HFCS and Sugar, 1970-2008.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/HFCSconsumption2008.png

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/Sugarconsumption2008.png

The total of the two was 70# in 1970, and 90# in 2008. But I don't know if the 23% increase would be offset by the water content of the syrup? But there are a lot of other carbs whose consumption might have increased. Like Fructose, Cane Syrup Solids, Sugar Cane Syrup, Molasses...

But I could believe that we are eating more carbs.

Interesting charts Casebro -- thanks. I wonder if the web site had a chart for corn syrup alone? Or any of the other sugars? I agree with you that there are many other forms of sugar in our processed foods. I think it would be misleading if the web site owners (the Corn Refiners Association) didn't provide that information also. I tried looking for it there, but I couldn't find it.

I did find this though:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November05/Findings/USFoodConsumption.htm

It's an article with a chart that shows that food consumption per person has increased from between 1970 - 2003 in all food groups, including sugar. Per that article the consumption of all forms of sugar increased 19%.

From observing people I think it can be argued that sugar is like a "gateway food" to overeating.

People that overeat appear to have a sweet tooth. I don't think I know anyone who is overweight that doesn't have one. I don't think I ever meet anyone who got heavy from just eating "healthy" food alone.

Just want to add that I thought this web page was interesting:
http://www.sweetsurprise.com/hfcs-and-your-family/your-childs-diet/hfcs-in-foods

On that page the Corn Refiner's Association shows all the foods where HFCS is added. For anyone new to this topic it can be surprising how wide spread this additive is in our foods. I have even seen HFCS in PLAIN yogurt.

I don't think this helps. I couldn't do a double blind study on myself of course, but I have made an effort to cut back on hidden sugars in my diet (canned foods, breads, yogurts, etc.) and I think that has helped keep my appetite under control. That's a lot of the battle right there -- if I'm not always hungry, it's easier not to eat.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Just to play devil’s advocate – could there be something else behind the obesity epidemic besides greed and sloth?

<snip>

Perhaps most of us do have more sugar in our diets post the late ‘70s and the higher levels of sugar really does make it more likely for us to fatten up. It may also make us hungrier by causing our insulin levels to spike and therefore trigger our appetites more frequently.

<snip>

One thing that has changed a lot since the 1970s is the increase in portion sizes. I've read that the current "small" fries at McDonald's is the same size as the original "Supersize" fries.

Similarly, when I was a child soft drink sizes were typically 8, 12, & 16 oz. (for small, medium, and large, respectively). Now, a "small" is often 24 oz. or more.

Even things you buy at the supermarket are bigger. See bagels, croissants, muffins, etc. for examples.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

One thing that has changed a lot since the 1970s is the increase in portion sizes. I've read that the current "small" fries at McDonald's is the same size as the original "Supersize" fries.

Similarly, when I was a child soft drink sizes were typically 8, 12, & 16 oz. (for small, medium, and large, respectively). Now, a "small" is often 24 oz. or more.

Even things you buy at the supermarket are bigger. See bagels, croissants, muffins, etc. for examples.

Which is a wonderful example of how companies operating in a market economy and unrestrained by morality can end up damaging society.

 

[Eddie Dane]

The urge to not to do work has led to all kinds of technological innovation, and now that Western life is relatively easy and food is abundant but biology hasn't changed, is it any surprise that we're gaining weight?

That's just the thing.
When we were running around on the savannah a million (?) years ago, we'd do all we can get our hands rare goodies like sugar (ripe fruit) and meat.

These days you have to make a concious effort to avoid the foods if you don't want to become as big as a couch.

We are deeply programmed to crave these things as they are important to our survival. Chimpanzees sometimes resort to cannibalism to get some meat.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Which is a wonderful example of how companies operating in a market economy and unrestrained by morality can end up damaging society.

As much as the libertarian in me wants to object, I must admit you may be onto something there.

 

[Cuddles]

Maybe I was unclear, but I was talking about the people who are overweight, but are (mostly unsuccessfully) trying to lose weight. Some people are overweight because they don't make any effort not to be, but many of the "lazy" fat people you see are trying very hard to lose weight. Looking at the size of the diet & fitness business, I'd say those people number in the millions. And you can't necessarily tell which is which just by looking at them. So, yeah yeah, they did it all to themselves and all that, but now they're trying to do the right thing -- perhaps have been trying for years -- they still deserve no sympathy for the difficulty of their situation?

No, they don't. Trying very hard? I'd say it's the exact opposite, it's just another example of laziness - this time in wanting a quick fix instead of doing what actually needs to be done. Losing weight really does just require eating less. It doesn't matter how many diet books you buy telling you specific ways of eating less, you're not going to lose weight unless you actually do eat less. Out of those millions who buy in to the dieting industry, clearly very few actually diet in any real sense of the word. They buy the books and maybe go through some of the motions, and then act terribly surprised that they're still fat because they're trying so hard to lose weight.

People who smoke "did it to themselves", too. If they're having difficulty quitting, they deserve no sympathy?

Alcoholics and drug addicts chose to drink/do drugs. No sympathy for them, either?

No. Why would they deserve sympathy? It was their decision in the first place to cause themselves problems. That's great if they're now trying to correct their mistake, but I don't see why they should get any sympathy for it.

Although perfectly true, "eat less, exercise more" is real easy to say, but much harder to do.

The exercise part, maybe. The "eat less" part, hell no. In fact, it's easier to eat less than it is to eat more. Eating isn't something that happens all by itself, it's something you actively have to do. It takes anywhere between zero and a negative amount of effort to prepare and eat less food.

And if you (the general you, not you, in particular) truly find it easy, then it's because you're lucky, not because you're better than all those lazy fatsos.

And again with the straw men. No-one has said anything about being "better" than anyone else. Hell, I already admitted to being lazy. The difference is, I don't try to blame my faults on McDonalds.

People like to think that you can just will yourself out of any situation, if you just "want" it "enough". But it's pretty circular reasoning, isn't it? If you try and fail, you just didn't want it enough, right? No matter how hard you tried. And if you succeeded easily? Well then, you did want it "enough", by definition. But what if you know (know know know) that you absolutely must lose weight -- but you fail? Can you pick up an extra bottle of "want", next to the "willpower" and "self-discipline" at the Costco?

"Do or do not, there is no try."

How much you want something is irrelevant. Either you do enough to lose weight, or you don't.

Exactly who are these people? I suspect they're just as common as the people think "that all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy" that you dismissed as non-existent earlier.

Why do you suspect that? I've certainly never heard anyone say that all far people are lazy or greedy, only that a lot of them are. Since no-one has provided any evidence of someone actually saying that (other than as a joke), it seems reasonable to conclude that it's not exactly a common opinion. On the other hand, I've seen numerous people on TV, in the news, in real life, and generally all over the place, blaming their weight on their metabolism, stress, fast food restaurants, modern culture, big bones, the government, the NWO, and any number of other things, with the common theme being that it's always someone else's fault. Can you honestly say you've never heard anyone say anything along those lines?

 

[richardm]

Why is it considered taboo to teach children proper dieting habit

Who says this?

Perhaps taboo isn't the right word, but there are apparently plenty of people around who don't seem to think that healthy eating is something kids should be bothered with.

Just as an example, the TV chef Jamie Oliver recently had a campaign to improve the quality of meals supplied to pupils by state schools. Some of the parents were shocked and dismayed by the "crap food" he was giving them which was, in fact, actually really rather good food. When they tried to make the kids eat the school meals for a week to convince them, parents were taking orders for burgers and fish and chips and passing them through the school fence.

He did succeed in the end, but there were some incredibly intransigent people whose basic attitude seemed to be "Give 'em whatever they want and damn the consequences".

 

[ZirconBlue]

No. Why would they deserve sympathy? It was their decision in the first place to cause themselves problems. That's great if they're now trying to correct their mistake, but I don't see why they should get any sympathy for it.

Well, clearly you and I have a very different view of the world. So, perhaps there is no further point in continuing this discussion. When I see someone struggling with something difficult, I tend to feel sympathetic, even if their difficulty is caused by some past decision of theirs.

The exercise part, maybe. The "eat less" part, hell no. In fact, it's easier to eat less than it is to eat more. Eating isn't something that happens all by itself, it's something you actively have to do. It takes anywhere between zero and a negative amount of effort to prepare and eat less food.

You're equivocating on "easy". Not drinking any water (or other water-supplying food/drink) requires zero physical effort, so it should be the easiest thing in the world to do, right? But try doing it for a few days and then tell me how "easy" it was.

Why do you suspect that? I've certainly never heard anyone say that all far people are lazy or greedy, only that a lot of them are. Since no-one has provided any evidence of someone actually saying that (other than as a joke), it seems reasonable to conclude that it's not exactly a common opinion. On the other hand, I've seen numerous people on TV, in the news, in real life, and generally all over the place, blaming their weight on their metabolism, stress, fast food restaurants, modern culture, big bones, the government, the NWO, and any number of other things, with the common theme being that it's always someone else's fault. Can you honestly say you've never heard anyone say anything along those lines?

Neither viewpoint was actually expressed in this thread, so both strike me as something of a strawman. No one here is blaming being fat on anyone/anything else, so why bring it up? You said you've never heard anyone say that "all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant". Well, I have. In fact, except for the "tiny" number of people that you acknowledge to have eating disorders, aren't you saying that all other fat people fall into one of those groups?

 

[Cuddles]

You're equivocating on "easy". Not drinking any water (or other water-supplying food/drink) requires zero physical effort, so it should be the easiest thing in the world to do, right? But try doing it for a few days and then tell me how "easy" it was.

I don't see your point. Drinking no water would be incredibly easy. Not particularly healthy or enjoyable, but certainly very easy.

Neither viewpoint was actually expressed in this thread, so both strike me as something of a strawman. No one here is blaming being fat on anyone/anything else, so why bring it up?

And obviously this thread is the only place in the entire world anyone has said anything about obesity.

This thread is a general discussion about obesity, started off by some statistics showing that more people than ever in the US are obese, and containing various discussion and speculation about why that may be. Pointing out that a lot of people are obese because they make no effort not to be and blame their weight on things other than themselves is obviously very much relevant to the discussion.

In fact, except for the "tiny" number of people that you acknowledge to have eating disorders, aren't you saying that all other fat people fall into one of those groups?

Obviously. Apart from the people who some other reason for being fat, all fat people are fat because of laziness or greed. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "tautology" while you're learning about straw men.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It was their decision in the first place to cause themselves problems.

<snip>

I'm don't think it's quite as definite as a hard decision to consume too many calories. Many overweight people have overweight parents. Junk food companies want to get their customers to consume as many of their products as possible. Diet companies sell diets that don't work in the long term so they can stay in business. The body tries to maintain its weight by secreting hormones which affect behaviour.

There's a LOT of money to be made from ignorance and manipulating human behaviour.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I don't see your point. Drinking no water would be incredibly easy. Not particularly healthy or enjoyable, but certainly very easy.

Let's try this another way: Is solving a complex set of equations (by hand) "easy"? Is reciting the entire Gettysburg Address from memory "easy"? Is keeping your eyes open when something is flying toward your face "easy"? Is jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge "easy"?

And obviously this thread is the only place in the entire world anyone has said anything about obesity.

This thread is a general discussion about obesity, started off by some statistics showing that more people than ever in the US are obese, and containing various discussion and speculation about why that may be. Pointing out that a lot of people are obese because they make no effort not to be and blame their weight on things other than themselves is obviously very much relevant to the discussion.

And, yet, when you challenged Obsequious to back up his statement "If you can find somewhere here where anyone has claimed that all people are fat because they're lazy, feel free to show me." So, he has to restrict his criticisms to actual people/statements here, but you don't.

Obviously. Apart from the people who some other reason for being fat, all fat people are fat because of laziness or greed. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "tautology" while you're learning about straw men.

Kinda my point. The "tiny" number of fat people that aren't "only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant", aren't even worth a disclaimer, according to you. So, "all fat people are only fat because they're lazy or greedy or ignorant", is pretty close to your actual position.

 

[johnny karate]

Which is a wonderful example of how companies operating in a market economy and unrestrained by morality can end up damaging society.

That's a bit of a slippery slope. I would argue that these corporations have no more responsibility in the obesity epidemic than the people who choose to eat their food on a regular basis.

How long have we known fast food is bad for us? Feels like quite a while now. I find it difficult to believe anyone eating a Big Mac for lunch everyday isn't aware of how bad that is for them.

To blame this behavior on the "evil corporations" implies we are a society of ignorant children who need to be supervised in every facet of our lives. As someone who enjoys the occasional Big Mac but otherwise has a healthy diet, I would rather not create an environment where potentially unhealthy things I am able to enjoy responsibly are taken away because other people can't control their behavior.

 

[DC]

No, they don't. Trying very hard? I'd say it's the exact opposite, it's just another example of laziness - this time in wanting a quick fix instead of doing what actually needs to be done. Losing weight really does just require eating less. It doesn't matter how many diet books you buy telling you specific ways of eating less, you're not going to lose weight unless you actually do eat less. Out of those millions who buy in to the dieting industry, clearly very few actually diet in any real sense of the word. They buy the books and maybe go through some of the motions, and then act terribly surprised that they're still fat because they're trying so hard to lose weight.



No. Why would they deserve sympathy? It was their decision in the first place to cause themselves problems. That's great if they're now trying to correct their mistake, but I don't see why they should get any sympathy for it.



The exercise part, maybe. The "eat less" part, hell no. In fact, it's easier to eat less than it is to eat more. Eating isn't something that happens all by itself, it's something you actively have to do. It takes anywhere between zero and a negative amount of effort to prepare and eat less food.



And again with the straw men. No-one has said anything about being "better" than anyone else. Hell, I already admitted to being lazy. The difference is, I don't try to blame my faults on McDonalds.



"Do or do not, there is no try."

How much you want something is irrelevant. Either you do enough to lose weight, or you don't.



Why do you suspect that? I've certainly never heard anyone say that all far people are lazy or greedy, only that a lot of them are. Since no-one has provided any evidence of someone actually saying that (other than as a joke), it seems reasonable to conclude that it's not exactly a common opinion. On the other hand, I've seen numerous people on TV, in the news, in real life, and generally all over the place, blaming their weight on their metabolism, stress, fast food restaurants, modern culture, big bones, the government, the NWO, and any number of other things, with the common theme being that it's always someone else's fault. Can you honestly say you've never heard anyone say anything along those lines?

you are wrong in so many many points.

typical "just eat less" nonsense, what is even more important is what you eat not only the quantity. it doesnt help me to eat only one doubble whopper instead of a tripple whopper when i need more vegetables or fruits.
and what is even more important to people that are used to eat much, when they want to eat less, is to eat more often. instead of 3 times a day, eat 5 times aday, but only small portions, and the 2 extra meals are not cake or a burger, but an apple or a yogurt.

when you eat the right things, you may end up eating even more while loosing wight. I know that from experiance.

I am one of the lazy fattys, i know how to loose awight, a did it already, and know i can do it again, but dont feel like.

but i know alot people that really do try hard and eat balanced and not to much and make no progress.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's a bit of a slippery slope. I would argue that these corporations have no more responsibility in the obesity epidemic than the people who choose to eat their food on a regular basis.

<snip>

I disagree. I think responsibility should be proportional to power.

 

[johnny karate]

I disagree. I think responsibility should be proportional to power.

How are we defining "power"? Because I don't recognize the power of any corporation attempting to sell me something I don't need or can acquire elsewhere. And this would be the great majority of them, including all fast food restaurants. The one entity that has the most power over my decisions and behavior is me. So in way, I guess we're kind of in agreement.