U.S. obesity problem intensifies

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.

Who has the most power: a drug dealer or his client?

 

[Delscottio]

Who has the most power: a drug dealer or his client?

Who's holding the assault rifle?

 

[Delscottio]

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.

Those drink sizes are shocking, in the UK McDonalds had a bit of a backlash after the Supersize Me Documentary IIRC. They stopped the supersizes and started to introduce fruit etc on to the menu.


Are those typical American sized portions?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh come now, couldn't we have a better title?

Intensifies is a total loss as a joke.

It needs at least to be expands, if not breaks its belt or some other good metaphore.

 

[johnny karate]

Who has the most power: a drug dealer or his client?

Assuming we're not talking about coersion, the client has the most power. A drug dealer doesn't force you to buy drugs, or force you to take them once you've bought them.

I don't believe addiction, whether it's to drugs or food, is an excuse for anything. Just because something is hard to stop doing, even if it's really, really hard, does not absolve one of the personal resonsibility in choosing to do it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Johnny Karate,

Do you believe in free will?

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny Karate,

Do you believe in free will?

Certainly, at least insofar as the concept applies to my decisions to not damage my health, or in other similar contexts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This doesn't have much to do with the debate on this thread, but I'd like to contribute my own anecdotal take on the changes in weight over the years.

I recently watched some Hogan's Heroes re-runs. Werner Klemperer (Col. Clink) who appeared back in that day to fall within the "average" build, was surprisingly skinny. I saw an episode where the guy I remember as being "fat"-- General Burhalter--was shown taking a shower, and by today's standards he was not even close to being fat. I suspect the guy who played Sgt. Schultz wasn't so fat either--though he was always shown wearing a bulky overcoat.

I also recently looked at some old photos from my elementary school days (mid 1960s), and the neighborhood "fat kid" really wasn't fat by today's standards.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Certainly, at least insofar as the concept applies to my decisions to not damage my health, or in other similar contexts.

I stutter. Should I will myself to talk fluently, or could there be physiological and environmental reasons beyond my control (but perhaps not out of other people's control) which make this approach unlikely to succeed?

 

[Segnosaur]

Good news and bad news concerning aging baby boomers. The good news is that extra weight does not seem to have an impact on life expectancy.

Actually, there's some evidence that just the opposite is true... that being overweight may actually lead to a LONGER life.

From: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/06/24/Study-Slightly-overweight-live-longer/UPI-64961245860812/
A researcher in Portland, Ore., says his study found that slightly overweight people live longer than their normal weight counterparts.

Now, granted, this article only refers to a couple of studies, and they haven't really figured out the mechanism involved. (And, it should also be noted that the article does not indicate that the fatter you are, the longer you'll live, only that the 'optimum' is to be overweight but not GREATLY overweight.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Fine, how about this - I understand some people have medical conditions that keep them from losing weight. I understand that some people just simply don't want to bother losing weight, or can't because of their schedule. Fine. What I don't understand is how obesity, unlike most other medical conditions, has a stigma of being a subject that cannot be broached. Why is it that people suffering from obesity who have the choice to lose weight expect people to accommodate their lifestyle choice? Why is it considered taboo to teach children proper dieting habits, and why are people pushing for "fat acceptance," which is essentially acceptance of a destructive habit?

I don't have anything against people who are fat by choice. It's the sort of people who force their stigma on others that bother me, particularly in the medical field and with children.

For example, from the NAAFA website, it says that one of the ways that our culture enables size discrimination is that it perpetuates thinness as being desirable. Why should thinness not be a desirable trait?

Well, for one, if the article I referred to in an earlier post is correct, being thin may actually lead to a lower life expectancy than being overweight.

I would imagine that as a whole, particularly in western countries, being physically fit is considered sexually attractive and as being a far more desirable state to be in.

The fact that something is "desirable" does not mean that it is necessarily optimal for health and longevity.

Also from the NAAFA, from their HAES page:
* Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure
* Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss

Why should medical care focus on promoting pleasurable rather than healthy dieting?

In the section you quoted, it mentions balancing pleasure with factors like nutritional needs. So its not simply promoting eating simply for pleasure's sake.

I would imagine having sex without a condom would be more pleasurable, but is it a safe habit of getting into?

It would be an even safer habit to not have sex at all... but many people would not be willing to forgo that particular pleasure. So they strike a balance... something that gives SOME pleasure (having sex, even if there is a slight risk), and some safety (using a condom).

Similarly, NAAFA appears to be recommending the same thing... balance the PLEASURE of eating, along with the 'safety' of watching nutritional needs.

Also, from a medical perspective, why promote physical activity that does not help an individual get healthier?

Did you ever think that becoming active (even if the goal is not weight loss) DOES result in an individual becoming 'healthier'?

You know, there is an episode of Penn & Teller where they talk about ways people could prolong their lives. The second one doctor suggests "castration", they end the eposisode. If castration DOES increase an individual's life span, are you going to have the same sort of scorn for those who decide to keep their testicles inside them (this shortening their lives) rather than on the fireplace mantle?

 

[Segnosaur]

deleted post

 

[Modified]

This doesn't have much to do with the debate on this thread, but I'd like to contribute my own anecdotal take on the changes in weight over the years.

I recently watched some Hogan's Heroes re-runs. Werner Klemperer (Col. Clink) who appeared back in that day to fall within the "average" build, was surprisingly skinny. I saw an episode where the guy I remember as being "fat"-- General Burhalter--was shown taking a shower, and by today's standards he was not even close to being fat. I suspect the guy who played Sgt. Schultz wasn't so fat either--though he was always shown wearing a bulky overcoat.

I also recently looked at some old photos from my elementary school days (mid 1960s), and the neighborhood "fat kid" really wasn't fat by today's standards.

I had the same reaction on seeing an old rerun of "Alice".

 

[johnny karate]

I stutter. Should I will myself to talk fluently, or could there be physiological and environmental reasons beyond my control (but perhaps not out of other people's control) which make this approach unlikely to succeed?

I'm fairly certain you don't actively engage in a behavior you know causes you to stutter, while at the same time lamenting the fact that you stutter and blaming another entity for your stuttering. So the application of "free will" and/or "will power" in your situation differs from that of someone who eats an excessive amount of fast food and then blames Burger King for their obesity. I don't think anyone can will themselves to not be fat, but they can certainly will themselves to not engage in behavior they know contributes to them being fat.

That being said, if there was a viable solution available (e.g. speech therapy) and you wished to no longer stutter, I would not think it a reasonable excuse for you to say "It's just too hard". So if this were the case then yes, I think you should "will yourself" to stop stuttering.

 

[Merko]

I'm fairly sure it's related to the car culture.

If you compare the US with Europe, it seems to me that people have very different attitudes towards using their cars. In Europe (generally speaking), if something is a 10 minute walk away, people will look at you a little strangely if you use your car. In the US, it seems to be the other way around - people look at you a little strangely if you decide to walk.

I would speculate that this is actually a result of the big status game working a little different in the US and Europe. In the US, there's generally not a lot of subtlety involved, you just show off your big car/home/whatever and that gives you social status (generally speaking). In Europe, there's a sort of balance: to get maximum status, you should still show off your car/home/whatever, but if it's too obvious it may backfire. So back in the day when being able to drive your car was worth something status-wise, a pattern was established. Which then affected coming generations in various ways, including city planning, lack of public transportation etc.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Good point. My family didn’t eat out a lot when I was a kid --- but I won’t ask you for “evidence”. That seems to be a widely accepted observation.

Personally, I have to really be careful about portion sizes – esp. for the main entrée. Even after years of knowing better, I want it to be at least half the size of a plate, a very large plate. The “correct” serving size (about 3.5 oz or 100 grams usually about the size of a deck of cards) always looks so disappointingly small. I just finished eating dinner, and I'm still in shock how small my piece of baked salmon was. But ... I'm not hungry because I'm eating a lot more vegetables now. I aim for 5 servings a day which is a lot more than I use to eat and, I would be willing to bet, is a lot more than what most of my neighbors eat.

Also, has anyone noticed this change? In my family, originally cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc were only for birthdays, holidays and perhaps Saturday (the Sabbath, my parents were Orthodox Jews). Sometime in the early ‘70s my parents changed their minds and it was available every night. (Although strangely enough when I was a kid I didn’t really have that much of a sweet tooth, so I usually didn’t have any.)

I don’t recall my friends snacking on this stuff while I was in grade school during the ‘60s and early ‘70s either. In fact, one of my friend’s parents kept those type of foods locked up in a cabinet so some would always be on hand for drop-in guests. But it was clearly not everyday fare for the family.

Starting in high school (mid 1970s), though, I do recall seeing more of my classmates eating the foods with empty calories.

Anyone else remember this change in attitude towards snack foods? Or did I grow up on Planet X?

 

[Kaylee]

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

Just curious -- have you ever tried it? Growing up Orthodox Jewish, I observed the occasional fast day, 24 hours without any food or water.

While I met one or two people who were indifferent to the experience, for most people it's a real exercise in will power.

FWIW, I do think the key is will power. Regardless of the various philosophies about how much will power we actually have, if we want to change our circumstances we obviously have no other choice but to focus on will power. However, I think it pays for each person to think about how they can maximize their will power instead of regarding it as an on-off switch that anyone with any degree of moral fiber can simply turn on whenever they like.

I don't think viewing will power as an on off switch is helpful. I think that attitude leads towards people continuing to do what comes easy to them and failing to do what doesn't.

But if one respects that its more complicated than that, I think you can end up have a better shot at controlling something that is personally difficult.

For me I do everything I can to maximize appetite control. I have about a half dozen things that I can do that helps. However, I don't think I would have ever thought of them if I believed that it was as simple as making up my mind to just do it. We are biological machines and are strongly affected by both our genes and environment -- but each of us varies by how much we are affected and by what in particular.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

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

What I resent is the food industry's resistence to providing additional information such as how much added sugar is in the product.

For anything that includes sugar (tomatoes, diary, I think even some grains), reading the ingredients and nutritional label is not enough. And when a company uses more than one type of added sugar -- that makes it even harder to make an intelligent guess.

As a result I find that I end up doing a lot more cooking than I want to, and a lot more time grocery shopping than I want to (looking at lesser known brands in the hope that I'll find a new one that doesn't use added sugar).

I do resent that.

 

[Kaylee]

Actually, there's some evidence that just the opposite is true... that being overweight may actually lead to a LONGER life.

From: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/06/24/Study-Slightly-overweight-live-longer/UPI-64961245860812/
A researcher in Portland, Ore., says his study found that slightly overweight people live longer than their normal weight counterparts.

Now, granted, this article only refers to a couple of studies, and they haven't really figured out the mechanism involved. (And, it should also be noted that the article does not indicate that the fatter you are, the longer you'll live, only that the 'optimum' is to be overweight but not GREATLY overweight.)

I wasn't able to find the original studies, but I've read readers' comments on some of the reports. A few people brought up some good points -- if these conclusions are just based on general surveys how do we know if the researchers took into account whether the normal weight people were thin because of their smoking, drinking or drug habits? Any of those habits would decrease the expected life span.

Another reader said that a possibility was that slightly overweight people may be getting more medical monitoring if they are also diabetic or have cholesteral issues.

Either of those suggestions could account for the difference which would mean that most people potentially would still be better off if they were at their "normal" weight but could still get the extra medical monitoring.

 

[Kaylee]

I'm fairly sure it's related to the car culture.

If you compare the US with Europe, it seems to me that people have very different attitudes towards using their cars. In Europe (generally speaking), if something is a 10 minute walk away, people will look at you a little strangely if you use your car. In the US, it seems to be the other way around - people look at you a little strangely if you decide to walk.

I would speculate that this is actually a result of the big status game working a little different in the US and Europe. In the US, there's generally not a lot of subtlety involved, you just show off your big car/home/whatever and that gives you social status (generally speaking). In Europe, there's a sort of balance: to get maximum status, you should still show off your car/home/whatever, but if it's too obvious it may backfire. So back in the day when being able to drive your car was worth something status-wise, a pattern was established. Which then affected coming generations in various ways, including city planning, lack of public transportation etc.

And lack of bike paths and even sidewalks in many neighborhoods in many cities.