New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Options
Replies
-
2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.0 -
We've got an over abundance of cheap, available food unlike any other time in human history. So, naturally, people are eating too much of it and getting fatter.
That's better than what we've historically lived through (forever) as a human race. Chronic food shortages, forced periods of fasting for lack of food, crop failures with no immediate alternative food sources, livestock die offs with no immediate alternative food sources, death from starvation, etc.
This is a new era of extended abundance and availability of delicious food. We haven't adjusted to it, physically or mentally.
I still think it's better than the alternative.
Honestly, I agree.
It's a tough thing for us to adjust to as a species, as it goes against what was our historical norm.
And it's a lot better than the problem of scarcity. Yes, sucks I have to watch my weight. Beats starving or being afraid of starving.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.
That makes sense. I can totally see insurance companies playing an important role in changing things. But what are you suggesting would be the way it would happen, people getting annoyed at their premiums (when set by average risk for a given location), or insurance companies holding individuals to behavioural change requirements to keep rates lower?
I'm fine with a focus on individual behaviour, but I think the landscape -the food industry, restaurants etc - needs changes too.
(I am very tired and edited that 3 times to have it make some kind of sense, sorry)0 -
Great post, thanks for sharing.Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yes, we should help the individuals in our orbit, but there is no way this problem can be addressed without serious changes from the top. It is clearly opposite of an individual problem.
The top won't change a thing unless the bottom kicks them in the bottom, and hard. They take too many bribes (oh excuse me, they call them campaign contributions) from the food industry to change anything without being forced to.
Hmm yeah that too. Honestly, the fastest way would be a single event that captured national attention for at least 1.5 days, probably bc it was pretty bad. But the effects of obesity are slow and non-dramatic, and tv shows are made around them for entertainment anyway, and the causes are always, always in debate.
Most people are fine with the explanation that "it's too many lazy people that somehow started eating too much food. All at the same time, randomly"
I vote for a general strike. But it's like herding cats. Fat, apathetic, sick cats.
Lol yeah I think it'd be hard to find much support for anything that even alluded to the word "strike"0 -
Great post, thanks for sharing.Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yes, we should help the individuals in our orbit, but there is no way this problem can be addressed without serious changes from the top. It is clearly opposite of an individual problem.
The top won't change a thing unless the bottom kicks them in the bottom, and hard. They take too many bribes (oh excuse me, they call them campaign contributions) from the food industry to change anything without being forced to.
Hmm yeah that too. Honestly, the fastest way would be a single event that captured national attention for at least 1.5 days, probably bc it was pretty bad. But the effects of obesity are slow and non-dramatic, and tv shows are made around them for entertainment anyway, and the causes are always, always in debate.
Most people are fine with the explanation that "it's too many lazy people that somehow started eating too much food. All at the same time, randomly"
I vote for a general strike. But it's like herding cats. Fat, apathetic, sick cats.
Lol yeah I think it'd be hard to find much support for anything that even alluded to the word "strike"
My country has a rich history of strikes. Time to get back to basics.
Edit: But we could call it simultaneous personal health days!
0 -
Great post, thanks for sharing.Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yes, we should help the individuals in our orbit, but there is no way this problem can be addressed without serious changes from the top. It is clearly opposite of an individual problem.
The top won't change a thing unless the bottom kicks them in the bottom, and hard. They take too many bribes (oh excuse me, they call them campaign contributions) from the food industry to change anything without being forced to.
Hmm yeah that too. Honestly, the fastest way would be a single event that captured national attention for at least 1.5 days, probably bc it was pretty bad. But the effects of obesity are slow and non-dramatic, and tv shows are made around them for entertainment anyway, and the causes are always, always in debate.
Most people are fine with the explanation that "it's too many lazy people that somehow started eating too much food. All at the same time, randomly"
I vote for a general strike. But it's like herding cats. Fat, apathetic, sick cats.
Lol yeah I think it'd be hard to find much support for anything that even alluded to the word "strike"
My country has a rich history of strikes. Time to get back to basics.
Edit: But we could call it simultaneous personal health days!
Haha0 -
I didn't click the link, but have seen the stats before and Yes, it's very disturbing how much fatter we have become in such a short time.
They need to do a better job on nutrition in schools. People don't know anything. Half (or more) of MFP regular posters never even heard that weight gain and loss was related to the calories in the food they ate. How do people get out of school without learning that?!
Personally, I think they should swap out Chemistry for Anatomy in high schools. Most people do not go into science classes in college, so the Chem is all but worthless to them. EVERYONE has a body. They should learn how it works, why all those vitamins and minerals are important. That's something that would serve them well through life. And when someone they love gets sick, they'll have some freaking idea what that organ does and won't have to rely on googling, which is a poor replacement for an actual education. (I realize that you cannot learn a whole lot about Physiology without a decent background in Chem, but they could learn enough. They don't have to learn to differentiate between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, but should learn why they breathe.)
Get the kids outside. Day Care and video games have taken over. Kids need to use their little bodies, outside, playing.
Whew. Kind of ranted there. Rant over.
I think some of those are goals in one of the plans linked to in the OP. (More activity for kids at school) I bet people will hate that idea though, and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
One of the other goals is reducing access to sugary drinks, that (of ALL THINGS) is going to cause riots in the streets0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We've got an over abundance of cheap, available food unlike any other time in human history. So, naturally, people are eating too much of it and getting fatter.
That's better than what we've historically lived through (forever) as a human race. Chronic food shortages, forced periods of fasting for lack of food, crop failures with no immediate alternative food sources, livestock die offs with no immediate alternative food sources, death from starvation, etc.
This is a new era of extended abundance and availability of delicious food. We haven't adjusted to it, physically or mentally.
I still think it's better than the alternative.
Honestly, I agree.
It's a tough thing for us to adjust to as a species, as it goes against what was our historical norm.
And it's a lot better than the problem of scarcity. Yes, sucks I have to watch my weight. Beats starving or being afraid of starving.
I get what you guys are saying, and of course I agree that people starving to death is hardly a good alternative. Of course. But...I also disagree. I mean, I'm also glad we don't have to deal with smallpox or polio. But just because the ravages of infectious disease and chronic food shortages in previous generations were so dramatic. it still doesn't mean that the ravages of obesity and obesity-related chronic illnesses are taking less of a toll.
We just don't see the ripple effects quite as clearly. But the personal, social, productivity, and economic consequences for the whole society are immense. And when we're looking at current rates of overweight and obesity in our KIDS, we see that the ripple effect reaches far into the future.
The only positive thing I see in that data as compared to the famines and the great epidemics of the past is that obesity-related illnesses are entirely preventable. So we have that going for us. But when I see those statistics, and I realize that similar trends are showing up in virtually every other country that has become wealthier and more industrialized, I just can't find a way to think that in the long run, it's better than the alternative. If there were a way of quantifying the human and societal price, I think the obesity epidemic may actually come at a much higher cost.
Well said!
And it was the poor who starved (and in some places still do) and now the poor in many countries are the most likely to be obese. It's still malnourishment. It's still an early death.
Hell with you, spell checker, if malnourishment wasn't a word, it is now!
0 -
and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
Nutrition and what's considered the best source of nutrition (and in what percentages) is a controversial subject to be mandated into a public school curriculum.
Some parents think anything goes as long as calories are restricted to maintain or obtain a healthy weight. Some swear by milk/egg vegetarianism. Some are vegan for religious or ethical reasons. Others bristle at the idea that the kids might be taught that eating whole grains is "healthy", others think that low fat is the way to go, others swear that high fat, low carbohydrate is the best way to develop a healthy brain, etc.
There's no agreeing on these things universally and it's much more combustible when teaching kids is involved. Allegedly, we're all adults here at MFP and look how we go at it when it comes to food religion, LOL.
Yeah. Not hopeful about that strategy. People freaked out with Jamie Oliver and his healthy school lunches. I think also there was a thing about people getting very angry about pop machines being taken out of schools (somewhere, can't remember where this happened).
That's kind of why I think it'd be better for it to not be talked about as a "fix the kids" thing0 -
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.0 -
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.
If the prices stay the same per calorie people will simply buy two meals. If prices go up per calorie the poor will suffer even more. I think the answer is moving food subsidies to fresh meat (not that it isn't already subsidized) and especially fresh produce and away from corn, sugar, and etc.
But it isn't going to happen without a huge fight.
0 -
The problem is they are basing this assessment on BMI. There was a study in Britain recently that found BMI overestimates male body fat content and underestimates females. We really need to go to a waist the height ratio or similar. My own BMI is surprisingly high. 64" tall medium frame and I weigh 135lbs. But I'm at 23% body fat. Very reasonable for a 49 year old and I wear a size 4.0
-
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.
If the prices stay the same per calorie people will simply buy two meals. If prices go up per calorie the poor will suffer even more. I think the answer is moving food subsidies to fresh meat (not that it isn't already subsidized) and especially fresh produce and away from corn, sugar, and etc.
But it isn't going to happen without a huge fight.
That makes sense. Can you recommend any reading?0 -
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.
If the prices stay the same per calorie people will simply buy two meals. If prices go up per calorie the poor will suffer even more. I think the answer is moving food subsidies to fresh meat (not that it isn't already subsidized) and especially fresh produce and away from corn, sugar, and etc.
But it isn't going to happen without a huge fight.
That makes sense. Can you recommend any reading?
I can mention a Youtube lecture going around:
"Obesity and Poverty Linking Food Health and Incomes"
If I were dictator for a day, everyone would have to watch it at least once!
The HBO Weight of the Nation (still free online, I think) also mentions the obesity-poverty link.
0 -
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.
If the prices stay the same per calorie people will simply buy two meals. If prices go up per calorie the poor will suffer even more. I think the answer is moving food subsidies to fresh meat (not that it isn't already subsidized) and especially fresh produce and away from corn, sugar, and etc.
But it isn't going to happen without a huge fight.
That makes sense. Can you recommend any reading?
I can mention a Youtube lecture going around:
"Obesity and Poverty Linking Food Health and Incomes"
If I were dictator for a day, everyone would have to watch it at least once!
The HBO Weight of the Nation (still free online, I think) also mentions the obesity-poverty link.
Thanks! I'm on board with the low income -> obesity link - keen to hear more about specifics & possible solutions I haven't seen the HBO thing yet 
so that would be good to spend some time on, too. 0 -
Portion sizes are out of control, though.
Some of that needs to change back to something reasonable. Someone could probably make a law to make that happen.
If the prices stay the same per calorie people will simply buy two meals. If prices go up per calorie the poor will suffer even more. I think the answer is moving food subsidies to fresh meat (not that it isn't already subsidized) and especially fresh produce and away from corn, sugar, and etc.
But it isn't going to happen without a huge fight.
That makes sense. Can you recommend any reading?
I can mention a Youtube lecture going around:
"Obesity and Poverty Linking Food Health and Incomes"
If I were dictator for a day, everyone would have to watch it at least once!
The HBO Weight of the Nation (still free online, I think) also mentions the obesity-poverty link.
Thanks! I'm on board with the low income -> obesity link - keen to hear more about specifics & possible solutions I haven't seen the HBO thing yet so that would be good to spend some time on, too.
Fed Up is pretty good, too, because there are parents struggling so hard to help their children lose weight and they have no clue how to do it. It's sad. Lean Hot Pockets. Really?
And it talks about the school lunch programs and the big money interests involved in that.
0 -
I didn't click the link, but have seen the stats before and Yes, it's very disturbing how much fatter we have become in such a short time.
They need to do a better job on nutrition in schools. People don't know anything. Half (or more) of MFP regular posters never even heard that weight gain and loss was related to the calories in the food they ate. How do people get out of school without learning that?!
Personally, I think they should swap out Chemistry for Anatomy in high schools. Most people do not go into science classes in college, so the Chem is all but worthless to them. EVERYONE has a body. They should learn how it works, why all those vitamins and minerals are important. That's something that would serve them well through life. And when someone they love gets sick, they'll have some freaking idea what that organ does and won't have to rely on googling, which is a poor replacement for an actual education. (I realize that you cannot learn a whole lot about Physiology without a decent background in Chem, but they could learn enough. They don't have to learn to differentiate between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, but should learn why they breathe.)
Get the kids outside. Day Care and video games have taken over. Kids need to use their little bodies, outside, playing.
Whew. Kind of ranted there. Rant over.
I think some of those are goals in one of the plans linked to in the OP. (More activity for kids at school) I bet people will hate that idea though, and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
One of the other goals is reducing access to sugary drinks, that (of ALL THINGS) is going to cause riots in the streets
I don't think more physical activity at school is controversial at all. Most people bemoan that it's less than when they were kids. There's tons of activity at the elementary school near me (where the kids generally don't seem fat). This is an upper middle class neighborhood, but like all CPS schools there are lots of poorer kids there (but also lots of local neighborhood kids). The problem is that in some schools there are difficulties, like a lack of safe areas or physical plant.
Similarly I see schools having nutrition days which seem to be about teaching nutrition to parents (generally not needed by the parents in this neighborhood, I expect). I think nutrition is a normal part of the curriculum and I would not consider it controversial -- I learned it, I think most people know what good nutrition is, but it's a basic life skill that should be taught. (I do think you will get lots of flack from paleo and low carb types who disagree with the usual advice that eating lots of fruit and veg and whole grains and legumes is good, and that we should deemphasize -- not eliminate -- animal fats. And around here you might have some vegan types who would disagree that protein is important, although likely in much smaller numbers.)
Anyway, I don't think any of this is controversial and also don't think sugary drinks should be sold or provided for free in schools. (But again, milk?) I also don't think it would make any significant difference to the obesity rate, because the problem ISN'T lack of knowledge. That's an excuse.
The one area of knowledge that I think might help marginally is cooking, as I think cooking skills have dropped way off.0 -
Generally, schools are pretty poor at teaching math and science. I suspect they wouldn't be much better at teaching nutrition.
It's not like this type of problem is limited to food and obesity. People tend to overemphasize the short-term at the expense of the long term in any number of areas. That's an exceptionally difficult, probably impossible, thing to change and obesity is, to me, simply one symptom of the underlying cause.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We've got an over abundance of cheap, available food unlike any other time in human history. So, naturally, people are eating too much of it and getting fatter.
That's better than what we've historically lived through (forever) as a human race. Chronic food shortages, forced periods of fasting for lack of food, crop failures with no immediate alternative food sources, livestock die offs with no immediate alternative food sources, death from starvation, etc.
This is a new era of extended abundance and availability of delicious food. We haven't adjusted to it, physically or mentally.
I still think it's better than the alternative.
Honestly, I agree.
It's a tough thing for us to adjust to as a species, as it goes against what was our historical norm.
And it's a lot better than the problem of scarcity. Yes, sucks I have to watch my weight. Beats starving or being afraid of starving.
I get what you guys are saying, and of course I agree that people starving to death is hardly a good alternative. Of course. But...I also disagree. I mean, I'm also glad we don't have to deal with smallpox or polio. But just because the ravages of infectious disease and famine in previous generations were so dramatic. it still doesn't mean that the ravages of obesity and obesity-related chronic illnesses are taking less of a toll.
We just don't see the ripple effects quite as clearly. But the personal, social, productivity, and economic consequences for the whole society are immense. And when we're looking at current rates of overweight and obesity in our KIDS, we see that the ripple effect reaches far into the future.
The only positive thing I see in that data as compared to the famines and the great epidemics of the past is that obesity-related illnesses are entirely preventable. So we have that going for us. But when I see those statistics, and I realize that similar trends are showing up in virtually every other country that has become wealthier and more industrialized, I just can't find a way to think that in the long run, it's better than the alternative. If there were a way of quantifying the human and societal cost, I think the obesity epidemic may actually come at a much higher price.
I think this is an adjustment period, and we have to figure out how to deal, so I don't see ever increasing obesity as likely. In fact, I think the most recent numbers (not the comparison from 1990) show a ceiling on the issue in the US--the problem not continuing to get worse.
But beyond that, if the alternative is scarcity, I really don't see how anyone wouldn't see the current situation -- where we all have substantial CHOICE -- as preferable. Maybe I read too many pioneer and settler narratives as a kid or stuff about various famines.
I'm not disagreeing that it's a problem. The question becomes -- yes, it's a problem, so what can we do about it? Beyond some general things that I don't actually think would make much difference but are worth a try, I tend to think the main thing we can do is personal -- to control our own weights and help those closer to us. I am involved in an organization called Girls On the Run, mostly because it's something I find rewarding, but that it encourages physical activity, including by some in groups where it's less available at school, that's good. I support changes that make biking and walking more convenient in my community (where admittedly it already is pretty convenient). As I live in a city where food deserts are to some degree an issue, I support efforts to address that and also to improve public transportation (although it's complicated). Beyond that kind of local stuff, I'm really not sure what would matter. I'm in favor of the labeling laws we currently have (and calorie information is widely available in my city) and more education about nutrition, but I don't actually believe that's the issue. People know what's healthy and what a healthy diet is not.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions