New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Replies
-
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 -
Excellent and detailed analysis by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation (explore all of the links at the top of the page):
stateofobesity.org/
Good site.
It is also profoundly disturbing that some states have rates of obesity for 2-4 year old kids from low income backgrounds in excess of 15%.
Whilst school based education is a good idea do these kids even have a chance?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »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.
Yes, agree that this is the key problem (and that it's quite common for humans).0 -
5%. 5% of the time in men, BMI predicts obesity when but but by body fat percentage standards they are not. Compare that with the fact that it only correctly finding obesity in men 36% of the time compared to body fat percentage.duna_pruna wrote: »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.
The problem isn't the 5%, especially as those people are highly likely to be aware of their higher lean body mass. The real issue is that far more people are obese by body fat percentage standards than would be aware just based on their BMI.0 -
What's the body fat definition of obese ? Some people seem to conflate BMI and body fat - @duna_pruna is 23.2 BMI.0
-
These stats are based on BMI, which may be wrong in individual cases, but are perfectly good to measure obesity and overweight in a population, especially over time, which is what they do.
There are a few issues -- the BMI cutoff for overweight has changed, and the stats since 2011 have been collected differently and in ways that are expected to pick up more people in the more at risk (more obese) populations, which could explain the difference between these and the stats I'd seen before that said the increase had leveled off (which obviously doesn't mean the current number isn't already far too high, because it is).
Edit: Yes, and also duna_pruna isn't overweight by BMI. Missed that initially.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »(which obviously doesn't mean the current number isn't already far too high, because it is).
Yes, exactly. There is a danger of missing the wood for the trees in this type of discussion.
Obesity rates are huge public health concern and that doesn't seem to be going away any time soon sadly.
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).
There is a serious danger is getting your understanding of how people in the US react or what we know based on "documentaries" with a pre-set message.
For example (as we have discussed before), while I'm sure it's possible to find some person who will claim she thought Lean Pockets were a super nutritious choice for her family and didn't know that calories were a thing printed on the box (or that vegetables are generally good to eat), this is not normal. It's not a reasonable assumption about the population. The problem isn't that people are stupider than ever before (and yes, I'm sorry, the assumptions being made assume people are really, really stupid). I mean, yes, it's easy enough to find someone who doesn't know who the vice president is, so you can find someone to represent any level of ignorance, but it doesn't make sense to base public policy on some anecdote in a biased movie.
Similarly, the Jamie Oliver thing was from a very specific population, even assuming -- and I don't -- that the changes were handled in the most encouraging way. I happen to know that in my city -- which has a major problem with both obesity and income inequality (and where I'd bet good money that there's an income element to where the obesity problem is centered), there have been major efforts and positive changes to the nutritional content of school lunches (and breakfasts -- a lot of kids get a lot of their basic nutrition from the school) and nutrition IS taught. The problem is that -- like reading and math -- a lot of these cannot work without better support in the homes, and there are structural issues (among other things). And, most crucially, knowledge is likely not the issue -- I continue to believe that most know darn well what a healthy diet is and is not. People just also like to use food for other purposes, especially (I expect) when life isn't that great in lots of ways.
I am skeptical that banning large size servings is going to make a difference, and the broader problem is that these are profitable options for the sellers -- which has to do with US food culture, among other things.
But it's not like it wasn't tried (and isn't being tried in a variety of places): here's an article about one aspect of the NYC ban (http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/03/21/lessons-from-the-naacp-s-public-opposition-to-new-york-city-s-big-soda-ban/). There was also a discussion here about a northern CA ban on selling soda with a child's meal, if memory serves.
Personally, one reason I like federalism and that we have many levels of government is that places can try things (including things I personally don't think would help) and we can see how it works.
The idea that we know what would fix things but just refuse to do it is flat out false, obviously.
If you disagree, maybe Canada should fix the problem and show us how it's done, rather than making annoying generalizations about Americans based on poor sources.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
True to an extent. The problem I see is the way gym class has been traditionally taught at the middle and high school grades. It's far too focused on competitive athletics and not enough on fitness. Those who are not star athletes quickly learn the message that physical activity is not for them. We need more people like zumba instructors and personal trainers teaching our kids about weights and cardio and fewer former jocks running games of dodgeball.
Unfortunately, I think this trend will just continue. Cooking is becoming what sewing is now: It's a "old timey" craft that people used to have to learn in days gone by in order to survive. Just like almost no one makes their own clothes anymore, I think in the future most people will not cook their own food from scratch. Prepackaged, read-made meals will become the norm. Even in restaurants now, especially chains, a lot of the food comes frozen and is simply reheated. Or it comes from a central bakery and is just displayed or stored in the restaurant. There are no chefs, just people who can push buttons on the microwave.The one area of knowledge that I think might help marginally is cooking, as I think cooking skills have dropped way off.0 -
Competitive sports and star athletes are usually -- at least around here -- in athletics programs and don't have a gym class along with the rest of the students. Their practice/weightlifting/running/games/off-season activities count as their PE requirement. Actual PE/gym classes aren't really focused on competitive athletics at all.peter56765 wrote: »True to an extent. The problem I see is the way gym class has been traditionally taught at the middle and high school grades. It's far too focused on competitive athletics and not enough on fitness. Those who are not star athletes quickly learn the message that physical activity is not for them. We need more people like zumba instructors and personal trainers teaching our kids about weights and cardio and fewer former jocks running games of dodgeball.
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »True to an extent. The problem I see is the way gym class has been traditionally taught at the middle and high school grades. It's far too focused on competitive athletics and not enough on fitness. Those who are not star athletes quickly learn the message that physical activity is not for them. We need more people like zumba instructors and personal trainers teaching our kids about weights and cardio and fewer former jocks running games of dodgeball.
This is true even to my experience in the '80s, and I can totally get on board for that change.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 agree with everything except the class swap-outs. I'm sure the curriculum has changed, but chem class is where I learned basic physics in high school. Also, other than physics, it's the only class where we did any honest-to-god scientific experiments with hypotheses, deductive/inductive logic and the whole nine yards.
I learned anatomy of several different species, including human, in hs biology. Some of it was also in health and phys ed. I don't ever remember learning about diet except having to remember the food pyramid and a couple of diseases from malnutrition.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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).
There is a serious danger is getting your understanding of how people in the US react or what we know based on "documentaries" with a pre-set message.
For example (as we have discussed before), while I'm sure it's possible to find some person who will claim she thought Lean Pockets were a super nutritious choice for her family and didn't know that calories were a thing printed on the box (or that vegetables are generally good to eat), this is not normal. It's not a reasonable assumption about the population. The problem isn't that people are stupider than ever before (and yes, I'm sorry, the assumptions being made assume people are really, really stupid). I mean, yes, it's easy enough to find someone who doesn't know who the vice president is, so you can find someone to represent any level of ignorance, but it doesn't make sense to base public policy on some anecdote in a biased movie.
Similarly, the Jamie Oliver thing was from a very specific population, even assuming -- and I don't -- that the changes were handled in the most encouraging way. I happen to know that in my city -- which has a major problem with both obesity and income inequality (and where I'd bet good money that there's an income element to where the obesity problem is centered), there have been major efforts and positive changes to the nutritional content of school lunches (and breakfasts -- a lot of kids get a lot of their basic nutrition from the school) and nutrition IS taught. The problem is that -- like reading and math -- a lot of these cannot work without better support in the homes, and there are structural issues (among other things). And, most crucially, knowledge is likely not the issue -- I continue to believe that most know darn well what a healthy diet is and is not. People just also like to use food for other purposes, especially (I expect) when life isn't that great in lots of ways.
I am skeptical that banning large size servings is going to make a difference, and the broader problem is that these are profitable options for the sellers -- which has to do with US food culture, among other things.
But it's not like it wasn't tried (and isn't being tried in a variety of places): here's an article about one aspect of the NYC ban (http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/03/21/lessons-from-the-naacp-s-public-opposition-to-new-york-city-s-big-soda-ban/). There was also a discussion here about a northern CA ban on selling soda with a child's meal, if memory serves.
Personally, one reason I like federalism and that we have many levels of government is that places can try things (including things I personally don't think would help) and we can see how it works.
The idea that we know what would fix things but just refuse to do it is flat out false, obviously.
If you disagree, maybe Canada should fix the problem and show us how it's done, rather than making annoying generalizations about Americans based on poor sources.
I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message. Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
0 -
What's the body fat definition of obese ? Some people seem to conflate BMI and body fat - @duna_pruna is 23.2 BMI.
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/ , the WHO uses 25% for men, and 33% for women.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I think something that not enough people are looking into is the potential link between obesity and our ever increasing exposure to chemicals, toxins, and pollutants. And I don't mean just like pesticides on our food or anything, but think about it. Shampoo, soap, deodorant, makeup - all loaded with chemicals. Heavily processed tasty food products, full of chemicals. Plastic water bottles, bpa lined cans, etc etc.
I live in a former mill town by the water - our bay until about a decade ago was so loaded with dioxins that you weren't supposed to eat fish from it more than once or twice a year. We grew up poor, we lived on seafood caught in it year round. When I was a kid, you could swim in the water some days and end up with filmy brown scum on your skin. And our city water right now is completely undrinkable it's got so much crap in it. And i don't mean chlorine or fluoride; those things are fine.
And before the inevitable dihydrogen monoxide joke gets thrown in, i'm not a dirtbath-taking, joint rolling hippie. I just think all of these little things, over long periods of time, are bound to have some sort of cumulative effect. We know for a fact that certain chemicals disrupt or impair endocrine function. And I think there was one study last year that hypothesized a correlation between levels of air pollution and childhood obesity in the immediate area.
Isn't one function of adipose tissue storing toxins? Obviously, this isn't the only reason people are getting fatter. But is it entirely implausible to wonder if our exposure to all of this could be, at the very least, contributing to the issue?0 -
I think there's a good reason for that.melodicraven wrote: »I think something that not enough people are looking into is the potential link between obesity and our ever increasing exposure to chemicals, toxins, and pollutants
0 -
I didn't assume they were stupid, I assumed they were raised on the low fat, heart healthy whole grains message.
As was I -- whole grains are supposed to be good, along with lots of vegetables, fruit, legumes, etc.
And calories are important.
And shop the perimeter, of course, and eat whole foods.
None of these would have ever led me to think the ideal diet involved a Lean Pocket.
But thanks for illustrating that there IS a problem with saying nutrition should be taught when there's a split re what good nutrition is in that I don't think carbs in general or whole grains are foods to be avoided.Another mother fed her obese daughter cereal any time of day because she read and trusted those whole grain messages on the labels. Poor kids! No wonder they were starving all the time.
I so don't buy this. It's an excuse. By my generation (and I'm old, 45, so older than the average mother in question) -- people were cynical enough not to trust advertising as some kind of absolute truth. (In fact, to be extremely cynical about it.)
But I also don't think the kids are overeating because they are starving due to cereal. Back in the '70s and '80s (again), I didn't eat cold cereal because I have always hated it (this meant I didn't eat breakfast sometimes, because my mother said "okay, make what you want" and I was lazy, but I'm not recommending that). However, the vast majority of my friends did -- probably less nutritionally beneficial things than are now popular. Yet obesity was not an issue.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 like the way you think!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions