New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Replies
-
I think that's some of what may be happening in the southern U.S. (where 7 of the 10 states with the highest rates of childhood obesity are found) and within specific communities in other states.
There are dramatic differences between communities in the US.
I know very few overweight kids, most of the parents I know are quite health conscious and spend a lot of time encouraging their kids to participate in active pursuits, and wow would there be a melt-down/freak-out of colossial proportions if a child was diagnosed with T2D.
I've heard the stats show that the differences between income/education groups are going away, but that's not what I see.0 -
melodicraven wrote: »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.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I think your post is mostly sensible. But this ^ ? Hypothetical correlation is not causation. I think the simpler answer is that the increase in air pollution could be shown to cause or trigger asthma, so the kids exercise outdoors less. It is quite a leap to imply pollution somehow causes fat to get stored on a body.
Though since I'm a fan of science, if there's a study studying whether air pollution causes excess fat to get stored (maybe due to stress/cortisol in prepubescents?) I think that would not be an unworthwhile study to try to fund.
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.
Here's a link to HBO's "The Weight of the Nation". It's a four-part documentary, and every segment is well worth watching: theweightofthenation.hbo.com/films
Thanks 0 -
melodicraven wrote: »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.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I think your post is mostly sensible. But this ^ ? Hypothetical correlation is not causation. I think the simpler answer is that the increase in air pollution could be shown to cause or trigger asthma, so the kids exercise outdoors less. It is quite a leap to imply pollution somehow causes fat to get stored on a body.
Or depending on the area a connection between lack of social structure/safety concerns. I know lead concentrations, asthma, and obesity tend to be higher in the inner city where safety concerns have historically been a reason kids are kept indoors and where schools often don't have much for outdoor play areas.0 -
Though since I'm a fan of science, if there's a study studying whether air pollution causes excess fat to get stored (maybe due to stress/cortisol in prepubescents?) I think that would not be an unworthwhile study to try to fund.
Exactly! That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I would love to see more questions like this asked. We don't just move through our environments without it affecting us in different subtle ways. It's all interconnected. 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.
Did I miss something? How did Canada get dragged into this?0 -
this does not shock me at all. did yall miss the first ladies focus and work...it was a nice way of saying HEY FATTIES GET UP AND MOVE...EAT BETTER AND MOVE AMERICANS...NOW.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Or depending on the area a connection between lack of social structure/safety concerns. I know lead concentrations, asthma, and obesity tend to be higher in the inner city where safety concerns have historically been a reason kids are kept indoors and where schools often don't have much for outdoor play areas.
Which makes a lot of sense. So then you have this very multi-faceted problem, all these different factors contributing - socio-economic status, environment, education. It certainly is a little overwhelming.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why, ever why, would your body look to store toxins? Fats can accumulate various metals and will accumulate any chemical that is fat soluble. Your liver and to a lesser extent kidneys handle the general "toxins" part of your body. Interestingly, the liver is basically the most calorically expensive (on a per pound bassis) regions of the body (for humans, the brain might surpass it). Removing toxins is, if anything, going to involve a higher metabolism, having a body do more work.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. 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 -
My big issue with focusing on these more remote causative factors is that it pulls focus away from the most significant factors - the ones we KNOW about. The ones we CAN do something about, like dietary changes and greater access to physical activity.
Makes sense. Fix what you can. Deal with the rest later.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »melodicraven wrote: »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.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I think your post is mostly sensible. But this ^ ? Hypothetical correlation is not causation. I think the simpler answer is that the increase in air pollution could be shown to cause or trigger asthma, so the kids exercise outdoors less. It is quite a leap to imply pollution somehow causes fat to get stored on a body.
Or depending on the area a connection between lack of social structure/safety concerns. I know lead concentrations, asthma, and obesity tend to be higher in the inner city where safety concerns have historically been a reason kids are kept indoors and where schools often don't have much for outdoor play areas.
Another much more sensible link between the two!
I think city kids in places like London circa Oliver Twist probably had it rougher pollution-wise, but didn't have as much access to food and video games. I feel for kids and parents and the struggles. I don't mean to let my liberal flag fly, but I wish public policy in the U.S. would lean more towards assuming 1/3 of the "fault" of the obesity in children epidemic can be laid in the laps of government policy/schools. Whether or not that's true, public health is in the government's domain. And they should do more to help this terrible trend that will end up potentially costing us so much money in the future.0 -
For contrast, I thought I would post the stats in South Africa, where I live.
In a world where 37 percent of the adult population is overweight or obese, in 2013 South Africa had an obesity rate of 42 percent for women and 13.5 percent for men, according to a study released by the Lancet. "Seven in 10 women (69.3 percent) and four in 10 men (38.8 percent) are overweight or obese in South Africa."
Those of you who noticed that the poorer you are, the fatter you are, are on to something. Our beggars are fat - these are people who live on the street! Obesity is not just the result of having too many nice things and not being able to resist them. It is much more complicated than that.
I am enjoying following this thread. Very interesting.0 -
Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm0 -
That is actually true. Most large 1800s cities were worse in pollution, particularly diseases compared to modern cities.lemurcat12 wrote: »melodicraven wrote: »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.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I think your post is mostly sensible. But this ^ ? Hypothetical correlation is not causation. I think the simpler answer is that the increase in air pollution could be shown to cause or trigger asthma, so the kids exercise outdoors less. It is quite a leap to imply pollution somehow causes fat to get stored on a body.
Or depending on the area a connection between lack of social structure/safety concerns. I know lead concentrations, asthma, and obesity tend to be higher in the inner city where safety concerns have historically been a reason kids are kept indoors and where schools often don't have much for outdoor play areas.
Another much more sensible link between the two!
I think city kids in places like London circa Oliver Twist probably had it rougher pollution-wise, but didn't have as much access to food and video games. I feel for kids and parents and the struggles. I don't mean to let my liberal flag fly, but I wish public policy in the U.S. would lean more towards assuming 1/3 of the "fault" of the obesity in children epidemic can be laid in the laps of government policy/schools. Whether or not that's true, public health is in the government's domain. And they should do more to help this terrible trend that will end up potentially costing us so much money in the future.
LA during the smog era, and now some cities in China might surpass those old records though.0 -
When I was growing up we had mandatory recess and PE from grade K-12. The year before I entered high school, which should have been middle school but small town and we didn't have a middle school, they got rid of home-economics and the one cooking class. By 7th PE was entirely an elective after 8th grade. The only nutrition I was ever shown was an hour long lecture once a year on the food pyramid that got crammed in with the "don't have sex or have it and die horribly" speech. Or if you took classes in the summer to get ahead, you could take a "health" class which was okay really for 90's standards, but only the smart kids wanted to get ahead LOL.
Now? Well, they tore down the playground to put in a community walking path and soccer fields that can only be used by the three soccer teams we have and no one else. Gym is pretty much free time to sit and chat with friends unless the coach feels frisky and decides to play dodge ball where you can't actually throw the ball anymore, just kick it.
But by god, Johnny is sure going to try out for football!
No more recess. Nope, gotta study all day to pass the state test so the school can get money to give the principal a raise, and maybe the teachers if the superintendent is up for reelection. Maybe funnel a bit to the computer lab if extra..... Drink machine is still there in the high school but I suppose it's now only on after or before school because you know, kids won't like save it for lunch or anything . Lunches are still horrid as Michelle Obama's overhaul was sort of ignored in my small town because lord forbid anyone tell parents here what their kids can and can not eat. No sir. Little Johnny wants his lunchable but really a pb&j, but because Timmy can't have peanuts no one can have pb&j's anymore at all, ever, they are now banned. And he wants it washed down with a pack of oreos and a Coke. Nope, ain't gonna make him eat no apple. He'll be psychologically damaged if he can't make his own decisions.
Can't ride your bike around town anymore if you're a kid because Miss Stick my Nose in the neighbors business feels that a 10 year old riding to the park a block away puts his precious snowflake life in danger and that's bad parenting, even though Miss Stick My Nose used to do it all the time at that age. So nope. You gotta drive your kid there now and by god don't take your eye off him a minute or he might get a scratch and OMG, you will be such a horrid parent. Might as well keep him at home playing COD and eating whatever he wants. Nutritional science changes daily, so I never know what to feed my kid. Yesterday eggs were bad for you, now they are good.... He'll be fine on the oreo cookie diet I'm sure.
Eventually we'll start chewing their food for them like mama birds.
Oh, some are already doing that. Nevermind.
Yeah.... (sarcasm here)
0 -
I happen to work in an inner-city school district. I am assigned to two elementary schools, a middle school, and our alternative education program (which totals 5 additional buildings-including juvenile detention). We have an alarming rate of obesity amongst children in our school. At my middle school, 98% (yep) of the students live under the poverty line. This is a violent area of our city, which is small (about 65,000 residents). We've had 4 shooting deaths in two weeks in that neighborhood. Kids are kept indoors quite frequently. It's a sad situation and I think there are some difficult barriers.
What has our district done? We have joined the federal lunch program initiative which means that every child gets free breakfast and lunch. There need to be improvements in what is being served, but over the past 9 years I've been here things have improved. I love seeing kids eating carrot sticks and raw broccoli. We also provide weekend pantry items to families in need to help the kids while school is not in session. We have a city-wide initiative to become healthier, so we embed physical activity breaks in the classroom. Our kids still get recess--but only 20 minutes. Gym is mandatory in our state (thank goodness) but as we know, the quality of instruction varies widely. We also send letters home for obese students (just as we would with a child who failed a hearing or vision screening). Parents gets REALLY upset about that! So are we trying? Yep! Is it enough? Sadly, it is not.
I feel that the desire is there for schools to deal with these issues, but administrators are not keen on taking time away from tested subject areas and diverting that to areas like physical fitness and nutrition.0 -
So some people are over eating and getting fat.
It would be interesting to see if there were any general dietary changes and trends as the weight crept upward.
0 -
http://www.worldobesity.org/aboutobesity/world-map-obesity/
So, comparing other countries, of industrialized nations, I note Japan has rates of 3.4% (men) / 3.8% (women) and Korea has 1.6% (men) / 3.0% (women). Now, there is a suggestion that BMI thresholds for Asians should be lower because of things like average lower bone density, but even if so, I think we have to ask, what are Korea and Japan doing different?
I'd posit that at least part of it comes from how much urbanization Japan has and the associated foot traffic.0 -
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/Teaching health and nutrition in school is well and good, but the kids aren't the ones doing the grocery shopping. Even if they do shop with Mom or Dad, it's still unlikely that they'll nag parents for good cuts f meat or more veggies. I just don't think they have the impulse control for it. (Personal opinion)
I hate to say it, since I'm politially a right winged conservative, but I think government needs to get involved to help educate everyone, sort of like they did with cigarettes. Not many smoke in my city anymore. There are some, and it is typically the less educated, but it is nothing like it was 20-40 years ago.
The problem with government is that they are still pushing their own interests. "Healthy" grains are still on the bottom of the food pyramid and it shouldn't be (IMO). There is no NEED for grains in our diet. Yes, about half of all North Americans appear to do just fine with grains, but a very large minority do not. Grains aren't needed so they shouldn't be pushed.
IMHO, Grains are just a convenience food; it can sit on a shelf for a long time. To me it appears that most prepared packaged foods are based on grains; same goes for fast food. Convenience again. Grains don't need to take up 1/4, 1/2 or more of peoples' plates. I believe almost half of all people would be healthier by cutting grains, and that doesn't fit with most political agendas and lobby groups. Kellogs and General Mills wouldn't stand for it.
Yes, I am coming from a LCHF agenda, and I do believe clos to half of the population would be healthier if they cut their carb levels (from grains and sugars) although most of those people do not need to be as extreme as I am. Lower carbs can help make that minority healthier and may help them lose weight with greater ease.
A current commercial for a juice company and it's breakfast program drives me nuts. It's "Tommy" asking the pretty, slim lunchroom lady for breakfast and she lovingly gives him a "healthy" breakfast of juice, cereal with skim milk and a banana.... Sugar, sugar and sugar. Uh-huh. Those kids will tank after a couple of hours when their glucose levels come down. No protein. No fat, unless you count the 1% in the ilk on the cereal. Not helpful.
Maybe government could outlaw advertising of highly processed foods, pseudo-foods, and fast foods like they did for cigarettes up here. Imagine the $$$ kick back to the government if they did that. Ha!
It would probably be helpful if people went back to the basics and prepared their own food from largely from scratch (I think we can safely exclude dairy from this caveat). If you want bread that bad, bake it. If you want meatloaf, make it. If you want lasagne, make it. Want pizza, make it.... I know, I know. It's not going to happen.
It's not going to change for generations. I bet it will get worse before it gets better. It IS getting worse in Canada. Our obesity rates are rising and not far behind the States now. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2011001/article/11411-eng.htm
^ there is no food pyramid. It is now healthy plate, and if you look, the vegetables are the biggest region, and fruits and vegetables occupy about half the plate.0 -
As my high school economics teacher used to say, "If you let a man sit under a tree and eat bananas all day, that's what he'll do."
Most people eat what they want when they want to with no regard for the number of calories they are consuming. In today's food environment, this virtually guarantees you will be eating a caloric surplus.
I don't think there is any systemic solution to this problem so long as delicious plentiful food is available. You can educate people until you are blue in the face. People are going to do what is easy, and that means that even if they know the benefits of exercise and eating properly they will "sit under the tree and eat bananas (big macs) all day." People don't worry about their health until they have a health problem. And by then, it is virtually impossible to fix a weight problem.
This is going to have to be solved by medical science, and, given the massive financial reward for doing so, it probably will be. One day, a safe and effective appetite suppressant mechanism will be invented. One day, a safe and effective means of regulating body fat stores will be invented.0 -
melodicraven wrote: »
Though since I'm a fan of science, if there's a study studying whether air pollution causes excess fat to get stored (maybe due to stress/cortisol in prepubescents?) I think that would not be an unworthwhile study to try to fund.
Exactly! That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I would love to see more questions like this asked. We don't just move through our environments without it affecting us in different subtle ways. It's all interconnected.
There are also studies showing air pollution may affect insulin. And insulin levels in turn can definitely affect satiety.0 -
The former isn't very interesting to me. The latter would be very much so.maillemaker wrote: »This is going to have to be solved by medical science, and, given the massive financial reward for doing so, it probably will be. One day, a safe and effective appetite suppressant mechanism will be invented. One day, a safe and effective means of regulating body fat stores will be invented.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.0 -
Ghosts? Only silly people believe in ghosts or the laws of thermodynamics applying to a human body. Duh.
Nope. If the food's not there, starvation mode will protect people from starving to death during famine. Duh.
Relative privations and false dichotomy. If someone punches me in the face, it still is upsetting even if it beats getting kicked in the groin.ninagray000 wrote: »thanks for posting this, but man, how depressing.
It's depressing that people are unhappy with their appearances due to excess weight and also depressing that people get increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and diabetes due to carrying excess weight.
Then again, you gotta die of something and despite this, life expectancy in the Western world is at an all time high.
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.
Sorry about your groin troubles. But I stand by my dichotomy. Folks can choose to moderate what how much they eat in times of abundance, even if it's difficult. If the food's not there, it's not there and that's that. That's human history, smartypants.
Yeah, tell that to the ghosts of millions of folks who've died from starvation over the past 5 thousand years or so. Duh.
Never mind then smartypants. Tell their ancestors. And don't forget to explain the laws of thermodynamics while you're at it. You know, just in case they don't believe in them.
Are you guys rivals in an office softball league or something?0 -
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
0 -
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
0 -
Nope, this is more like who's on first.rjmudlax13 wrote: »
Ghosts? Only silly people believe in ghosts or the laws of thermodynamics applying to a human body. Duh.
Nope. If the food's not there, starvation mode will protect people from starving to death during famine. Duh.
Relative privations and false dichotomy. If someone punches me in the face, it still is upsetting even if it beats getting kicked in the groin.ninagray000 wrote: »thanks for posting this, but man, how depressing.
It's depressing that people are unhappy with their appearances due to excess weight and also depressing that people get increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and diabetes due to carrying excess weight.
Then again, you gotta die of something and despite this, life expectancy in the Western world is at an all time high.
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.
Sorry about your groin troubles. But I stand by my dichotomy. Folks can choose to moderate what how much they eat in times of abundance, even if it's difficult. If the food's not there, it's not there and that's that. That's human history, smartypants.
Yeah, tell that to the ghosts of millions of folks who've died from starvation over the past 5 thousand years or so. Duh.
Never mind then smartypants. Tell their ancestors. And don't forget to explain the laws of thermodynamics while you're at it. You know, just in case they don't believe in them.
Are you guys rivals in an office softball league or something?
At least I don't think I was tossing out anything too screwy or making a curve.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
So your answer seems to be, as is common, more government to solve what you've characterized as a problem with government. What could go wrong?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Or they're buying what their kids like to eat because it's easier.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I can eat a mixing bowl full of cereal and still be hungry. That's why one size fits all is worse than nothing at all. Maybe I'm naive, maybe these parents know full well what they're doing is shortening their kids' lifespans and sickening them for perhaps a lifetime. Maybe they're all just bad parents. But I don't think so. I think they've swallowed the messages of the marketing industries and our reprehensible, corporate-owned government agencies.
I doubt our reprehensible corporate-owned government agencies are responsible for parents who raise boundary-less brats because it's easier.
There may be some connection there.
Ban advertising junk to kids. Then maybe we'll see the parent-kid dynamic. A study showed kids shown food commercials ate more while watching TV than kids who saw non-food commercials. There is a lot at play here, and just because some parents are irresponsible doesn't mean we should let government and corporations off the hook.
Not more government. Taking the government away from moneyed interests and making it respond to us instead. It might even end up being less government overall.
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