New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Options
Replies
-
Except they're intertwined. You can't provide everyone the ability to broadcast on the airwaves and let them be useful, so you automatically have to restrict speech on them. By virtue of saying there will be some entities that can broadcast, you've already put a restriction on content.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, no, because I don't accept the comparison of restrictions on content and providing the means to disseminate content as valid.
Do you honestly think you have a right to broadcast a pirate radio station into the airwaves? If you don't, you're already acknowledging the public good has enforceable rules that limit free speech on them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?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.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.0 -
Any comparison of obesity rates prior to 1997 vs after are invalid. In 1997, 35 million Americans went to bed at a healthy weight and woke up overweight overnight, and a similar number of indubitably were demoted from "overweight" to "obese." The NIH redefined obesity that year.
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/things-you-may-not-know-about-government-and-obesity/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.
That's American. We don't use the plate thing, but you are right. Canada uses a food rainbow! LOL
http://nutrition.uwo.ca/pdf/foodguide.pdf
It it IS grain heavy and encourages too many calories be eaten. That's what I was getting at with the pyramid. Plus, just because it is the old food guide, it doesn't mean it is not the one people remember or use.0 -
Except they're intertwined. You can't provide everyone the ability to broadcast on the airwaves and let them be useful, so you automatically have to restrict speech on them. By virtue of saying there will be some entities that can broadcast, you've already put a restriction on content.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Well, no, because I don't accept the comparison of restrictions on content and providing the means to disseminate content as valid.
Do you honestly think you have a right to broadcast a pirate radio station into the airwaves? If you don't, you're already acknowledging the public good has enforceable rules that limit free speech on them.DeguelloTex wrote: »
That the advertising works doesn't mean it causes obesity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Your proposed ban is still more government than in the absence of that ban. Regardless, the idea that banning advertising to kids is going to affect meaningfully obesity rates while jabbing yet another knife in the back of the First Amendment seems pretty flawed to me. And a poor "end justifies the means" decision even if it would work.DeguelloTex wrote: »
At 11:22 it was, "Not more government." At 11:26, "It is more government." Your position is very confusing, though evolving at an admirable rate.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How is "Ban advertising junk to kids" not more government? Who's creating and enforcing the ban?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.
It is more government. We have to protect kids by owning our government and making it do so for us. But there are other areas we can safely tell the meddlers to get out and stay out. I don't want to get off topic, so I won't spell it all out or anything, I just know once we own our government we can come up with better food policy for adults and children. Right now it's all about greed.
We can stop the oil, drug, and vice wars. That is less government. We can ban junkfood advertising to kids. Net result: Still less government overall.
You're double fisting an argument there.
It is certainly true that advertisement viewing by kids is correlated with children's diet. It could be a more complex relationship, but I doubt companies are spending money on advertising for giggles.
As far as the first Ammendment, no one has a First Amendment right to television or radio advertising - those both involve use of public goods.
Show me where the First Amendment makes a public goods exception.
And not coincidentally, the ones who get to spread their views furthest, widest, and most often have $$$$.
But the internet has helped with some of that. And the information is out there, and to agree with the personal responsibility crowd on something: Now there is way less excuse to be ignorant, people do need to educate themselves!
Okay now I'll stop. I promise! Really this time.0 -
The stats are dreadful, and the '98 change doesn't affect that.
Rates of OBESITY in Illinois (for example) (this is BMI of 30 or over):
Non-Hispanic whites: 27%.
Non-Hispanic blacks: 40%.
Hispanics: 33%.
Given that it's self-reported, there's a decent chance it's higher.
For fairness, here are the stats I mentioned that suggested the increase had leveled off or stopped:Obesity and extreme obesity* among US low-income, preschool-aged children went down for the first time in recent years.
From 2003 through 2010, the prevalence of obesity decreased slightly from 15.21% to 14.94%. Similarly, the prevalence of extreme obesity decreased from 2.22% to 2.07%.
However, from 1998 through 2003, the prevalence of obesity increased from 13.05% to 15.21%, and the prevalence of extreme obesity increased from 1.75% to 2.22%.0 -
Any comparison of obesity rates prior to 1997 vs after are invalid. In 1997, 35 million Americans went to bed at a healthy weight and woke up overweight overnight, and a similar number of indubitably were demoted from "overweight" to "obese." The NIH redefined obesity that year.
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/things-you-may-not-know-about-government-and-obesity/
Except this is specifically obesity, not overweight. From your own link
So obesity used to be BMI > 27.8. BMI for obesity is now 30. The BMI cut off is higher, but obesity is worse? That means it is doubly worse.A 1985 federal consensus panel defined obesity as BMI ≥ 27.8 for men and ≥27.3 for women because these were the sex-specific 85th percentile of the BMI distribution of people aged 20-29 years old in NHANES II. - See more at: http://healthblog.ncpa.org/things-you-may-not-know-about-government-and-obesity/#sthash.0jYxmV34.dpuf0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
Regulating packaging, ads during children's programming, subsidizing things differently, prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens... This is an issue close to me, and this list is just the scratching of the surface of what would make up that 1/3 of what government/schools can/could/do do.0 -
I have heard that the self reporting is part of why the South often shows up worse on these things. When they did a follow up in person interview on people based on region, they found Southerners were more willing to tell someone their height and weight honestly over the phone than other regions.lemurcat12 wrote: »The stats are dreadful, and the '98 change doesn't affect that.
Rates of OBESITY in Illinois (for example) (this is BMI of 30 or over):
Non-Hispanic whites: 27%.
Non-Hispanic blacks: 40%.
Hispanics: 33%.
Given that it's self-reported, there's a decent chance it's higher.
For fairness, here are the stats I mentioned that suggested the increase had leveled off or stopped:Obesity and extreme obesity* among US low-income, preschool-aged children went down for the first time in recent years.
From 2003 through 2010, the prevalence of obesity decreased slightly from 15.21% to 14.94%. Similarly, the prevalence of extreme obesity decreased from 2.22% to 2.07%.
However, from 1998 through 2003, the prevalence of obesity increased from 13.05% to 15.21%, and the prevalence of extreme obesity increased from 1.75% to 2.22%.0 -
I have heard that the self reporting is part of why the South often shows up worse on these things. When they did a follow up in person interview on people based on region, they found Southerners were more willing to tell someone their height and weight honestly over the phone than other regions.lemurcat12 wrote: »The stats are dreadful, and the '98 change doesn't affect that.
Rates of OBESITY in Illinois (for example) (this is BMI of 30 or over):
Non-Hispanic whites: 27%.
Non-Hispanic blacks: 40%.
Hispanics: 33%.
Given that it's self-reported, there's a decent chance it's higher.
For fairness, here are the stats I mentioned that suggested the increase had leveled off or stopped:Obesity and extreme obesity* among US low-income, preschool-aged children went down for the first time in recent years.
From 2003 through 2010, the prevalence of obesity decreased slightly from 15.21% to 14.94%. Similarly, the prevalence of extreme obesity decreased from 2.22% to 2.07%.
However, from 1998 through 2003, the prevalence of obesity increased from 13.05% to 15.21%, and the prevalence of extreme obesity increased from 1.75% to 2.22%.
Us southerners let it all hang out, nothing to hide. Which is why so many of us end up featured on the crass, cruel, but always good for reminding us to double check our wardrobes when we go out: People of Walmart.
0 -
From JAMA, this image shows that between 1998 and now, it isn't simply a matter of reclassification
0 -
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.
+1 on this stuff.
Last week, I went to Parents Night at my son's middle school (he's in 8th grade this year.) The Health class syllabus for this year covers "sexuality; violence; and drugs & alcohol." I asked about nutrition, and the instructor said, "we covered that last year." Well, I remember what "covering that last year" looked like. It was a hand-out of the food pyramid.
This past summer (I began MFP in June), my kid noticed my dietary changes and I explained to him what I'm doing and why, which sparked a lot of questions and conversations. It's pretty great seeing him make better nutritional choices as a result of that and I'm happy about it, but I felt an underlying unease that he hasn't learned this stuff in middle school, and worse, that I've waited too long to teach him better, too.
I mentioned nutrition again to his Health teacher after the Parent Night speech was over, and the guy just shrugged it off. There are a lot of kids in middle school who are overweight and obese, it's distressing, and the school lunches are big servings, few (and sorry-looking) vegetables and a lot of fast food, which is why I have always sent my kid with a packed lunch. I'm going to be one of "those parents" who is going to nitpick until I get a better response than a shrug.A cooking class should also be mandatory.
Agreed.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.subsidizing things differently
That's a tough one. For example, subsidizing meat was brought up earlier on the thread, but (a) meat is already cheap in the US; (b) lots of nutritionists would say that's the opposite of what we should be doing; and (c) I personally am not comfortable with the idea of subsidizing factory farming of animals/eggs/dairy.
I would very much like to cut off ag subsidies in general (which would get rid of some of the weird corn/soy stuff), but that's certainly a political minefield.prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens...
Yes, of course, but communities vary a lot on these things. My city is doing a lot of them (and others poorly -- policing is currently a mess in various areas), and the effectiveness seems questionable. And of course we have NO money. Other places have different things to do -- they may have more money but for various reasons (I talked about this in another thread) no sidewalks and high barriers to getting anywhere other than by car.
Edit: you did include some of the structural things I think matter, like crime-related stuff, which is one issue I have -- I think a lot of what's relevant doesn't always get grouped in as obesity-related. Job stuff is of course relevant too, and public transportation. But a huge problem right now -- at least in my city -- is that the resources to deal with a lot of these things don't exist. We have lots of community gardening promotion, I think nutrition is schools isn't bad (but what the schools are dealing with is immense), we have great parks and walkability and biking options and decent public transportion -- but in some areas does this matter if they are unsafe?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.subsidizing things differently
That's a tough one. For example, subsidizing meat was brought up earlier on the thread, but (a) meat is already cheap in the US; (b) lots of nutritionists would say that's the opposite of what we should be doing; and (c) I personally am not comfortable with the idea of subsidizing factory farming of animals/eggs/dairy.
I would very much like to cut off ag subsidies in general (which would get rid of some of the weird corn/soy stuff), but that's certainly a political minefield.prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens...
Yes, of course, but communities vary a lot on these things. My city is doing a lot of them (and others poorly -- policing is currently a mess in various areas), and the effectiveness seems questionable. And of course we have NO money. Other places have different things to do -- they may have more money but for various reasons (I talked about this in another thread) no sidewalks and high barriers to getting anywhere other than by car.
Meat is already heavily subsidized. I also have similar qualms about factory farming. Could subsidize pasture raised, but do we have enough space to meet demand? This is an incredibly tricky issue near and dear to my carnivore heart.
I am willing to eat cloned beef if it gets cheap enough and ensure it's safe (which means everyone will have to eat it, no real cow for one class, cloned cow for the rest of us).0 -
I have heard that the self reporting is part of why the South often shows up worse on these things. When they did a follow up in person interview on people based on region, they found Southerners were more willing to tell someone their height and weight honestly over the phone than other regions.lemurcat12 wrote: »The stats are dreadful, and the '98 change doesn't affect that.
Rates of OBESITY in Illinois (for example) (this is BMI of 30 or over):
Non-Hispanic whites: 27%.
Non-Hispanic blacks: 40%.
Hispanics: 33%.
Given that it's self-reported, there's a decent chance it's higher.
For fairness, here are the stats I mentioned that suggested the increase had leveled off or stopped:Obesity and extreme obesity* among US low-income, preschool-aged children went down for the first time in recent years.
From 2003 through 2010, the prevalence of obesity decreased slightly from 15.21% to 14.94%. Similarly, the prevalence of extreme obesity decreased from 2.22% to 2.07%.
However, from 1998 through 2003, the prevalence of obesity increased from 13.05% to 15.21%, and the prevalence of extreme obesity increased from 1.75% to 2.22%.
Yeah, I actually posted a couple of links about that on another thread. (I actually wonder if it is directly relevant to the African American stats too, which likely disproportionately affect the Southern stats. In other words, that non African Americans are fatter than it appears.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.subsidizing things differently
That's a tough one. For example, subsidizing meat was brought up earlier on the thread, but (a) meat is already cheap in the US; (b) lots of nutritionists would say that's the opposite of what we should be doing; and (c) I personally am not comfortable with the idea of subsidizing factory farming of animals/eggs/dairy.
I would very much like to cut off ag subsidies in general (which would get rid of some of the weird corn/soy stuff), but that's certainly a political minefield.prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens...
Yes, of course, but communities vary a lot on these things. My city is doing a lot of them (and others poorly -- policing is currently a mess in various areas), and the effectiveness seems questionable. And of course we have NO money. Other places have different things to do -- they may have more money but for various reasons (I talked about this in another thread) no sidewalks and high barriers to getting anywhere other than by car.
Meat is already heavily subsidized. I also have similar qualms about factory farming. Could subsidize pasture raised, but do we have enough space to meet demand? This is an incredibly tricky issue near and dear to my carnivore heart.
I am willing to eat cloned beef if it gets cheap enough and ensure it's safe (which means everyone will have to eat it, no real cow for one class, cloned cow for the rest of us).
I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Note: I'm not saying the government is 1/3 to blame. I'm saying public policy should assume that government/schools are 1/3 of the solution.
I appreciate the lively, thoughtful debate. Let's do this over (logged and tracked) beer (that fits in our macros) sometimes 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.subsidizing things differently
That's a tough one. For example, subsidizing meat was brought up earlier on the thread, but (a) meat is already cheap in the US; (b) lots of nutritionists would say that's the opposite of what we should be doing; and (c) I personally am not comfortable with the idea of subsidizing factory farming of animals/eggs/dairy.
I would very much like to cut off ag subsidies in general (which would get rid of some of the weird corn/soy stuff), but that's certainly a political minefield.prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens...
Yes, of course, but communities vary a lot on these things. My city is doing a lot of them (and others poorly -- policing is currently a mess in various areas), and the effectiveness seems questionable. And of course we have NO money. Other places have different things to do -- they may have more money but for various reasons (I talked about this in another thread) no sidewalks and high barriers to getting anywhere other than by car.
Meat is already heavily subsidized. I also have similar qualms about factory farming. Could subsidize pasture raised, but do we have enough space to meet demand? This is an incredibly tricky issue near and dear to my carnivore heart.
I am willing to eat cloned beef if it gets cheap enough and ensure it's safe (which means everyone will have to eat it, no real cow for one class, cloned cow for the rest of us).
I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Note: I'm not saying the government is 1/3 to blame. I'm saying public policy should assume that government/schools are 1/3 of the solution.
I appreciate the lively, thoughtful debate. Let's do this over (logged and tracked) beer (that fits in our macros) sometimes
It's been fun, and mostly very civil. I'll swap the beer out for vodka as long as there is no junk food within walking distance. Darn alcohol munches!
New Zealand has come up with a great plan. I donate a dollar or two at the checkout of any store like Whole Foods that runs healthy eating programs in schools. Arguments on whole grains aside, kids need to know what fresh pumpkin, squash, and bell peppers look and taste like, and sadly, some don't!
Okay, they know pumpkin, but like me, they only know it by carving it for Halloween and eating it in a pie. My Mom tried to feed us healthy, but her menu was strangely limited for someone of her generation.0 -
I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
I added an edit to my prior response, in case you missed it (labeled for convenience).
I like this idea, but I'm not sure how much actual difference there is.
The reason is that in the US school breakfasts and lunches are under local control. I like the idea of increasing the number of fruits and veg, but some places probably already have a decent amount, whereas others just the minimum. (I know they've been trying to improve the nutrition in our public schools, which is huge in that many students are reliant on the free breakfasts and lunches. There's a tradeoff to improving them and making them the kinds of meals kids will happily eat. And this is actually an issue I've seen with meals in general (drawing from experience at a pantry and a homeless shelter, so admittedly limited) -- often the vegetables won't be taken when there are other options. Although to be fair often the free baked goods Starbucks gives out won't be taken either. So I guess where I live I'm not convinced that poor nutrition at the public schools is a big driver for obesity, although I could be wrong -- I'm not an expert and may be trusting too much some of the more positive things I've read.)
Here SNAP can be used at many farmer's markets/green markets too.0 -
Any comparison of obesity rates prior to 1997 vs after are invalid. In 1997, 35 million Americans went to bed at a healthy weight and woke up overweight overnight, and a similar number of indubitably were demoted from "overweight" to "obese." The NIH redefined obesity that year.
http://healthblog.ncpa.org/things-you-may-not-know-about-government-and-obesity/
Look at pictures of large public gatherings pre 1997 vs now. The number of obese is obviously higher regardless of a modification to the standard0 -
But the parents have to use the money on the fruits and vegetables.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Here SNAP can be used at many farmer's markets/green markets too.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you, though, ok? In my equation parents/kids are another 1/3 of the solution and food producers/advertisers/medical community are the other 1/3 of the solution. It's hard for the government/schools to have much of an impact if the other 2/3 of the solution aren't also doing their part.0 -
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the political discussion, but...
Educating children on nutrition is already part of the curriculum. Nothing has to be added. Nobody has to riot.
It's already being done. It just isn't being done well.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