New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.
Well yes, and I think we can take it as read that anyone on MFP is doing what they can at the level of the individual. That's not really the subject of this thread though0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.
Well yes, and I think we can take it as read that anyone on MFP is doing what they can at the level of the individual.* That's not really the subject of this thread though
No one is saying it is. We've been discussing public policy.
However, I think people often take comments about (1) in other threads as statements that (2) is irrelevant, and that's annoying, so I wanted to repeat senecarr's helpful distinction.
*This is not what I have seen at MFP, but it's not worth discussing now.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.
That makes sense. I can totally see insurance companies playing an important role in changing things. But what are you suggesting would be the way it would happen, people getting annoyed at their premiums (when set by average risk for a given location), or insurance companies holding individuals to behavioural change requirements to keep rates lower?
I'm fine with a focus on individual behaviour, but I think the landscape -the food industry, restaurants etc - needs changes too.
(I am very tired and edited that 3 times to have it make some kind of sense, sorry)
Yes. Rising premiums can cause a demand for change.
I know other countries are ahead of the USA with social medicine so I tend to watch them to see what may become the new norm for the USA. It may have been in the UK where someone was obese and needed a knee or hip replacement but they had to lose weight first. In another case the person may have been a smoker and they were to quit smoking before treatment would happen.
There is one easy way to cut health care cost and that is to find reasons not to render as many services.
In the USA it will take a new generation of politicians I expect to change things from top down. The food industry is still writing the script of what is good and what is bad to eat in my view.
From another post I do see it is the more poor that are the most obese in the USA.
We have serious problems that is and will impact the productive output of nations. Dr. William Davis deals with this in his last book that I just read called Wheat Belly Total Health. He drives home many people can not lose weight with the current foods they are eating because the food itself can drive cravings that drive overeating.
Deer season is here again and more and more are hunting to stock the freezer since beef prices are so high. It is not just a sport any longer for many but a good major protein source.
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.
But...but...I just stocked up on torches and pitchforks!
Cooking classes, though. We can riot for those. Just make the Hot Pocket munching brats spend an hour every day learning to cook. And I don't mean instant anything, either. I mean fruits, veggies, and meats. Then the poor things have to eat what they cooked as their school lunch. Way to learn fast!
I had cooking classes when I was in school. They were completely useless. I ate better in college with my microwave chili snack packs and tuna salad lunch packs than I would have eating what we made (even if it'd been made correctly).
Well that's sad, but just because it wasn't done right doesn't mean it can't be. I know it won't be cheap, but the brats are worth it!girlwithcurls2 wrote: »Let the people riot in the streets. They'll be the fat ones, and we can outrun them...
I was waiting until I hit goal weight to buy my running shoes and try running again, but maybe I should start now! I know some pretty fast fat people, maybe I can be one of them!
Oh wait, I know! Bicycle riot! I can bike at a pretty good clip!
It is sad, but that's why no one cared when those types of classes were removed from the curriculum. Because actually teaching someone to cook in such a way that they can apply those lessons in a practical way is not easy.
I'm not talking apply as in 'replicate the recipe you made in class', I mean as in you've learned the fundamentals of cooking and are ready to tackle new recipes, unknown ingredients, even adjust on the fly. I don't see how that would be possible at a school without an extensive equipment purchase at the least. This type of learning really needs to be hands on.
On the plus side, the cost/benefit could be optimized by using cooking classes as reinforcement to various levels of math, physics, chemistry, and biology.
Now that is a good idea!0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.
That makes sense. I can totally see insurance companies playing an important role in changing things. But what are you suggesting would be the way it would happen, people getting annoyed at their premiums (when set by average risk for a given location), or insurance companies holding individuals to behavioural change requirements to keep rates lower?
I'm fine with a focus on individual behaviour, but I think the landscape -the food industry, restaurants etc - needs changes too.
(I am very tired and edited that 3 times to have it make some kind of sense, sorry)
Yes. Rising premiums can cause a demand for change.
My company offers PPO health plans that are entirely funded by a fixed company contribution per person plus an employee premium that varies from year to year. Next year's premium costs are entirely dependent on this year's costs. Also, the deductible is lower for people who submit to weight, BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure and waist circumference screenings and then either 1) measure at or below certain benchmarks or 2) make improvements towards the benchmarks. The point they are driving home is that the premiums for health care are being put squarely into the employee's hands and that being healthy or getting healthy will payoff right away. One of the hopes is that peer pressure will succeed where top-down "let's all remember to exercise and eat salad for lunch!" initiatives have failed. Time will tell.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »We have serious problems that is and will impact the productive output of nations. Dr. William Davis deals with this in his last book that I just read called Wheat Belly Total Health. He drives home many people can not lose weight with the current foods they are eating because the food itself can drive cravings that drive overeating.
It's simply not true that the food industry is the only thing standing in the way of us, as a society, adopting the faddish scapegoating that Dr. Davis promotes. The food industry and big ag have too much sway over ag policy and subsidies, but I think there's not that much credible disagreement about what a healthy diet is.
This was posted the other day, and I rather like it: http://bigthink.com/videos/david-katz-on-what-we-know-about-diet0 -
My employer tried this a while back but then stopped0
-
peter56765 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.
That makes sense. I can totally see insurance companies playing an important role in changing things. But what are you suggesting would be the way it would happen, people getting annoyed at their premiums (when set by average risk for a given location), or insurance companies holding individuals to behavioural change requirements to keep rates lower?
I'm fine with a focus on individual behaviour, but I think the landscape -the food industry, restaurants etc - needs changes too.
(I am very tired and edited that 3 times to have it make some kind of sense, sorry)
Yes. Rising premiums can cause a demand for change.
My company offers PPO health plans that are entirely funded by a fixed company contribution per person plus an employee premium that varies from year to year. Next year's premium costs are entirely dependent on this year's costs. Also, the deductible is lower for people who submit to weight, BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure and waist circumference screenings and then either 1) measure at or below certain benchmarks or 2) make improvements towards the benchmarks. The point they are driving home is that the premiums for health care are being put squarely into the employee's hands and that being healthy or getting healthy will payoff right away. One of the hopes is that peer pressure will succeed where top-down "let's all remember to exercise and eat salad for lunch!" initiatives have failed. Time will tell.
I kind of wish my insurance had premiums work something like that. These last two years I could do well on the improving benchmarks front.0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »We have serious problems that is and will impact the productive output of nations. Dr. William Davis deals with this in his last book that I just read called Wheat Belly Total Health. He drives home many people can not lose weight with the current foods they are eating because the food itself can drive cravings that drive overeating.
It's simply not true that the food industry is the only thing standing in the way of us, as a society, adopting the faddish scapegoating that Dr. Davis promotes. The food industry and big ag have too much sway over ag policy and subsidies, but I think there's not that much credible disagreement about what a healthy diet is.
This was posted the other day, and I rather like it: http://bigthink.com/videos/david-katz-on-what-we-know-about-diet
I would say the level of difference appreciable to Food and Ag industry lobbying has to be something less than the difference between US BMI averages, and European BMI averages. Yes, they're better than the USA, but they also have higher urbanization (which I think is an influence), and are still increasing.
It might be interesting to see what a BMI versus per capita food advertising spending or per capita food political consultancy spending by country.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Technically, politic discussions are mildly accepted inside of MFP groups. It would be interesting to make a health policy's discussion group on MFP and see if you'd be allowed to link to threads in the group.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Technically, politic discussions are mildly accepted inside of MFP groups. It would be interesting to make a health policy's discussion group on MFP and see if you'd be allowed to link to threads in the group.
It would be nice if there was an official health policy forum here. But I get it. Poor mods!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Technically, politic discussions are mildly accepted inside of MFP groups. It would be interesting to make a health policy's discussion group on MFP and see if you'd be allowed to link to threads in the group.
I'd like for this to happen0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.
Right. I'm not a parent either but I admittedly watch some kids programming (Spongebob Squarepants is one example of a kids show that is still in production that I like). Banning food advertisers just concerns me that it could come at the cost of the quality or even prevalence of kids programming. Take a demographic off the table for major advertisers, why would any talent put good energy into creating content for that demographic?
But even with the obesity epidemic, and even with food advertising targeted at kids being effective (which is the point of any targeted advertising) I'm still not convinced the ends justify the means. I'm personally not ready to lump food companies in with big tobacco and pornographers just yet... it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
@senecarr toys, like cartoons, look increasingly odd/disorienting the more similar their likeness is to real physiques and features. The creepiest-looking toys and cartoons I can think of are the one's where characters look almost exactly like the things they look like. But that's another conversation.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »We have serious problems that is and will impact the productive output of nations. Dr. William Davis deals with this in his last book that I just read called Wheat Belly Total Health. He drives home many people can not lose weight with the current foods they are eating because the food itself can drive cravings that drive overeating.
It's simply not true that the food industry is the only thing standing in the way of us, as a society, adopting the faddish scapegoating that Dr. Davis promotes. The food industry and big ag have too much sway over ag policy and subsidies, but I think there's not that much credible disagreement about what a healthy diet is.
This was posted the other day, and I rather like it: http://bigthink.com/videos/david-katz-on-what-we-know-about-diet
I would say the level of difference appreciable to Food and Ag industry lobbying has to be something less than the difference between US BMI averages, and European BMI averages. Yes, they're better than the USA, but they also have higher urbanization (which I think is an influence), and are still increasing.
Yeah, great point. There are some really obvious differences -- cultural ones and structural ones (leading to more daily activity in Europe) -- that would account for a lot of that, although the cultural ones seem to be lessening. So the remaining difference only.
And of course my point -- that still has NOTHING to do with Davis' hobbyhorse about demon wheat. (I wonder what the relative wheat consumption is in, say, Italy vs. the US.)
Edit: oh, here we are, although it's not comprehensive--wheat consumption per capita, 2004 (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Grains/Wheat/Consumption-per-million). Of the countries looked at, per capita:
1. Australia
11. USA0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Technically, politic discussions are mildly accepted inside of MFP groups. It would be interesting to make a health policy's discussion group on MFP and see if you'd be allowed to link to threads in the group.
I'd like for this to happen
My frustration is that if there's a health policy discussion group, it immediately creates barriers to access: people need to know about the group, how to find it, and how to join it.
But a health policy general discussion board wouldn't work either, because it'd be subject to current moderation/reporting practices. Besides, there are a lot of hot topics in addition to health policy. I'd enjoy hashing out some of the other issues that tend to get shut down here as well. But I won't derail this thread any further with that conversation. Maybe I'll just make the suggestion and wait for it to get shot down =P.
For what it's worth (and in case anyone from TPTB are reading):
+10 -
Lourdesong wrote: »it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
Like I said, I really haven't given this enough thought and don't actually feel strongly about it, but my issue isn't that food makers (or toy makers) are monstrous. It's more that there's something a little off about advertising to kids, who aren't doing the buying and who don't yet have the mental capacity to approach the ad with the same, er, healthy skepticism, although they probably get there sooner and sooner. If you want parents to buy it, convince the parents. Don't try to work through kids getting excited and whining/begging, etc.
(I do happen to agree that it's the parent's responsibility to resist the whining and control the kid's access to media--and I recall my parents being plenty good at that--but I don't currently feel like there's any great right to advertising aimed at people too young to be actually the buyers. Of course, this gets murky because kids do directly buy some things, depending on the age.)0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.
Right. I'm not a parent either but I admittedly watch some kids programming (Spongebob Squarepants is one example of a kids show that is still in production that I like). Banning food advertisers just concerns me that it could come at the cost of the quality or even prevalence of kids programming. Take a demographic off the table for major advertisers, why would any talent put good energy into creating content for that demographic?
But even with the obesity epidemic, and even with food advertising targeted at kids being effective (which is the point of any targeted advertising) I'm still not convinced the ends justify the means. I'm personally not ready to lump food companies in with big tobacco and pornographers just yet... it doesn't make sense to me that food companies peddling Fruit roll ups or Gushers or Lucky Charms or Chuck E. Cheese should be banned from advertising their food product to kids because some of whom eat way too much food in general.
@senecarr toys, like cartoons, look increasingly odd/disorienting the more similar their likeness is to real physiques and features. The creepiest-looking toys and cartoons I can think of are the one's where characters look almost exactly like the things they look like. But that's another conversation.
It's an interesting thing, the whole advertising to children thing. Yes, it's effective, but at the same time, they don't have any money. So, on that front, I think it is on the parents. I'm sure it's extremely difficult to say no when they see it all the time, but the parents going out and buying it is what makes it effective.
As for the first amendment, we do a lot in the name of "think of the children."
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions