Why are we bigger than ever?
Options
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.
I agree people have to eat less and move more if they want to weigh less, and that is an individual choice. While I'll call it someone's own responsibility, choice, or control, I don't see it as a blamable state. Blame implies people have done a wrong to others. A person's weight doesn't do me any harm.
In the US over 50% of medical costs are paid by government. Assuming you pay taxes the extra stress on the healthcare system dut to obesity related issues is costing you money.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ilovefastcarstoo wrote: »I also feel like we make food the center of entertainment and many options aren't very healthy. Now that I'm actually counting calories it's insane how much I used to actually eat for one meal. I feel fine after what I eat now. It's like my stomach has shrank and I can be satiated with way less amount of food. It's nice. I was also thinking about how some say it's too expensive to eat healthier but I also see people spend a lot on just one meal because they eat so much.
Food has been at the center of entertainment and enjoyment since forever...it's nothing new. The obesity epidemic isn't a result of "entertaining"...it's not a result of someone having people over for a BBQ or holidays or birthdays or other special occasions. The obesity epidemic is a result of people stuffing their faces all of the time...like constantly.
Food is more abundant and accessible than ever...on top of that, there's a ton of low nutrient, high calorie foods out there that can be consumed in mass quantities because of their low satiety values. When I was a kid, these types of things were actually "treats"...they are seemingly a much more significant part of one's diet these days.
When I was a kid, sodas and such were a "treat"...they weren't a daily beverage...now, it seems pretty common to see people walking around with super sized sodas to wash down their triple cheese bacon burger and enormous side of fries before heading back to the office to open their "stash" drawer of junk to snack on for the rest of the afternoon.
When I was younger, dining out seemed to be more of an occasion...I know people now who eat out pretty much 2-3 meals per day and rarely cook at home...then you add to that the fact that restaurant portions of food are considerably larger than they were 20-30-50 years ago.
Then you have to consider how much less active we are as a society. We sit, and sit, and sit some more. We sit in our cars commuting to our offices where we sit some more for long hour behind a desk...and then we get in the car and sit on our commute home...and when we get home we sit on the couch and scroll through a billion satellite channels. Kids sit around watching t.v. and playing video games rather than playing outside and riding their bikes around the neighborhood. Families spend less time together doing recreational activities...it's easier to just turn on the Netflix...etc, etc, etc.
I also think people used to participate in more recreational activities than I see now...maybe it was just my parents and the people they hung out with or something, but it seemed like my parents were always off playing tennis with their friends or my dad was at the gym with his buddies for some racket ball or whatever. As a family we spent a lot of time hiking in the mountains or out riding our bikes...shooting hoops in the driveway with pops, etc. I don't see a lot of that anymore.
TL/DR - People sit around all day stuffing their pie holes and they don't move much.
It's funny because I just watched a documentary on Lady Dai, a 2000 year old, very well preserved mummy found in China. She was buried with a lot of artifacts, two-thirds being food related. Upon investigating her cause of death they discovered she was obese, had diabetes and gall stones, and probably died of a coronary. She was also a member of the local aristocracy and had a slipped disc so she was sedentary.
Maybe it was all the fast food/gmo kemikalz in 221 b.c. that killed her?
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/enduring-mystery-lady-dai-mummy-0013570 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
Some actually make sense, some are crap:
Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones - Not necessarily a bad one. How about looking at it from a corporate level too (i.e. stop the insanely common usage of corn in the US).
Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling - Yes!
Restricting food advertising to children - Yes!
Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying - Yes!
Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory - Hell Yes! I could not believe how many kids at University (and now that was 20+ years ago) could cook basic healthy meals...
Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry - Yes!
Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss - No!
Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs - I don't think access is restricted as really it is based on knowledge. There has to be a shift on health in general and promotion of the healthy individual. The very low vacation, almost non-existant manternity/paternity leaves...
Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating - Yes!
Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law - Discrimination is already illegal...but you have to be careful.
Create greater access to bariatric surgery - No!
Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals - No! But it will happen.
I have no problem with some of the things that were listed. The problem with the list is it did not include a suggestion for the individual to eat less and move more.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.
I agree people have to eat less and move more if they want to weigh less, and that is an individual choice. While I'll call it someone's own responsibility, choice, or control, I don't see it as a blamable state. Blame implies people have done a wrong to others. A person's weight doesn't do me any harm.
In the US over 50% of medical costs are paid by government. Assuming you pay taxes the extra stress on the healthcare system dut to obesity related issues is costing you money.
So, is being a lumberjack or oil rig worker a blamable thing? People having those jobs have higher than average accident rates and that too strains the health care system. Is owning an SUV a blamable state? I pay for highways too and SUVs put a disproportionate amount of strain on the roads with heavy vehicles - semi's even more so, which leads to asking is ordering off the internet a blamable condition? I've never taken socialism to mean I have rights over another's persons body.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.
I agree people have to eat less and move more if they want to weigh less, and that is an individual choice. While I'll call it someone's own responsibility, choice, or control, I don't see it as a blamable state. Blame implies people have done a wrong to others. A person's weight doesn't do me any harm.
In the US over 50% of medical costs are paid by government. Assuming you pay taxes the extra stress on the healthcare system dut to obesity related issues is costing you money.
So, is being a lumberjack or oil rig worker a blamable thing? People having those jobs have higher than average accident rates and that too strains the health care system. Is owning an SUV a blamable state? I pay for highways too and SUVs put a disproportionate amount of strain on the roads with heavy vehicles - semi's even more so, which leads to asking is ordering off the internet a blamable condition? I've never taken socialism to mean I have rights over another's persons body.
Health and life insurance is generally more expensive for those with hazardous jobs/hobbies and preventable health issues like smoking.
Larger vehicles use more fuel so more fuel taxes. Semis generally pay additional use taxes.0 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all.
No one said anyone is forced. I don't eat McD's at all (don't like it).
The fact is that the increase in size of the standard options and existence of yet bigger options has an effect on what people see as normal. Same with portion sizes at lots of restaurants. I agree that there are restaurants where this is not the case (a point I made upthread), but it's simply false to deny that the standard fast food serving size has changed.
The evidence is that as portion size has changed people eat more. (Again, I'm not saying they have to or that's not a choice. I'm talking about broad social influences.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all.
No one said anyone is forced. I don't eat McD's at all (don't like it).
The fact is that the increase in size of the standard options and existence of yet bigger options has an effect on what people see as normal. Same with portion sizes at lots of restaurants. I agree that there are restaurants where this is not the case (a point I made upthread), but it's simply false to deny that the standard fast food serving size has changed.
The evidence is that as portion size has changed people eat more. (Again, I'm not saying they have to or that's not a choice. I'm talking about broad social influences.)
Five years ago I had a job that required a good deal of travelling. I ate in restaurants three times a day. While I did not log or try to eat perfectly, I tried to me mindful of calorie dense foods and never consumed anything with calories between meals. This was the last time in my life I rapidly gained a large amount of weight. Before doing the math, I assumed it was because of the drop in my exercise level. Once I started logging, I decided to measure the calories for several of the days where I remembered what I ordered. The numbers I got were in the 3400 to 3600 range. This despite the fact that I consumed no deserts, no sugary soda, added butter to nothing, and had nothing deep fried. I typically had two glasses of red wine or less over dinner-the only calories from drinking. At the beginning I weighed 12 pounds more than my ideal marathon running weight. My TDEE was around 2800 at that time.......0 -
THISx1000!!!!!youngmomtaz wrote: »Desk jobs, immobile hobbies, automatic everything, too much packaged food, junk food being cheaper than fruit and veg(I am in Canada and the cost of fruit and veggies has pretty much doubled in the last 5years).
I really think many people are tired. Legitimately tired. I hear people say it all the time. We work long hours in artificial light, don't move enough during our workdays and come home to boxed foods. I know I get home and just want a nap or a 4l pail of ice cream, or both. Not everyone realizes how much energy some sunshine and light walking can give you. And that small combination might actually motivate you to do more and be healthier.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »endlessfall16 wrote: »I disagree that portions are getting bigger. I've been eating fast foods for decades and the portions served in many places have actually shrunk.
Portions, including fast food portions, have objectively gotten larger.
(I don't know why this article was written way in the future.)
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=4798717&page=1
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/04/15/are-portion-sizes-shrinking
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/homestyle/04/19/shrinking.your.food/
The "common folks'" feedbacks
http://www.yelp.com/topic/chicago-whats-with-all-the-shrinking-food-portions
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20825325/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/any-other-name-its-still-supersize/
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/serving-sizes-fast-food-changed-1427.html
Here are two of a million articles demonstrating that fast food servings have increased. The "supersize" options did not exist in the 80s. Regular then was small now.
McD got rid of its "Supersize" option. On the other hands they keep or add a ton of 1 dollar or cheap items. You are not "forced", in consumerism sense, to get a large option at all.
No one said anyone is forced. I don't eat McD's at all (don't like it).
The fact is that the increase in size of the standard options and existence of yet bigger options has an effect on what people see as normal. Same with portion sizes at lots of restaurants. I agree that there are restaurants where this is not the case (a point I made upthread), but it's simply false to deny that the standard fast food serving size has changed.
The evidence is that as portion size has changed people eat more. (Again, I'm not saying they have to or that's not a choice. I'm talking about broad social influences.)
Five years ago I had a job that required a good deal of travelling. I ate in restaurants three times a day. While I did not log or try to eat perfectly, I tried to me mindful of calorie dense foods and never consumed anything with calories between meals. This was the last time in my life I rapidly gained a large amount of weight. Before doing the math, I assumed it was because of the drop in my exercise level. Once I started logging, I decided to measure the calories for several of the days where I remembered what I ordered. The numbers I got were in the 3400 to 3600 range. This despite the fact that I consumed no deserts, no sugary soda, added butter to nothing, and had nothing deep fried. I typically had two glasses of red wine or less over dinner-the only calories from drinking. At the beginning I weighed 12 pounds more than my ideal marathon running weight. My TDEE was around 2800 at that time.......
It's crazy how many calories some meals at most restaurants can have. I think for most people, not eating out near as much can help a ton.
0 -
Lumberjacks and roustabouts pay no more taxes though, and they have increased risk of having to live on permanent disability from their occupation. I've never had to list my hobbies for insurance. Most places I've worked charge the same for smokers so long as they claimed they were in the process of quitting.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Why are we bigger? Simple answer? An obesogenic environment.
Longer answer?
http://www.bodyforwife.com/what-is-the-solution-to-obesity/
"Long work hours spent in a chair, high stress levels, overuse of screen-based entertainment, lack of cooking skills, lack of desire to cook after a long day, the ability to hit a drive-through or dial for delivery at any time of day, emotional trauma, misinformation promoted by the weight loss industry, gigantic portions, government subsidies to fattening foods, food marketing run amok (much of which specifically targets children), ever tastier concoctions created by brain scientists working for food corporations that makes their treat foods ever more compelling, a society that places emphasis on eating for pleasure instead of fuelling your body … all these things just scratch the surface."
What do we do about it?- Subsidizing the right foods, and taxing the wrong ones
- Placing tighter restrictions on food labeling
- Restricting food advertising to children
- Stop corporate-government partnerships and rein in lobbying
- Revamp home economics in school, and make it mandatory
- Place tighter controls on the weight loss industry
- Stop promoting physical activity as the solution for weight loss
- Create better access to evidence-based weight management programs
- Create national advertising campaigns that promote healthier eating
- Make prejudice against people with obesity against the law
- Create greater access to bariatric surgery
- Continue research into weight loss pharmaceuticals
What do we do right now?
"A good first step is to realize that food corporations and most weight loss programs are lying to you. Any time something sounds too good to be true, it is. When it comes to weight loss, calories are all that matter"
Sorry, big fail on the "what do we do now". All of the "solutions" blame/put the responsibility on others. How about the individual eats less and moves more at the top of the list in red, bolded?
No matter how snarky your response, Orphia is right. Humans are not rational actors who make perfect decisions. Never have been, never will be. It's not about "other people" either - it is about changing social relations, which involve the self as much as the others, as well as cultures, economies, and environments.
Sorry it's not a snarky response. Regardless of all the factors listed, the biggest factor is what people put in their mouths and how much they more (absent a medical condition). To not even list anything regarding personal responsibility to eat less/move more makes the list worthless.
Playing the victim doesn't get most people too far with any endeavor. Eating less and moving more is actionable by the individual, not dependent on public policy, marketing decisions, etc.
You're both talking past each other because you're viewing different levels of analysis. There are influences at the macro level that definitively correlate far to strongly with changes to be coincidence in terms of affect weight. That does not mean at the micro level that those influences force anyone to do something.
Nobody forces any person to take a salary, but it would anyone say salary is based purely on one's negotiating skills without respect to the skills the job involves, and the demand in the market for those skills?
At the macro level most developed countries are taking in more calories and burning less than they were 20-30 years ago.
Many factors, but you have to agree, assuming some personal responsibility along with blaming "them" is needed.
I agree people have to eat less and move more if they want to weigh less, and that is an individual choice. While I'll call it someone's own responsibility, choice, or control, I don't see it as a blamable state. Blame implies people have done a wrong to others. A person's weight doesn't do me any harm.
In the US over 50% of medical costs are paid by government. Assuming you pay taxes the extra stress on the healthcare system dut to obesity related issues is costing you money.
So, is being a lumberjack or oil rig worker a blamable thing? People having those jobs have higher than average accident rates and that too strains the health care system. Is owning an SUV a blamable state? I pay for highways too and SUVs put a disproportionate amount of strain on the roads with heavy vehicles - semi's even more so, which leads to asking is ordering off the internet a blamable condition? I've never taken socialism to mean I have rights over another's persons body.
Health and life insurance is generally more expensive for those with hazardous jobs/hobbies and preventable health issues like smoking.
Larger vehicles use more fuel so more fuel taxes. Semis generally pay additional use taxes.
For fuel use, and not all highway funds are taxes that are equated to use. Semis have fees, but they by and far use up the road more than they pay into the system. A few proposals have pushed to remove semis and replace them with rail as a way to leave the roads more safely maintained.0 -
Everyone is aware of the obesity issue. A lot of people just aren't willing to control it. As far as the reasons for it-technology is a big culprit. More people sit around all day watching TV/playing video games/surfing the net and we aren't as active now as we were even 30 or 40 years ago. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. It was rare for children back then to be diagnosed with diabetes. Now it's not so uncommon. Not only do kids today spend more time indoors, many school districts have cut down on gym classes or eliminated them altogether for financial reasons which is detrimental to their health. Also food additives such as HFCS which are nutritionally empty but calorie dense are another culprit.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions