Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
“Large” Restaurant Customers need special accommodation?
Replies
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point
No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.
It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.
In situations like this, I've personally found the best way to 'help' is to lead by example.
The overweight people in my life know they're overweight, just like I did when I was.
The intent of my genuine concern for them aside, I know how easily that can be misinterpreted as being judgey, demeaning, or worse - seen as being self-congratulatory. The ol, "Hey, look at me! If I can do it, you can, too!" really isn't as inspirational as one might think. LOL. It can definitely backfire.
I've found that people will generally only chose to do something about their obesity when they're entirely ready to. What triggers them into finally making a change is highly individual and usually has nothing to do with 'talks' from concerned friends or family. It's most likely that - medical emergencies aside - they were simply ready to finally start doing something about a health issue they've been aware of for a long time.
The obese people in my life have watched me lose weight. They've also watched me keep it off. We've talked about it in casual conversation, but only when they bought it up. I gave them as much (or, more importantly - as little) information as their level of interest warranted at the time. Planted a seed, if you will, and then let it go.
When and if they're ready to make a change and want to talk to someone who's been there, they know where to find me. In the interim, it's important to me that they haven't felt judged.
@snickerscharlie First off..I always love your responses 🙂
I never even realized I didn't mention my weight when talking to my SiL until you just mentioned it...she had been rushed to the hospital with a variety of symptoms that screamed cardiac event, turned out to be major stress, physical and mental/ emotional. She's abused herself with food for years and we really thought we were going to lose her. Unacceptable lol. Wonderful woman, and the whole talk was basically "we love you and need you " with offers to help any way we could. Thank God she listened. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and she looks great, and maybe more importantly, Happy and determined 🙂
You're so right In your approach though...5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
One could even argue that larger restaurant portions - and they are larger than they once were, and I think the foods more caloric on average now - is one (among very many) factors that contribute(d) to the prevalence of obesity.
Before anyone starts thinking I'm making an "evil restaurantz made me fat!" pitch, I'm not.
People (statistically speaking) like large portions, it seems like a good value, and feels more indulgent to the consumer, so offering large portions is a business decision that's responsive to peoples' tastes (population-wide averages/trends, not individual preference). Same with more fried fat/carb foods that are high in calories: People order them, restaurants offer more. There's no conspiracy. The restaurant industry responds to customer behavior (injecting cost-minimizing measures where it doesn't excessively drag down their customer numbers).
There's no conspiracy. IMO, all of this is driven primarily by collective consumer preference, with individual choices at the root, and those are an individual responsibility. If we used our money to "vote" that we wanted different fare, we'd get it.
I agree that it's not restaurants' job to shape our individual behavior. IMO it can be a little bit something "society" should sometimes try to shape (through laws/regulations among other measures), where individual behavior creates social costs (like the alcohol example); and in general, intelligent positive influences (and maybe a few "make bad stuff expensive" ones, like tobacco taxes) are likely to be more effective at a societal level than fostering unaccommodating strategies.
Exactly. I think we all get how calories work and that no specific food makes you fat. That said, if one is regularly ordering food at a restaurant based on whatever sounds tastiest and is eating all or almost all the food that is served, weight management will tend to be more difficult because restaurants are very, very good at giving us what we want.
When you're looking at the restaurant-related factors of American obesity, the food has a lot more to do with it than the chairs.5 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Not to mention the lawsuits that would stem from such confrontations...
I personally don't see a clear answer that wouldn't fall left or right of center, either by potentially insulting someone's dignity or by infringing in an unfair manner on the restaurant owners rights.
The woman the article is about seems to have the most fair stance and course of action in my opinion. Others living with obesity for whatever reason might appreciate her effort and the reasoning behind it quite a bit. I have no way of knowing that.
I actually think the proposed solution (an app that lets people know what restaurants have voluntarily taken steps to make themselves more comfortable for larger people) is pretty reasonable.
Eventually I suspect it will sort itself out just like other restaurant issues do. I don't expect every place I go to have vegan or plant-based options, but I appreciate being able to check up online to see before I order. Same with other special requests like gluten-free dishes or alcohol-free cocktails. Places that are interested in the money associated with those things will offer them, other places will decide it is too much trouble. If there truly is a market for more comfortable seating for larger people, I expect we'll just naturally see more of it in the future without too much effort on anyone's part.
I agree with you...it was the app I was referencing as a good effort. And yes, a restaurant is a business first and foremost. Those who want to keep the customer base will choose to accommodate.
A bit of a side note...I always squirm a bit whenever talk arises that carries any hint of over stepping personal boundaries. This isn't directed at you, just generally, but I'm fairly certain that people who are obese know it. I'd much rather err on the side of treating others with dignity.
Yes, I have the same policy. When it comes to the weight of other people, I'm not saying anything unless they specifically ask for my opinion or input.
🙂👍 I have made exceptions in the case of a couple of loved ones though, but that's a whole different topic.
Yeah, I think it can be appropriate when it's a family member or someone very close and the conversation was coming from a place of true concern. I've never been in that boat, fortunately, but if I did have a family member who was significantly over- or underweight, I would probably also talk to them.
It was so worth it in one case, she (SiL) is now down about 30lbs...about 120 to go. My dad...well, he didn't listen. Trying was the right thing to do though.
In situations like this, I've personally found the best way to 'help' is to lead by example.
The overweight people in my life know they're overweight, just like I did when I was.
The intent of my genuine concern for them aside, I know how easily that can be misinterpreted as being judgey, demeaning, or worse - seen as being self-congratulatory. The ol, "Hey, look at me! If I can do it, you can, too!" really isn't as inspirational as one might think. LOL. It can definitely backfire.
I've found that people will generally only chose to do something about their obesity when they're entirely ready to. What triggers them into finally making a change is highly individual and usually has nothing to do with 'talks' from concerned friends or family. It's most likely that - medical emergencies aside - they were simply ready to finally start doing something about a health issue they've been aware of for a long time.
The obese people in my life have watched me lose weight. They've also watched me keep it off. We've talked about it in casual conversation, but only when they bought it up. I gave them as much (or, more importantly - as little) information as their level of interest warranted at the time. Planted a seed, if you will, and then let it go.
When and if they're ready to make a change and want to talk to someone who's been there, they know where to find me. In the interim, it's important to me that they haven't felt judged.
@snickerscharlie First off..I always love your responses 🙂
I never even realized I didn't mention my weight when talking to my SiL until you just mentioned it...she had been rushed to the hospital with a variety of symptoms that screamed cardiac event, turned out to be major stress, physical and mental/ emotional. She's abused herself with food for years and we really thought we were going to lose her. Unacceptable lol. Wonderful woman, and the whole talk was basically "we love you and need you " with offers to help any way we could. Thank God she listened. I saw her a couple of weeks ago and she looks great, and maybe more importantly, Happy and determined 🙂
You're so right In your approach though...
Looks like she had a wake-up call, and with the suppport of those that love her, was ready to make some changes. Kudos to you and her!
1 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
Are you again making an intentionally absurd argument to provoke thought and discussion?
Here in the US (and I believe the UK, Canada, and other first-world countries) quite a lot of money and energy is spent at the societal level (both governments and non-profits) to encourage people toward a healthy weight.
That includes creating, maintaining and publicizing excellent and useful nutritional resources; setting up food-assistance policies and practices to encourage healthy choices (here in my state, extra-money food assistance multipiers for use at farmers' markets, limitations on what products may be purchased in stores using food assistance, classes in meal-planning/cooking/preserving/gardening; etc); publicity campaigns and local-government-sponsored events to foster increased exercise; in some places, extra taxes on "bad" foods (this gets lots of push back, still); educational materials for K-12 use including fun (?) games and such; and lots more.
No, we don't arrest people yet for eating too much. But "not confronting the problem"? That's not what's going on.
We can argue the effectiveness, but it's not that no effort is being made.7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
Are you again making an intentionally absurd argument to provoke thought and discussion?
Here in the US (and I believe the UK, Canada, and other first-world countries) quite a lot of money and energy is spent at the societal level (both governments and non-profits) to encourage people toward a healthy weight.
That includes creating, maintaining and publicizing excellent and useful nutritional resources; setting up food-assistance policies and practices to encourage healthy choices (here in my state, extra-money food assistance multipiers for use at farmers' markets, limitations on what products may be purchased in stores using food assistance, classes in meal-planning/cooking/preserving/gardening; etc); publicity campaigns and local-government-sponsored events to foster increased exercise; in some places, extra taxes on "bad" foods (this gets lots of push back, still); educational materials for K-12 use including fun (?) games and such; and lots more.
No, we don't arrest people yet for eating too much. But "not confronting the problem"? That's not what's going on.
We can argue the effectiveness, but it's not that no effort is being made.
In addition to public efforts, there are also efforts being made in the private sector. Many businesses (including the one I work for) have programs that offer support with weight loss. There are health insurance incentives related to various lifestyle/metric changes and discounts on various services/products that support a more active life.4 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
That's different than trying to open discussions about how to lose weight with people who you think are interested in it (and most fat people tend to be), and then letting them ask for ideas based on your success or the like. Or just sharing things you think are interesting about weight loss and strategies or about other things relating to a healthy lifestyle.
I'm very firmly someone who likes to figure stuff out for myself and try things that I think may work (based on research). I also knew I was fat well before I lost weight ('cause, duh), but there were certain barriers as to why I wasn't ready that I worked on. When I decided to lose, I lost. Had someone thinner in my family (like my sister, my father) been nagging me to lose or telling me I was fat constantly or insisting that I do things they decided I should do, rather than allowing me to figure it out and do things privately, for the most part, I don't know that I would have been able to lose the weight and it certainly would have been much harder, since it was something I had to decide to do for me, not because others thought I wasn't worthy unless I did. And it would have felt like I was allowing them to take my agency away, to not respect me as a human, and ultimately like they were trying to take credit for my own decisions and success.
My dad nagged my mom constantly about how he thought she needed to lose weight (she was always struggling with her weight although not morbidly obese) and exercise the ways he wanted her to exercise (she liked to walk and do social things, he got into super competitive mode and would not be fun to run or bike with unless you didn't mind that that was his mindset). Would weight loss have helped her ultimate health issues? With her condition there's no assurance it would have, but maybe? But my dad nagging her and her feeling like he didn't respect her and was insisting that she needed to do it his way did not.
My dad's current SO actually got him to be a lot more healthy (he was not overweight but there were positive changes to make) simply by modeling a great lifestyle and being excited about things like nutrition, gardening, more stress reducing ways to be active (helpful when one is in ones 70s) and so on. None of that involved negative feedback really, although she will more lightly poke fun at him some about some things that affect his stress in a way that seems to work for him.
Anyway, back when I was still fat I knew my dad was getting all excited to have a conversation about it with me, and in my mind it was pretty clearly more about it being embarrassing for him to have a fat daughter than genuine concern about my health, and I was really just thinking about avoiding him and coming up with reasons not to visit, but instead I reached out to him and said that I knew I was fat and that (obviously) there were longterm health risks involved, but that I was working on it and having him comment would not be helpful at all. He acknowledged that, thank goodness, since as I said before having people comment on my weight is something that for me makes it harder to lose for a lot of reasons.
And to me it felt like an insult to my intelligence too -- yes, really? I had no clue, since I'm apparently completely stupid!10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
Are you again making an intentionally absurd argument to provoke thought and discussion?
Here in the US (and I believe the UK, Canada, and other first-world countries) quite a lot of money and energy is spent at the societal level (both governments and non-profits) to encourage people toward a healthy weight.
That includes creating, maintaining and publicizing excellent and useful nutritional resources; setting up food-assistance policies and practices to encourage healthy choices (here in my state, extra-money food assistance multipiers for use at farmers' markets, limitations on what products may be purchased in stores using food assistance, classes in meal-planning/cooking/preserving/gardening; etc); publicity campaigns and local-government-sponsored events to foster increased exercise; in some places, extra taxes on "bad" foods (this gets lots of push back, still); educational materials for K-12 use including fun (?) games and such; and lots more.
No, we don't arrest people yet for eating too much. But "not confronting the problem"? That's not what's going on.
We can argue the effectiveness, but it's not that no effort is being made.
In addition to public efforts, there are also efforts being made in the private sector. Many businesses (including the one I work for) have programs that offer support with weight loss. There are health insurance incentives related to various lifestyle/metric changes and discounts on various services/products that support a more active life.
And to be fair, bars and cigarette companies (in general at least) don't limit their customers out of concern. They are required to do so either by law or in an effort to avoid being sued.
In order to argue a parallel, you would need to be suggesting that obese people should be able to sue their favorite restaurants for over-serving them, or the government should pass a law requiring some kind of restrictions on the calorie density of meals, or perhaps need to take all customers measurements and provide them with a handout detailing their calorie needs and the dangers of exceeding them.
I for one would not make that parallel -1 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.5 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
Oh, I know, and even the Polish cleaning woman at my workplace used to comment on stuff that I couldn't imagine commenting on. She didn't tell me I was fat, but when I lost weight she would go on and on about it to a bothersome degree, and even said to a (male) employee "doesn't she look better, how much weight do you think she lost?"
That was weird, but I'm not talking about things that occur in different cultural contexts.And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
See, within the US, that seems like you are basically saying the person you are talking to is stupid, or at least that is how I'd tend to take it. I'd try to consider intent, sure, but my point was that I would find it the opposite of helpful, and that's one reason I'd be very wary of doing it myself (as opposed to trying to show I enjoy talking about stuff like cooking and nutrition and exercise and weight loss and am open for any such conversations, joint efforts).
When I was fat I'd tend to head off unhelpful comments by being pretty upfront about how I was fat, ha, ha, just to make sure no one felt compelled to enlighten me (which was no doubt overly weird and defensive).5 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.
I've mentioned this before and this is correct. This is a unique phenomenon in Western cultures today - a regression of enlightenment. Eastern cultures tend to be very deliberate, so if someone asked "Why are you so fat?" it would be out of a sense of inquiry and purpose. Literally asking "What is the purpose of you being so fat?" "Are you trying to accomplish something?"8 -
Though costly it might be to a restaurants advantage to modify their seating. Just take a look at statistics...there are far more people that are overweight and obese than there are "normal" weight...whatever normal is?
Wow!! If those statistics are true, when did we reach that stage, and why??0 -
Though costly it might be to a restaurants advantage to modify their seating. Just take a look at statistics...there are far more people that are overweight and obese than there are "normal" weight...whatever normal is?
Wow!! If those statistics are true, when did we reach that stage, and why??
Yes the stats are true, in 2016 71% of US population was overweight or obese. It was somewhere before 1988 when less than 50% of the population was overweight or obese.
Looks like went past 50% somewhere in the 1980's
https://infogram.com/us-adult-obesity-rates-since-1960-1gzxop49on65mwy
4 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.
Other cultures have different approaches to obesity, but this culture has its own. Some cultures have arranged marriages, but that doesn't work here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but once you start down a path you can't just teleport to a different one.5 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Nobody 50 years ago would have ever believed that in the future people would overeat to the extent that we actually need to re-engineer our common areas to physically accommodate them.
Obesity started spiraling upward right after the government paid a doctor to write a report promoting overloading on carbs as "healthy." That was the food pyramid. The gov't only funded "research" that would back the food pyramid fraud.
Big surprise, they commissioned the report right after the first grain subsidies passed.
I was obese. Been at least overweight most of my life. I ate more than I burned.
I also had a couple decades of battling bulimia. Got down to 155# doing that. But a couple decades later I was double that.
With rare exception, people don't get obese by eating in moderation.
I'm just glad that other passengers on the plane don't cringe when they realize I'm in their row.9 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Nobody 50 years ago would have ever believed that in the future people would overeat to the extent that we actually need to re-engineer our common areas to physically accommodate them.
Obesity started spiraling upward right after the government paid a doctor to write a report promoting overloading on carbs as "healthy." That was the food pyramid. The gov't only funded "research" that would back the food pyramid fraud.
Big surprise, they commissioned the report right after the first grain subsidies passed.
I was obese. Been at least overweight most of my life. I ate more than I burned.
I also had a couple decades of battling bulimia. Got down to 155# doing that. But a couple decades later I was double that.
With rare exception, people don't get obese by eating in moderation.
I'm just glad that other passengers on the plane don't cringe when they realize I'm in their row.
You aren't seeing the whole picture, the food pyramid was created because obesity was already on the rise, not the other way around. Obesity started spiraling out of control when acquiring food became easier and we became less active.14 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Nobody 50 years ago would have ever believed that in the future people would overeat to the extent that we actually need to re-engineer our common areas to physically accommodate them.
Obesity started spiraling upward right after the government paid a doctor to write a report promoting overloading on carbs as "healthy." That was the food pyramid. The gov't only funded "research" that would back the food pyramid fraud.
Big surprise, they commissioned the report right after the first grain subsidies passed.
I was obese. Been at least overweight most of my life. I ate more than I burned.
I also had a couple decades of battling bulimia. Got down to 155# doing that. But a couple decades later I was double that.
With rare exception, people don't get obese by eating in moderation.
I'm just glad that other passengers on the plane don't cringe when they realize I'm in their row.
You're ignoring the fact that Americans, on a population level, have never treated the USDA food guides/pyramids as anything more than rough suggestions. Today, for example, it encourages eating lots of vegetables and a moderate amount of whole grains. Is that a representation of the foundation of the average American diet? Data tells us that it is not.
Looking at just the USDA suggestions and ignoring what people actually ate during that time period only gives you a small portion of the picture.11 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First off, I'm very sorry you lost your mom and that, in hindsight, you feel that there were things you could have done.
But honestly, what do you think might've made the end result any different?
You said, "She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do." Doesn't sound like she was open to suggestions for change, which really only leaves having change forced upon her. Not something I would even consider for any adult that was of sound mind.
5 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
Oh, I know, and even the Polish cleaning woman at my workplace used to comment on stuff that I couldn't imagine commenting on. She didn't tell me I was fat, but when I lost weight she would go on and on about it to a bothersome degree, and even said to a (male) employee "doesn't she look better, how much weight do you think she lost?"
That was weird, but I'm not talking about things that occur in different cultural contexts.And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
See, within the US, that seems like you are basically saying the person you are talking to is stupid, or at least that is how I'd tend to take it. I'd try to consider intent, sure, but my point was that I would find it the opposite of helpful, and that's one reason I'd be very wary of doing it myself (as opposed to trying to show I enjoy talking about stuff like cooking and nutrition and exercise and weight loss and am open for any such conversations, joint efforts).
When I was fat I'd tend to head off unhelpful comments by being pretty upfront about how I was fat, ha, ha, just to make sure no one felt compelled to enlighten me (which was no doubt overly weird and defensive).
I guess I was just thinking of all of the people who do get to be larger without really realizing it.
How many threads are there on MFP about, "What was your 'eye-opening' moment?" Then the thread is full of people who chime in to say, "I had no idea I had gotten so large until XYZ." A lot of the XYZ-stories involve completely innocent comments made by children regarding the person's size, or seeing a picture of themselves at an event where they didn't recognize themselves at all--because they still saw themselves as a smaller size--etc.
I get that it a lot of larger people are fully, 100% aware that they are the size they are, but there are so many threads like the one I described--and even more if you want to get into true body dysmorphia, which cuts both ways. I know you're not talking about other cultures. I'm just trying to highlight that people respond differently to different stimuli.
Someone might find it hurtful, hearing an innocent child talk about their size, and some might find it eye opening. I understand you might find that kind of comment offensive, but, again, offense comes in all shapes and sizes and varies greatly depending on the eye of the beholder. At the end of the day, we're responsible only for ourselves--our own weight, our own response to external comments, and how we choose to deal with those things.
What does this have to do with restaurants and their facilities? Just that I think a restaurant owner should be free to make his or her own determination about how they want their facility to look and function. I think it's great that the people in the article made an app and are empowering themselves. To me, that's a fabulous market solution--people talking about a problem they have and sharing notes about places that were helpful or weren't. And if business owners want to take note and work towards being more inclusive, I think that's dandy, too. Of course, I think it's fine if they don't want to change, also.5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.
Other cultures have different approaches to obesity, but this culture has its own. Some cultures have arranged marriages, but that doesn't work here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but once you start down a path you can't just teleport to a different one.
Well, our culture isn't exactly knocking it out of the park in the battle against obesity, is it? (Nor has it been since the food pyramid was introduced through much government lobbying, despite the rising levels of obesity being the main reason for the food pyramid to begin with.)
Love the mish-mash of idioms, though. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but you don't change knives mid-skin," might be more consistent. ... Please don't skin cats, though. Culturally that's frowned upon here 7 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.
I agree with everything you said.
To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.
My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.5 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.
I agree with everything you said.
To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.
My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
I've been following this conversation from the beginning, and after all the comments, I have come to (my personal) conclusion, that it doesn't matter what a restaurant does....or any institution that is not required by law to accommodate for any reason. In the end, you won't be able to stop the complaints. In case of this random restaurant, actually accommodating for larger sizes, someone will ultimately take to social media, complaining on the world-wide platform, that the seats are too close to the salad bar....5 -
That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.
I agree with everything you said.
To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.
My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.
Other cultures have different approaches to obesity, but this culture has its own. Some cultures have arranged marriages, but that doesn't work here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but once you start down a path you can't just teleport to a different one.
Well, our culture isn't exactly knocking it out of the park in the battle against obesity, is it? (Nor has it been since the food pyramid was introduced through much government lobbying, despite the rising levels of obesity being the main reason for the food pyramid to begin with.)
Love the mish-mash of idioms, though. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but you don't change knives mid-skin," might be more consistent. ... Please don't skin cats, though. Culturally that's frowned upon here
30,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents. There's a lot of things we're not doing a great job on, but I don't see threads here about how people need to be made aware of their hazardous lifestyle every time they get behind the wheel.
I'm guessing you don't think it would be appropriate to tell every driver you see that they could run over a child or hit a deer, and they should really be using a form of transportation that's safer and less polluting. What it is about obesity that makes this ok?10 -
That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.
I agree with everything you said.
To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.
My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.
On the bold part of the quote...
If this was a permanent decision, for a doctor, I find it a bad move. While I can understand the frustration that the doc might have had on a personal level, regarding your dad, and considering their long-term relationship, he better be the good example, doing jumping jacks from room to room, when he sees his patients. His staff and he better all be at a healthy BMI themselves, too...
Around here, all the people involved in healthcare on any level, are just a part of the average big population, and when it comes to giving advise about nutrition and overall healthy lifestyle, they mostly don't have a leg to stand on...much less should throw patients out of the office...IMO
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
I admit that I also would find it offensive, but apparently not everyone does. Offense is very subjective. And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
Not trying to start a fight but trying to highlight that different cultures have different approaches to obesity and how to help. And maybe a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't truly fit all. Perhaps, as you say, this approach is counterproductive for "the vast majority of people," but at least a few people have piped up in this thread that would indicate this style of approach wasn't counterproductive to them.
People are individuals and they're motivated by a wide variety of things. I also was larger as a kid and caught a good amount of flak for it from my father, who had always been athletic and in shape, so I do relate to your experience, there. His very direct approach felt unkind to me, at the time. Also like you, I wanted to find my own solution. Once I did, he was one of my biggest cheerleaders in my attempts to lose weight, but some people really do respond to a direct approach.
Other cultures have different approaches to obesity, but this culture has its own. Some cultures have arranged marriages, but that doesn't work here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but once you start down a path you can't just teleport to a different one.
Well, our culture isn't exactly knocking it out of the park in the battle against obesity, is it? (Nor has it been since the food pyramid was introduced through much government lobbying, despite the rising levels of obesity being the main reason for the food pyramid to begin with.)
Love the mish-mash of idioms, though. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, but you don't change knives mid-skin," might be more consistent. ... Please don't skin cats, though. Culturally that's frowned upon here
30,000 Americans die every year in traffic accidents. There's a lot of things we're not doing a great job on, but I don't see threads here about how people need to be made aware of their hazardous lifestyle every time they get behind the wheel.
I'm guessing you don't think it would be appropriate to tell every driver you see that they could run over a child or hit a deer, and they should really be using a form of transportation that's safer and less polluting. What it is about obesity that makes this ok?
I'm not sure I even understand what you're asking me here.
Of course... there aren't threads like that...here...? This is a fitness site?
Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm also not one of the people who thought that it would be good for a restaurant not to increase their seating, citing social pressure and/or encouraging people to lose weight by making them uncomfortable in public.
So. What are you asking me, if you're asking me anything, at all?3 -
I just find the whole notion of approaching someone who is an adult and telling them they are fat (as if they didn't know it) and then telling them what you demand they do to lose weight is incredibly offensive and, for the vast majority of people, would likely be counterproductive.
etc.
Just regarding the bolded, some Eastern cultures very much do this... and to complete strangers! All the time! Especially to large Western citizens...
Oh, I know, and even the Polish cleaning woman at my workplace used to comment on stuff that I couldn't imagine commenting on. She didn't tell me I was fat, but when I lost weight she would go on and on about it to a bothersome degree, and even said to a (male) employee "doesn't she look better, how much weight do you think she lost?"
That was weird, but I'm not talking about things that occur in different cultural contexts.And, from what I gather, it's not as though the people saying it are always saying it in a derogatory fashion. It's more of a cautionary, "Hey, buddy. Don't know if you noticed, but you're kind of getting up there in weight. You maybe ought to do something about that." And that's it. I think a lot of people might interpret that unkindly, but that doesn't mean it was meant that way. Doesn't intent matter, too?
See, within the US, that seems like you are basically saying the person you are talking to is stupid, or at least that is how I'd tend to take it. I'd try to consider intent, sure, but my point was that I would find it the opposite of helpful, and that's one reason I'd be very wary of doing it myself (as opposed to trying to show I enjoy talking about stuff like cooking and nutrition and exercise and weight loss and am open for any such conversations, joint efforts).
When I was fat I'd tend to head off unhelpful comments by being pretty upfront about how I was fat, ha, ha, just to make sure no one felt compelled to enlighten me (which was no doubt overly weird and defensive).
I guess I was just thinking of all of the people who do get to be larger without really realizing it.
How many threads are there on MFP about, "What was your 'eye-opening' moment?" Then the thread is full of people who chime in to say, "I had no idea I had gotten so large until XYZ." A lot of the XYZ-stories involve completely innocent comments made by children regarding the person's size, or seeing a picture of themselves at an event where they didn't recognize themselves at all--because they still saw themselves as a smaller size--etc.
I get that kind of thing too. When I was gaining weight I knew I'd gained weight (people know, clothes don't fit, etc.) but was kind of in denial about how fat I was. I had an aha moment when I saw some photos.
I don't see that as contradictory to the idea that people know they are overweight (even if they aren't admitting it to themselves) and just would find: "hey, in case you didn't notice, you are getting awfully fat" to be an incredibly rude and not helpful thing to say to someone. And for me, saying "did you know that being fat is unhealthy, you really should lose weight, it's not hard, just eat less junk food and stop being such a lazy bones" or what not is implicitly saying: "you are stupid, since I am assuming you don't know this thing (fat is unhealthy) that everyone not stupid knows" and also making assumptions about how the person eats and so on.
And of course someone overweight has been overeating.
The other thing is that you don't know if this is someone who has been struggling with their weight forever and is constantly on a diet or someone who knows they are fat but is dealing with other things in their life first or so many possibilities.
I just see absolutely zero benefit in making it your duty to let fat people know they are fat (and again I think it's extremely unlikely they do not).
I will add that I think it is beneficial for a doctor to talk sensitivity with a patient about weight, and I had that happen and explained that I was aware both of the risks and that I needed to lose weight and was working on it. So I'm not saying that shouldn't happen.At the end of the day, we're responsible only for ourselves--our own weight, our own response to external comments, and how we choose to deal with those things.
I agree. This is why I don't think it's my role to tell other people that they are fat and need to lose weight. It strikes me as very likely to sound as if you are telling them they are stupid and a failure and so on, which I do not think is helpful.
One thing that was helpful for me was when I was whining to a friend about being fatter than I wanted (before the wake up call with the photos), she just said "if you think you should lose weight, why not lose weight." It struck me, because I'd kind of assumed I had no control (I'd never needed to lose weight as a younger person, never dieted), and it felt empowering. Her saying to me out of the blue: "you know, you are too fat, you should lose" would not have been the same.What does this have to do with restaurants and their facilities? Just that I think a restaurant owner should be free to make his or her own determination about how they want their facility to look and function.
Me too, and so far as I can tell so does everyone in this discussion. Surely you don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.
What I'm talking about are the claims that not confronting overweight people=enabling or the suggestions that it's GOOD to intentionally make fat people feel uncomfortable and embarrassed, since then they will get a clue and lose. Seems more likely to me that that would have bad results.I think it's great that the people in the article made an app and are empowering themselves. To me, that's a fabulous market solution--people talking about a problem they have and sharing notes about places that were helpful or weren't. And if business owners want to take note and work towards being more inclusive, I think that's dandy, too. Of course, I think it's fine if they don't want to change, also.
Yes, we agree on all this.5 -
That's well said Bry. I've never been obese, so granted my view is probably a bit different than someone who has, but that said, I think we're largely on the same page here.Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I understand their business savvy in doing this, they want their customers to feel comfortable, but does it benefit society as a whole to encourage and enable a dangerous state of health?
Bars make a lot of money selling booze to alcoholics - the bar's business is to provide a comfortable atmosphere to buy and consume alcohol, but look at all of the wreckage associated with this. So if I created a business model based upon modifying my bar so that it had softer floors for trips and falls, padded corners, comfortable areas to the side for passing out, IVs drips set up for those whose BAC reached dangerous levels, larger toilets for getting sick in, etc., is the extra money I would earn really a good thing?
"But these alcoholics know they are alcoholics, so refusing to accommodate their addiction is shaming them. They will just drink at home or some other business who will be happy to enable them." I don't think anyone would accept that theory when it comes to alcoholism, but when it comes to obesity…
I think there's a pretty big leap between "Hey, it would be nice if this place had some bigger chairs" and "Let's install IV drips so people can drink more alcohol."
Restaurants are already selling large portions of high calorie foods. If you want to go someplace and order a 3,000+ calorie meal, nobody is going to turn down the money. They'll sell you just about anything you want to eat, however often you want to eat it, at just about any portion size you desire. Why is the idea that some of them may want to increase appeal by offering bigger chairs the spot where we get worried about facilitation of obesity?
Is the job of a restaurant to benefit society as a whole? If so, the restaurant industry has already missed that goal and by a huge margin. So why draw the line when it comes to a restaurant making the voluntary decision that a larger portion of their customers can sit down comfortably?
It is a giant leap into the absurd, but that was the point No one would ever create a business model like this fictitious bar, we would all be appalled - and yet gradually retrofitting accommodations to allow for obese people is a step away from confronting the root cause of the problem and enabling those with food addictions.
If food addiction is real, then restaurants are already enabling with their menu offerings and portion sizes. Why is a more comfortable chair a less acceptable form of "enabling"?
Why is it the job of a restaurant to confront the root cause of the problem anyway?
Why is it the job of a bartender to cut off a drunk customer and stop taking his money? Dram shop laws make bars liable for drunk customers that injure others, so it became their job.
Why is it the job of a drug store to prevent me from buying certain quantities of specific over the counter drugs? The FDA restricts the sale of these drugs because people have used abused them, so it became their job.
One could make the argument that while food addiction doesn't seem to affect anyone other than the addict, there are consequences beyond that. We seem to be heading toward a single-payer health insurance system in the US, so more and more we are sharing healthcare costs, and medications and procedures associated with obesity are very expensive. Our collective resources are being diverted to treating self-inflicted medical issues from obesity at the expense of other afflictions.
We should also care about the quality of life of our citizens - impaired mobility, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, increased susceptibility to stroke and cancer, etc., are a blight on people's productivity and happiness. We have no problem confronting the impaired health (both mental and physical) of smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts but somehow food addiction is a "mind your own business" condition.
I don't think it's about not caring, whether a neighbors health or our own finances. With me it's a question of who makes the decision, who enforces the decision and what overall metric is used to make the decision.
Where would you be comfortable regarding taking another's personal decision into your own hands?
I'm just providing a different perspective. I'm not advocating any type of government intervention - I'm just encouraging people to look at how we approach other types of addictions and to perhaps pump the brakes a little on the enabling.
I hear you, seriously. I'm a recovering alky..so I completely understand the problems with enabling. I'd very much like to see the 'unhealthy ' make better choices too, but...maybe it's the years spent on political forums 🤣 but I'm very wary of slippery slopes and the prospect of stepping into someone's very personal space today is just loaded with them.
We all kind of stood around with our hands in our pockets and watched my mom go to an early grave due to self-inflicted lifestyle issues. We were really nice. We took her feelings into account. We respected all of her wishes and just watched her do unhealthy things. She had a bad temper and wouldn't be told what to do. And she died well before her time and my young kids will have almost no memories of their grandmother. Everyone involved lost because we chose to enable...
So yeah, I'm anti-shaming and anti-judging, but I'm also anti-enabling. If I could go back in time and do things over I wouldn't have made it so comfortable for her to circle the drain with her terrible lifestyle choices. I'm not making that same mistake with my dad and I am more firmly engaged, and he has quit smoking, drinks less, started eating better, and gets some amount of exercise - I'm not taking credit for that, he had to make those changes, but accountability to me has made some difference.
First, I'm sorry about your mom, and glad things are working out better with your dad. I'm simply trying to keep discussion within the boundaries of this topic and public accommodations. I agree with you about the dangers and ramifications of enabling, but we are also assuming a whole heck of a lot if there's any talk of taking a strangers decision out of their hands, or ostracizing them by way of not allowing them to enjoy the same simple pleasures others do.
It may sound idealistic, but first and foremost people are people, whether obese or not. Same feelings/thoughts/likes/dislikes/opinions as many of the rest of us who may or may not have had to deal with that particular burden. And that's how I will approach them.
My only quandary/grey area regarding the topic is where we cross the line into infringing upon another citizens rights legally or ethically and what the best solution may be (in the spirit of this debate forum) while still refusing to trample on someone's dignity. And that dignity...that's one of those things that doesn't seem to carry much weight any more, unless it's ours that's being stepped on.
I still feel that app the woman in the OP is developing is the best solution I've seen yet.
I agree with everything you said.
To be clear, I'm not telling restaurants what they should and shouldn't do - if providing more comfortable chairs for overweight people makes good business sense, then I wouldn't stop them from doing it. If they decide that offering huge portions and increasing the salt/sugar/fat content of their food will increase sales, then they have the right to do so as long as they are transparent about it.
My angle concerns the larger societal implications of institutionalizing food addiction by modifying menus and rearranging public accommodations to enable dysfunctional and self-destructive eating habits. You can make a case that it is profiting from the misery of others. Yes, eating yourself to the point where you can no longer comfortably fit on standard furniture is a miserable situation to be in, no matter how you frame it.
Pure anecdote incoming - but I think it fits here. My dad's long time doctor threw him out of his office the last time they met due to dad's refusal to take care of himself. For context, it had been about 25 years of doc/patient relationship to get to this point. Right or wrong, I (and brothers/mom) all took the docs side.
On the bold part of the quote...
If this was a permanent decision, for a doctor, I find it a bad move. While I can understand the frustration that the doc might have had on a personal level, regarding your dad, and considering their long-term relationship, he better be the good example, doing jumping jacks from room to room, when he sees his patients. His staff and he better all be at a healthy BMI themselves, too...
Around here, all the people involved in healthcare on any level, are just a part of the average big population, and when it comes to giving advise about nutrition and overall healthy lifestyle, they mostly don't have a leg to stand on...much less should throw patients out of the office...IMO
Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. Dad was a classic blamer though, all doc's/mom's/everyone elses fault why he couldn't lose weight and was getting ill. Doc C. was a rabid fitness nut and just ran out of patience. Like I said, for right or wrong...but I understand why he did it.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions