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.
Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations
Replies
-
Theoldguy1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »For myself, I don't spend much time considering what could have been if other people had done or would do some other thing, especially if it's in the past.
It's not in the past though. The COVID situation is ongoing and getting worse, and is projected to last several more months at least. Even after COVID is done with, pandemics happen fairly frequently (the last one was only 10 years ago --H1N1) and the population is less and less able to handle them as their overall health declines due to obesity. Diseases that might not be pandemics in a healthier population, might be pandemics in a less healthy one. There's also the larger policy question of the responsibility of the individual to society -- is it our civic duty to maintain our personal health? So these questions won't just go away.I'm old (65) and have the start of COPD, so I'm at higher risk of dying, but I can't wrap my head around considering whether I should take more blame for the pandemic and its consequences because of those things (if I hadn't lived with smokers most of my life, despite not being one, I probably wouldn't have the COPD . . . .).
I wouldn't consider those factors to be blame-worthy. I also don't judge people who were obese and decided to get to a healthy weight because of COVID, or people who choose to remain obese but also disagree that everyone else should sacrifice in order to protect them.
I do wonder, though, if age has to do with our different responses to the lockdowns. I'm 29 and spent my first 22 years living in a violent, abusive household, so I feel like I barely got to live and missed out on a lot in my life, and now even more is being taken away. It sucks to not even be 30 and feel like "well, this is the limit of what I'm going to experience in life." I lost many years of my life because my family couldn't get their act together, and now it just feels like this is a variant of the same thing.Truly, I'm sympathetic, but don't feel that I have any way to help. I think this is probably not the thread for it, either, especially if we diverge from the subject of obesity and its "glamorization".
The discussion did diverge from the original point.
From my direct and indirect observation and anecdata, many of the people who gained in the pandemic are not obese, just on the verge of normal weight. I.e. obese and normal BMI gained alike. The fact that most people gained is due to moving less when wfh, since no commute (plus probably stress eating, food inequality issues etc. but reduced movement is a huge factor). And before you say that they should have used the commute time to do extra sport - statistics show most people use that time now to do extra work! The fear of losing their livelihood is real, as well as all other stressors, mental health issues etc.
Sorry people gained weight during the pandemic because they chose to eat more calories than they burned (just like weight gain over holidays, a vacation, etc).
Weight gain is not the pandemic's fault, need to look in one's own mirror.
Let the disagrees and excuses begin.
Yes, people gained weight because they consumed more than they burned.
But I think for the average person this isn't exactly a deliberate choice. It's not like we have calorie meters on our arms that tell us when we've had what we need for the day.
I know there are tools available, but most people weren't using them pre-pandemic.
I know I've gotten a lot of flak for saying that many people don't have a great concept of how weight management works, but for the average person, they're not going to look at a plate and have a great understanding of how it fits with their calorie needs for the day -- especially if their calorie needs have suddenly gone down due to changes in their lifestyle.
So while it's true that people gained weight because they consumed more than they need, think about how many people here -- people who are already motivated to lose weight and are starting to use these tools -- struggle with getting the basics of calorie counting and then consider someone trying to balance that without any of the tools.
I do think a lot of people were caught off-guard by how they were suddenly using fewer calories. Combined with the context of not really understanding how much they were eating before and in newly stressful situations, I'm not surprised at the outcome, especially since so many people mistakenly believe they NEED to exercise to lose weight and we tossed gym closures on top of all that.
I think we can find a balance between personal responsibility AND acknowledging that a lot of people had a bunch of weird stuff tossed in their lap this year.
We don't have calorie meters on our arms but most of us wear clothes.
When articles of clothing start getting noticeably tighter it's a pretty good indicator one has gained some weight and needs to back off on the eating and/or increase activity to stop the gain and lose what was gained.
About 15% of the US population has gym memberships. I would venture to say those with the memberships and actually were using them before covid found alternative ways to move. The people with dedication to an active lifestyle didn't just quit because their gym closed.
I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a global pandemic that turned the daily life of most people completely upside down and then sideways could result in other priorities taking over their regular exercise routine. My wife and I are pretty health nutty and movers...we both put on weight in 2020...I put on about 15 Lbs. We tried to keep moving, and have to an extent, but things were completely different and we ultimately had bigger fish to fry. Having an 8 and 10 year old at home that have been doing online learning and unable to see their friends for 9 months is a massive "take care of their mental health" task...being in one of the strictest lockdowns in the nation for 9 months has also taken a mental toll on my wife and I...working at home, living at home, hardly leaving home, etc for 9 months is brutal.
Things are just starting to open up a little bit...you can go to the gym now, but you have to schedule your time...which is nice in the sense that they aren't busy with a scheduled number of people...capacity 25%. Grocery and essentials are still at 25% but at least they eased off of the 25% or 75 people whichever is smaller...still have some lines, but nothing like the hours long lines we were having the last few months just to grocery shop. Retail is now open at 25%...still no indoor dining and limited capacity patio dining...which is basically worthless when the high temps are in the 30s...so mostly carryout if you want to do something like that.
My wife and I are getting back into things in 2021...but yeah...2020 was rough and completely turned our lives upside down...I'm certainly not going to beat myself up for putting on 15 Lbs while prioritizing other things in a global pandemic.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a global pandemic that turned the daily life of most people completely upside down and then sideways could result in other priorities taking over their regular exercise routine. My wife and I are pretty health nutty and movers...we both put on weight in 2020...I put on about 15 Lbs. We tried to keep moving, and have to an extent, but things were completely different and we ultimately had bigger fish to fry. Having an 8 and 10 year old at home that have been doing online learning and unable to see their friends for 9 months is a massive "take care of their mental health" task...being in one of the strictest lockdowns in the nation for 9 months has also taken a mental toll on my wife and I...working at home, living at home, hardly leaving home, etc for 9 months is brutal.
Things are just starting to open up a little bit...you can go to the gym now, but you have to schedule your time...which is nice in the sense that they aren't busy with a scheduled number of people...capacity 25%. Grocery and essentials are still at 25% but at least they eased off of the 25% or 75 people whichever is smaller...still have some lines, but nothing like the hours long lines we were having the last few months just to grocery shop. Retail is now open at 25%...still no indoor dining and limited capacity patio dining...which is basically worthless when the high temps are in the 30s...so mostly carryout if you want to do something like that.
My wife and I are getting back into things in 2021...but yeah...2020 was rough and completely turned our lives upside down...I'm certainly not going to beat myself up for putting on 15 Lbs while prioritizing other things in a global pandemic.
Wasn't the entire point of lockdowns to reduce the risk of people dying from COVID-19? If the lockdowns caused people to gain weight, which increases their risk of dying from COVID-19 (as it said in that article I posted, it's the second-biggest risk factor after age), that seems a bit counterproductive, doesn't it? If we had a culture that didn't normalize obesity so much, perhaps this discrepancy would have been recognized. Now we have a whole lot of people who are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (and a bunch of other causes) than they were back in March, because they weigh more. And if you point this out, then people get mad at you, because we've been getting this messaging for years that any discussion of the health risks (or public health burden) of obesity amounts to "fat shaming."4 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a global pandemic that turned the daily life of most people completely upside down and then sideways could result in other priorities taking over their regular exercise routine. My wife and I are pretty health nutty and movers...we both put on weight in 2020...I put on about 15 Lbs. We tried to keep moving, and have to an extent, but things were completely different and we ultimately had bigger fish to fry. Having an 8 and 10 year old at home that have been doing online learning and unable to see their friends for 9 months is a massive "take care of their mental health" task...being in one of the strictest lockdowns in the nation for 9 months has also taken a mental toll on my wife and I...working at home, living at home, hardly leaving home, etc for 9 months is brutal.
Things are just starting to open up a little bit...you can go to the gym now, but you have to schedule your time...which is nice in the sense that they aren't busy with a scheduled number of people...capacity 25%. Grocery and essentials are still at 25% but at least they eased off of the 25% or 75 people whichever is smaller...still have some lines, but nothing like the hours long lines we were having the last few months just to grocery shop. Retail is now open at 25%...still no indoor dining and limited capacity patio dining...which is basically worthless when the high temps are in the 30s...so mostly carryout if you want to do something like that.
My wife and I are getting back into things in 2021...but yeah...2020 was rough and completely turned our lives upside down...I'm certainly not going to beat myself up for putting on 15 Lbs while prioritizing other things in a global pandemic.
Wasn't the entire point of lockdowns to reduce the risk of people dying from COVID-19? If the lockdowns caused people to gain weight, which increases their risk of dying from COVID-19 (as it said in that article I posted, it's the second-biggest risk factor after age), that seems a bit counterproductive, doesn't it? If we had a culture that didn't normalize obesity so much, perhaps this discrepancy would have been recognized. Now we have a whole lot of people who are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19 (and a bunch of other causes) than they were back in March, because they weigh more. And if you point this out, then people get mad at you, because we've been getting this messaging for years that any discussion of the health risks (or public health burden) of obesity amounts to "fat shaming."
Normalizing obesity and understanding that having your life flipped upside down and putting on a few pounds because of it isn't the same thing. I put on 15 Lbs...I'm not remotely obese...but I had way bigger fish to fry than worrying about my workouts, my weight, etc. My circle of friends are very fit, active, and healthy people...every single one of them, including my trainer has put on a some weight in 2020. Acknowledging that *kitten* happens, and this is on a global scale and nothing like anyone of this generation has ever lived through...and maybe that just might result in some different priorities isn't normalizing obesity.
Suffice to say that if people who are generally active and fit and actively take care of their health can struggle keeping up with things during a global pandemic, the general public who wasn't paying much attention before are going to struggle worse...I don't personally think that has anything to do with normalizing obesity. It's been well known since the beginning of this whole thing that obesity is one of the big risk factors in regards to mortality...it hasn't been some kind of secret.
Also, I disagree that the entire point of the lockdowns was to reduce the risk of people dying from COVID...the overwhelming point of the lockdowns was to prevent the overrun of the healthcare system. I've known numerous people now who've had COVID and several who were hospitalized...none of them were even close to obese and were in my age group, which isn't young, but it's not old either.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I put on 15 Lbs...I'm not remotely obese...but I had way bigger fish to fry than worrying about my workouts, my weight, etc. My circle of friends are very fit, active, and healthy people...every single one of them, including my trainer has put on a some weight in 2020.
Then you and your friends are not who this discussion is about. This discussion is about obesity. So I'm not sure why you posted in this thread at all.Acknowledging that *kitten* happens, and this is on a global scale and nothing like anyone of this generation has ever lived through...and maybe that just might result in some different priorities isn't normalizing obesity.
The stated purpose of lockdowns is to prioritize lowering the risk of dying from COVID-19 and overrunning the hospitals. Increasing both the percentage of overweight and obese people, and the overall BMI of those who are overweight/obese, runs counter to that. Obesity should literally have been one of THE top priorities for 2020, judging by the public health goals that were set and stated to us.Also, I disagree that the entire point of the lockdowns was to reduce the risk of people dying from COVID...the overwhelming point of the lockdowns was to prevent the overrun of the healthcare system. I've known numerous people now who've had COVID and several who were hospitalized...none of them were even close to obese and were in my age group, which isn't young, but it's not old either.
Anecdote != data. I've already posted articles from reputable sources stating that studies show obesity is the top risk factor for dying/being hospitalized for COVID-19, after age. Therefore a higher obesity rate increases the risks of hospitals being overrun. And we've seen that play out with countries with lower obesity rates having lower death/hospitalization rates than countries with higher obesity rates, as I've already stated many times and posted evidence to support it.
4 -
And we've seen that play out with countries with lower obesity rates having lower death/hospitalization rates than countries with higher obesity rates, as I've already stated many times and posted evidence to support it.
[/quote]
So, the only reason I will engage again is because you seem to again fixate on some perceived discrepancy (your word) between having social distancing measures and not having extra measures against obesity - I really don't care about the obesity part because hey, it's the debate forum - knock yourself out! but re:social distancing, implying that it is unnecessary while other things are supposedly at fault, that other things would be more effective against, can impact some gullible souls compliance amd literally cost lives.
No, the statistics do not bear out what you are saying above, top countries up there with the US in the stats of covid deaths per capita (linkmprovided upstream, easy google) include many with lower obesity than the US, what they have in common is inconsistency of response and perhaps also aging populations, but mostly inconsistency of response. Down the list - countries with better response. I am not saying it's the only factor but that it's the biggest one.
''Insane lockdowns'' - your words - does not equal timely lockdowns and co sistency of response in general, which includes things like continually monitoring, high test rates, tightening and loosening measures proactively based on predefined data at a level dictated by scientists, mandatory masks indoors, government not pushing back against the science, etc. Etc.and most of all high compliance.8 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I put on 15 Lbs...I'm not remotely obese...but I had way bigger fish to fry than worrying about my workouts, my weight, etc. My circle of friends are very fit, active, and healthy people...every single one of them, including my trainer has put on a some weight in 2020.
Then you and your friends are not who this discussion is about. This discussion is about obesity. So I'm not sure why you posted in this thread at all.
Wait, whut???? So only fat out-of-shape people can have an opinion on this subject????siberiantarragon wrote: »Acknowledging that *kitten* happens, and this is on a global scale and nothing like anyone of this generation has ever lived through...and maybe that just might result in some different priorities isn't normalizing obesity.
The stated purpose of lockdowns is to prioritize lowering the risk of dying from COVID-19 and overrunning the hospitals. Increasing both the percentage of overweight and obese people, and the overall BMI of those who are overweight/obese, runs counter to that. Obesity should literally have been one of THE top priorities for 2020, judging by the public health goals that were set and stated to us.
Nope - the stated purpose of the lockdowns is to slow/prevent the spread of the disease, thus preventing over-running the medical system, thus lowering the death rates, etc. Lowering the death risk is a secondary effect of slowing or eliminating the spread. If you slow/eliminate the spread in the first place all other considerations are secondary and should be treated as such. The government has done the correct thing and put it's money where it will do the most good and get the most bank for the buck - education on preventing the spread, mandatory restrictions and development of a vaccine.10 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I put on 15 Lbs...I'm not remotely obese...but I had way bigger fish to fry than worrying about my workouts, my weight, etc. My circle of friends are very fit, active, and healthy people...every single one of them, including my trainer has put on a some weight in 2020.
Then you and your friends are not who this discussion is about. This discussion is about obesity. So I'm not sure why you posted in this thread at all.Acknowledging that *kitten* happens, and this is on a global scale and nothing like anyone of this generation has ever lived through...and maybe that just might result in some different priorities isn't normalizing obesity.
The stated purpose of lockdowns is to prioritize lowering the risk of dying from COVID-19 and overrunning the hospitals. Increasing both the percentage of overweight and obese people, and the overall BMI of those who are overweight/obese, runs counter to that. Obesity should literally have been one of THE top priorities for 2020, judging by the public health goals that were set and stated to us.Also, I disagree that the entire point of the lockdowns was to reduce the risk of people dying from COVID...the overwhelming point of the lockdowns was to prevent the overrun of the healthcare system. I've known numerous people now who've had COVID and several who were hospitalized...none of them were even close to obese and were in my age group, which isn't young, but it's not old either.
Anecdote != data. I've already posted articles from reputable sources stating that studies show obesity is the top risk factor for dying/being hospitalized for COVID-19, after age. Therefore a higher obesity rate increases the risks of hospitals being overrun. And we've seen that play out with countries with lower obesity rates having lower death/hospitalization rates than countries with higher obesity rates, as I've already stated many times and posted evidence to support it.
Governments have been trying to tackle the obesity epidemic for decades...you can't force someone to lose weight. There has been plenty of education out there for decades about the dangers of obesity. Overall, it isn't something that the government or private industry can control. The government and private industry can control compliance with mask mandates and social distancing.
The obese know they're obese...and they know they're at higher risk for a wide range of health complications, including COVID...it isn't a big secret.11 -
Marginalising people is never good, especially with obesity as it can affect mental health.
In saying that, obesity is not healthy, its been proven and to normalise it will be detrimental.
3 -
gracegettingittogether wrote: »There is wide spread fear, anxiety and depression, even if not in your circle. Look up the rates of suicide. I think we should be promoting ways to control the feeling of helplessness that overwhelm so many, instead of neglecting ways to help us manage Covid.
I just did. November 2020 publication https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.107 -
But if more people had lost weight earlier in the year, would we currently be having a surge in hospitalizations so large that it overwhelmed the hospitals? That's what I want to know the answer to. Surely more people losing weight would have at least mitigated the surge to some extent.
The surge would have happened regardless. It is happening in countries that don't have as much of an obesity problem, and countries with less older population too. Mostly it is happening because people are congregating indoors more instead of outside in the sunshine and natural ventilation.
8 -
People also lose weight during lockdown, so there is that. The biggest risk factor for the virus was age, not obesity, although that does seem to be a risk factor. As the numbers grew, we came to find that plenty of supposedly healthy younger people can also die, or acquire long term health complications. The pandemic is no good, but it's not really an apt comparison to the obesity epidemic nor is obesity the cause of the virus or lockdowns. I think the pandemic is going to cause people to reckon with their personal relationship to their bodies and health in general. I know it made me stop and think about my own health, safety and how I want to go forward in this crazy world.
I think the body positivity movement is a good thing for teaching children and people who don't already know to appreciate and care for the wonder of the gift that has been given to them. I think glamourizing any specific body should be kept to a minimum of yourself, and then if you wish to glamourize your temple, go for it. Normal is relative and over rated. Be exceptional, no matter your size or circumstance.
8 -
There is a difference between "glamourizing" and "normalizing." To me, glamourizing is saying obesity is beautiful, or that people who are obese can be beautiful, too (which I believe, and why they can be on magazine covers). Do I think their bodies are beautiful? If I'm being honest...no, but I know people who do, and if it's not hurting me, I shouldn't be bothered by it. Do I think that we should be saying being obese is "healthy?" Physically-no, mentally-hopefully, although I know there is correlation between mental health and obesity. Also, there are people who are technically "obese," but are healthy (think offensive/defensive lineman, other impact athletes).
As far as "normalizing" obesity...well, being overweight and even obese is a pretty normal thing in the US, and is even becoming more commonplace in countries that it wasn't before, like China. Saying it is normal is not the same thing as saying it is physically healthy. I think the point of the body acceptance movement was to combat all the body shaming that often goes along with being overweight and obese. Typically, shaming someone isn't the healthy way to go when it comes lasting positive changes. Maybe for some or for short-term, but I don't think is successful long-term.
I'd also like to say that by others accepting their bodies being overweight or obese doesn't necessarily mean they aren't open to changing it. It can just mean they accept that this is where their bodies are at now, but doesn't mean it always has to be that way.
12 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »In actuality, low vitamin D would be much easier to treat than obesity, because I think being obese and the solutions to it are multi-faceted for many people (not just that they are "uninformed," "lazy, or "lack willpower"_ and just need to "eat less and move more"-not my thoughts).
Which is probably why public health experts should have recommended for everyone to take a vitamin D supplement, but for some reason they didn't. I've been taking one since I first heard about the vitamin D and COVID-19 thing in April, because even if it turns out to not be a risk factor, it can't hurt (it also had the fortunate side effect of clearing up the terrible PCOS-related cystic acne I had for several months before that, and which nothing else would fix!) However, as I said, low vitamin D is still not listed on the list of risk factors. Which tells me that probably there isn't enough evidence to prove a correlation, or the correlation is weak, or it's one of those "correlation != causation" things. In any case, there must be some reason why it's not on there after all this time.And you are absolutely correct in that people know they are obese, and most likely already know that it's a risk factor for COVID complications. I know the people I know that are obese do.
Then why would they rather destroy society indefinitely than do something about it? It's one thing to harm yourself and that's something I understand, but when other people are collateral damage, that's when it becomes unfair.I guess I've become (or tried to become) more of the mindset that I can't control the actions of others, even if I'd like to or think it's for the common good
Yeah as I said in an earlier post, I'd prefer it if I got to mind my own business and everyone else got to mind theirs. And that was the world we lived in prior to 2020. But that's not the world we live in anymore. Everyone else gets to control my actions, to an extreme degree, under the auspices of "for the common good." They get to say "you're not allowed to socialize anymore for the good of society" and so on and even enforce it with fines and jail time. So if it's going to be like that, then I think that should be a two-way street, and I should be allowed to say "you don't get to overeat anymore for the good of society." How are the two things any different?I do know that obesity in and of itself (even outside of COVID) can increase the strain on the healthcare system, yet I feel it's a little late at this point to negate its affects when it comes to COVID.
We don't know how much longer COVID is going to go on, but it seems like most experts are predicting at least several more months. In any case, losing weight can't hurt.Should the government get involved somehow? How would that even work?
According to the precedent set by this past year, a) yes, and b) if their previous actions are any guide, probably through mandatory food rationing, fines, and jail time.
I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.17 -
I just read several pages, so I’m going to try to condense this reply to multiple post in one comment. On the app, so can’t go back and forth pulling all the quotes I’d like to touch on, but here it goes...
I put on around 20lbs since March 2020. Came back on MFP (briefly) in October lost a handful, put it back on and gained a few more. Back again this week to try to lose the weight I gained. Will I be here in 2 weeks? Who knows. That’s to point out I’m well aware how to lose the weight, doesn’t mean it will necessarily happen. That’s a me issue, not a public health issue. (In my case- there’s certainly many people who are ill-informed or uneducated on the topic.)
A large reason I gained that weight was due to stress- 3 elementary kids being home learning, losing my job, a few other life circumstances. As someone who also struggles with PTSD and OCD, I started drinking more, eating more, sitting more. Could I have gone out and used the trail right behind my house? Absolutely. Could I have continued using the gym membership I paid for since before covid? Absolutely. Could I have paid closer attention to my diet and intake? Absolutely. Did I do any of these things? No. Covid and life already through a huge life change my direction, so I coped (negatively) with that and overhauling my life in the middle of stressful times wasn’t going to happen and it didn’t.
If the public health message was “lose weight, wear a mask, social distance. Do your part.” I would have rolled my *kitten* eyes! I wear a mask to go grocery shopping because I HAVE to. I’ve still responsibly seen a couple of friends every couple months and we social distance and otherwise stay in contact via phone. I don’t go out on the weekends with my husband because we CAN’T. The lose weight part of that is a choice. Slipping on a mask is pretty mindless. Counting calories, getting in a workout, etc requires thought and energy. Neither of which I had overflowing the last 10 months, so it ended up low on my priority list. I’d venture to guess this was the case for many people.7 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »I don't know where you live but it's not like that where I live, and I live in a state in the US that's been more extreme with their restrictions. We don't get fines or jail time, however, if these aren't followed.
Well, we do get fines and jail time for violating the laws. But where I live is pretty middle-of-the-road when it comes to restrictions. If I lived in California, the UK, France, or Australia, it would be a lot worse. And when we're having this discussion, we should consider how many people worldwide are still in that strict lockdown situation even to this day, not just what's going on in our local area.It sucks, but not one time did I think that obese people need to do their part and lose weight so my kids can go back to school.
Why not? Could it be because society tells you that's a taboo thing to consider? Or because obesity is so normalized that people aren't seeing how much of a negative effect it really has?I still am able to socialize with a few select people
We are allowed to socialize with a few people now, but for months we weren't, and it could all be taken away at any time now that the precedent is set.Also, it's not me telling people to wear masks, close restaurants, avoid travel and limit gatherings of more than 10 people. It's the government doing this--big difference.
Yes, exactly. The government is mandating this. So why does it offend people to suggest that if they are going to make it illegal to go to work and socialize, they should also have some legal restrictions on obesity?The other thing is, this pandemic is stressful for everyone, and how some people cope with stress is by eating. When one is dealing with a lot of stress (and for some this may be huge stressors, like dealing with the loss of a loved one from COVID or losing one's job), it's often not the best time to embark on a weight loss journey, even if for the "good of society."
Well, I cope with stress (and OCD, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts, etc.) by socializing. 2020 wasn't the best time for me to embark on a "don't see anyone for five months journey" for the "good of society," yet I was expected to do it. Why are some coping mechanisms acceptable, and others aren't, even though both increase the risk of COVID deaths?
As I already mentioned, I’m someone who also lives with PTSD and OCD, so I say this with the best of intentions. If you are not already doing so, I urge you to get in touch with your mental health provider. In a couple posts you’ve expressed you’re struggling with your mental health and the lack of socialization that usually helps you cope. They may be able to provide support or resources, especially since you just moved to a new area.
I feel like you’ve gone down what I like to call “the rabbit hole” and have found comfort in focusing on the fixable “obesity” issue being the larger issue than the overall pandemic and struggle that’s come with it. The “fat people” have given you something to focus on and blame and it’s not healthy or helpful for you, or others.
Sorry all- I know that has nothing to do with the OP but from what I’ve seen the thread already went down another path.15 -
Wiseandcurious wrote: »No, the statistics do not bear out what you are saying above, top countries up there with the US in the stats of covid deaths per capita (linkmprovided upstream, easy google) include many with lower obesity than the US, what they have in common is inconsistency of response and perhaps also aging populations, but mostly inconsistency of response.
Yes, I already cited statistics from Our World in Data. And of course there are many factors which contribute to the death rate, but the point is that obesity is one of the major factors contributing to an increased death rate. Aging population is another but obviously you can't reverse-age people so there's nothing to be done about that.
Which countries besides the US that are high on this list do you think had "inconsistent COVID response" and in which ways was their response inconsistent compared to, say, Canada?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/''Insane lockdowns'' - your words - does not equal timely lockdowns and co sistency of response in general, which includes things like continually monitoring, high test rates, tightening and loosening measures proactively based on predefined data at a level dictated by scientists, mandatory masks indoors, government not pushing back against the science, etc. Etc.and most of all high compliance.
How's that working out for California?Wait, whut???? So only fat out-of-shape people can have an opinion on this subject????
If you're using your personal experience as an anecdotal counterpoint to my argument when you aren't part of the demographic that the argument is about, then it's not relevant to this discussion.Nope - the stated purpose of the lockdowns is to slow/prevent the spread of the disease, thus preventing over-running the medical system, thus lowering the death rates, etc. Lowering the death risk is a secondary effect of slowing or eliminating the spread.
Is it though? Because that was the original stated purpose, yet hospitals all around the world had record low numbers of patients for months, and there was no commensurate easing of restrictions because the messaging changed to "if it saves only one life," etc. There's definitely been more messaging on "saving lives" than on preventing hospitals from being overrun in general.I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.
I'm trying to understand why someone who supports making socializing and working illegal in order to "save lives" would NOT support mandatory food rationing, fines, etc. in order to save lives. Socialization is a basic need and working for a living is necessary, yet both have been rationed for the past year while putting very little dent in our COVID problem. It's necessary to health to socialize, whereas it isn't necessary to health to be obese (quite the opposite actually).
Of course I don't support fining people for being obese or rationing food, even if it saves lives. But I also don't support making socializing and work illegal to save lives. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in logic here. Why do most people think the one is ok, but not the other?As I already mentioned, I’m someone who also lives with PTSD and OCD, so I say this with the best of intentions. If you are not already doing so, I urge you to get in touch with your mental health provider. In a couple posts you’ve expressed you’re struggling with your mental health and the lack of socialization that usually helps you cope.
What mental health provider? A mental health provider over Zoom who is already booked with patients because 25% of the country now want to kill themselves? (https://qz.com/1892349/cdc-depression-and-anxiety-rises-for-us-adults-since-covid-19/) And what advice are they going to give? Getting out and about, and establishing social connections, is a necessary part of treatment for both PTSD and OCD. If that's not allowed, then what advice can they possibly give?I feel like you’ve gone down what I like to call “the rabbit hole” and have found comfort in focusing on the fixable “obesity” issue being the larger issue than the overall pandemic and struggle that’s come with it. The “fat people” have given you something to focus on and blame and it’s not healthy or helpful for you, or others.
No, I'm just pointing out facts that people don't want to hear even though they're supported by evidence. Don't mistake someone having an unpopular opinion with that opinion being based on emotions rather than facts. I think it's a testament to the normalization of obesity in our culture that people are clinging on to their right to be obese much more tightly than they are on their right to socialize and work.3 -
I’m trying to understand why someone who takes such issue with the government dictating how you can socialize, would be okay with them taking such control over things like “mandatory food rationing.” It’s an asinine suggestion that fining or throwing people in jail for being obese will really prevent that problem. People still get DUIs. People still use heroin. People still shoplift. The government rationing our basic needs would create far larger problems while putting very little dent in an obesity problem.
I'm trying to understand why someone who supports making socializing and working illegal in order to "save lives" would NOT support mandatory food rationing, fines, etc. in order to save lives. Socialization is a basic need and working for a living is necessary, yet both have been rationed for the past year while putting very little dent in our COVID problem. It's necessary to health to socialize, whereas it isn't necessary to health to be obese (quite the opposite actually).
Of course I don't support fining people for being obese or rationing food, even if it saves lives. But I also don't support making socializing and work illegal to save lives. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in logic here. Why do most people think the one is ok, but not the other?As I already mentioned, I’m someone who also lives with PTSD and OCD, so I say this with the best of intentions. If you are not already doing so, I urge you to get in touch with your mental health provider. In a couple posts you’ve expressed you’re struggling with your mental health and the lack of socialization that usually helps you cope.
What mental health provider? A mental health provider over Zoom who is already booked with patients because 25% of the country now want to kill themselves? (https://qz.com/1892349/cdc-depression-and-anxiety-rises-for-us-adults-since-covid-19/) And what advice are they going to give? Getting out and about, and establishing social connections, is a necessary part of treatment for both PTSD and OCD. If that's not allowed, then what advice can they possibly give?I feel like you’ve gone down what I like to call “the rabbit hole” and have found comfort in focusing on the fixable “obesity” issue being the larger issue than the overall pandemic and struggle that’s come with it. The “fat people” have given you something to focus on and blame and it’s not healthy or helpful for you, or others.
No, I'm just pointing out facts that people don't want to hear even though they're supported by evidence. Don't mistake someone having an unpopular opinion with that opinion being based on emotions rather than facts. I think it's a testament to the normalization of obesity in our culture that people are clinging on to their right to be obese much more tightly than they are on their right to socialize and work.[/quote]
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need. Is working necessary? For most in the general public, absolutely. However, nobody has made working illegal. You still never clarified where you live. I live in Chicagoland/suburbs and we’ve had a significant amount of “lockdowns” and it’s not as bad as you keep mentioning. Since March 2020 I’ve gone to the grocery store multiple times a week and I’ve socialized with a few friends (responsibly) and never had an issue. Everything I’ve seen about people getting arrested or fined for violating social distancing/stay-at-home orders/lockdowns is due to large gatherings, events, etc. If anything more extreme then it’s been in large cities such as NYC.
I’m a mental health professional. Mental health providers have always been backed up or there’s been lack of access. (That’s a whole different topic!) If you’ve been diagnosed with PTSD/OCD I assume you have a provider. Getting out and about and socialization have never been a part of my treatment plan. So that’s not a one size fits all necessity for PTSD or OCD treatment. If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday. If socialization is part of your treatment plan, zoom/FaceTime/Skype with your friends, plan to see a couple of them- wear mask and social distance. Talk to the cashier at the grocery store, get a job at the grocery store and socialize with the general public.
I’m not obese, so I’m not defending “my right to be obese” over “my right to socialize.” I haven’t seen anyone on this thread do so. I defended the idea that people should have access to food (and basic needs) without that being rationed. As you see in the pyramid, health and safety trump socialization and sense of connection. Do I like that there are lockdowns and possible fines for gatherings? No. But that’s how things are being handled, so I deal with it. There are many people unsatisfied with that idea, just as there were people upset over seatbelt laws and mandatory health insurance. But what do we do? We carry on and accept it.8 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »So you are using drinking to excess as a coping mechanism / to self medicate. (I'm not judging - I used to do that myself.)
Is it so hard to imagine that during these stressful times others are using food in the same way?
No, you misread. When I do drink, I drink more than I used to. But I still drink infrequently. For example, this month I've drank three times so far, twice while hanging out with a few friends, and once on NYE with my husband. I didn't drink at all during the restrictive part of the lockdown and if there was another restrictive lockdown I wouldn't drink then either, because that is a negative environment which increases the chance of problem drinking developing. A lot of people became alcoholics during the lockdown, especially with a culture that celebrated "quarantinis" and so on (there should be another thread on the normalization of alcohol abuse in society....)
Also, I'm a total lightweight (probably because I don't drink that often), so the amounts of alcohol we're talking about is not that much. 3 drinks over the course of a couple of hours is enough to get me pretty drunk, and 5 is in "can barely stand up" and "hangover for the entire next day" territory. Five is pretty much my absolute limit of what I can have in a night. In the past I would have 1 or 2 drinks and then the "that's enough" switch would flip in my brain.
So basically it's more something I have to monitor to make sure it doesn't progress into an issue (especially as I have family members who are alcoholics), and if it does show signs of progressing, then I have to stop drinking entirely. It's annoying that I now have to monitor it, whereas I didn't have to before, and it would be annoying to have to give up alcohol. But it's not currently endangering my health or anyone else's health or increasing my risk of dying of COVID or other causes. So it's not the same thing as what we're talking about with obesity and overwhelming the healthcare system.
You're limiting your alcohol consumption because you know consuming it to the point of it being a problem is a possibility. If food was your coping mechanism, you wouldn't have the option of just not eating. You'd still need to purchase food and ideally enough of it so that you don't have to shop every couple of days. You'd still have to eat each day. The option you have with alcohol just wouldn't be there. And, like you note with alcohol, our already food-obsessed culture seems to have increased its focus on food during this period -- note all the chatter about pandemic baking, creamy coffee drinks, and ordering takeout -- as well as a focus in some areas about how we have this alleged responsibility to help support restaurants.
I know it's hard sometimes to imagine what it would be like to struggle with something that you don't personally have an issue with, but this isn't that much of a leap.10 -
I don't even understand how food rationing would operate. Presumably we'd get assigned the number of calories we need to maintain our ideal weight, but everyone has a different amount of activity based on their lifestyle and job. So does that mean I'd get assigned the 1,460 I need to maintain at a sedentary level (because I have an office job) and I'd just have to stop exercising? I actually need 2,000 a day to maintain my weight, so my choices would be to resort to the black market or eliminate activity.
Or is the idea that only the overweight and obese would be subject to rationing?
I'm really curious about the mechanics of this proposal. Even if one believed that the role of government was to determine -- through force and penalties -- the size of our bodies, the logistics seem daunting. People in the US weren't even willing to skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, there's no way they'd just blithely accept the government determining how much food we're allowed to have on the tables at those gatherings. I am not sure if we're talking about a specifically American context here or not, but I just don't see that being pulled off.8 -
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need.
Spoken like a person who's never been socially isolated.
Like...are you kidding me???? Have you ever read about Harry Harlow's "pit of despair" experiments? Or seen the results of solitary confinement on mental and physical health? Socialization is ABSOLUTELY a basic need. People go psychotic without it. The effects of loneliness on health are as bad as being obese or smoking a pack a day, according to studies (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/loneliness-can-be-as-bad-for-your-health-as-smoking/2224574/ )
It actually really disturbs me that you're a therapist and yet you don't think socialization is a basic need.However, nobody has made working illegal.
People have been arrested and heavily fined for opening their businesses in my state.If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday.
So you want to apply your own experience as a one size fits all. And you probably want the lockdowns to go on forever because they suit your lifestyle.janejellyroll wrote: »You're limiting your alcohol consumption because you know consuming it to the point of it being a problem is a possibility. If food was your coping mechanism, you wouldn't have the option of just not eating. You'd still need to purchase food and ideally enough of it so that you don't have to shop every couple of days. You'd still have to eat each day. The option you have with alcohol just wouldn't be there.
I mean, like, I literally have a bottle of rum in my kitchen cabinet and I haven't touched it. I have a liquor store right next to where I live that I haven't visited. I've been able to drink reasonably during the last two outings I went on. So maybe I just have better self-control than some people?
And I've gained weight due to stress eating in the past. I gained 10 pounds in a year once due to stress eating, and, if I had continued that way, I'd be obese by now. But, I decided to lose weight BEFORE it got to be a problem where I ended up overweight, and I was able to lose it by calorie counting. There's nothing special about me. I don't have any magical junk food avoidance properties. If I can do it, anyone can do it.And, like you note with alcohol, our already food-obsessed culture seems to have increased its focus on food during this period -- note all the chatter about pandemic baking, creamy coffee drinks, and ordering takeout -- as well as a focus in some areas about how we have this alleged responsibility to help support restaurants.
...yes and that was exactly my point in the first place! How our culture normalizes obesity and tells people it's not a big deal to overeat! How many times do I have to say it?janejellyroll wrote: »I don't even understand how food rationing would operate. Presumably we'd get assigned the number of calories we need to maintain our ideal weight, but everyone has a different amount of activity based on their lifestyle and job. So does that mean I'd get assigned the 1,460 I need to maintain at a sedentary level (because I have an office job) and I'd just have to stop exercising? I actually need 2,000 a day to maintain my weight, so my choices would be to resort to the black market or eliminate activity.
Or is the idea that only the overweight and obese would be subject to rationing?
I'm really curious about the mechanics of this proposal. Even if one believed that the role of government was to determine -- through force and penalties -- the size of our bodies, the logistics seem daunting. People in the US weren't even willing to skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, there's no way they'd just blithely accept the government determining how much food we're allowed to have on the tables at those gatherings. I am not sure if we're talking about a specifically American context here or not, but I just don't see that being pulled off.
The point was that it was a ridiculous proposal -- as ridiculous as lockdowns. I never thought Americans would accept banning socialization, education, and work for a year either because of a virus with an over 99% survival rate, yet here we are. If something as extreme as lockdowns are now normal, why not something as extreme as food rationing? Besides, food rationing has been done in the US before, in WWII for example. So it's not even that unheard of.
Also, a lot of people did skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings. The news just cherry-picked the ones who didn't.
Also, the average American eats 3600 calories a day (https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/average-calorie-intake-human-per-day-versus-recommendation-1867.html). Just thought that was interesting -- I bet people didn't expect it was that high.
3 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need.
Spoken like a person who's never been socially isolated.
Like...are you kidding me???? Have you ever read about Harry Harlow's "pit of despair" experiments? Or seen the results of solitary confinement on mental and physical health? Socialization is ABSOLUTELY a basic need. People go psychotic without it. The effects of loneliness on health are as bad as being obese or smoking a pack a day, according to studies (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/loneliness-can-be-as-bad-for-your-health-as-smoking/2224574/ )
It actually really disturbs me that you're a therapist and yet you don't think socialization is a basic need.However, nobody has made working illegal.
People have been arrested and heavily fined for opening their businesses in my state.If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday.
So you want to apply your own experience as a one size fits all. And you probably want the lockdowns to go on forever because they suit your lifestyle.
You’re certainly making a lot of inaccurate assumptions about me and my lifestyle. Lol
I have been socially isolated. I’m not a therapist. I don’t want lockdown to go on forever. It doesn’t suit my lifestyle. I never said what worked for me was one size fits all... that doesn’t exist. I’ve read plenty on social experiments. I also know that everyone has been dealing with lockdowns since March 2020. There are still ways to socialize so let’s not use extremist comparisons like those being put in solitary confinement. Are they our preferred method of socialization? Maybe not, but we can all still socialize in some capacity.
I have my opinions. You have yours. We obviously have very different ways of thinking and I’m okay with that. ✌🏼 I don’t need everyone to agree with mine, that’s why I find the debate forum interesting. But I also don’t just change my mind based on a couple articles and someone yelling louder than me.
10 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need.
Spoken like a person who's never been socially isolated.
Like...are you kidding me???? Have you ever read about Harry Harlow's "pit of despair" experiments? Or seen the results of solitary confinement on mental and physical health? Socialization is ABSOLUTELY a basic need. People go psychotic without it. The effects of loneliness on health are as bad as being obese or smoking a pack a day, according to studies (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/loneliness-can-be-as-bad-for-your-health-as-smoking/2224574/ )
It actually really disturbs me that you're a therapist and yet you don't think socialization is a basic need.However, nobody has made working illegal.
People have been arrested and heavily fined for opening their businesses in my state.If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday.
So you want to apply your own experience as a one size fits all. And you probably want the lockdowns to go on forever because they suit your lifestyle.janejellyroll wrote: »You're limiting your alcohol consumption because you know consuming it to the point of it being a problem is a possibility. If food was your coping mechanism, you wouldn't have the option of just not eating. You'd still need to purchase food and ideally enough of it so that you don't have to shop every couple of days. You'd still have to eat each day. The option you have with alcohol just wouldn't be there.
I mean, like, I literally have a bottle of rum in my kitchen cabinet and I haven't touched it. I have a liquor store right next to where I live that I haven't visited. I've been able to drink reasonably during the last two outings I went on. So maybe I just have better self-control than some people?
And I've gained weight due to stress eating in the past. I gained 10 pounds in a year once due to stress eating, and, if I had continued that way, I'd be obese by now. But, I decided to lose weight BEFORE it got to be a problem where I ended up overweight, and I was able to lose it by calorie counting. There's nothing special about me. I don't have any magical junk food avoidance properties. If I can do it, anyone can do it.And, like you note with alcohol, our already food-obsessed culture seems to have increased its focus on food during this period -- note all the chatter about pandemic baking, creamy coffee drinks, and ordering takeout -- as well as a focus in some areas about how we have this alleged responsibility to help support restaurants.
...yes and that was exactly my point in the first place! How our culture normalizes obesity and tells people it's not a big deal to overeat! How many times do I have to say it?janejellyroll wrote: »I don't even understand how food rationing would operate. Presumably we'd get assigned the number of calories we need to maintain our ideal weight, but everyone has a different amount of activity based on their lifestyle and job. So does that mean I'd get assigned the 1,460 I need to maintain at a sedentary level (because I have an office job) and I'd just have to stop exercising? I actually need 2,000 a day to maintain my weight, so my choices would be to resort to the black market or eliminate activity.
Or is the idea that only the overweight and obese would be subject to rationing?
I'm really curious about the mechanics of this proposal. Even if one believed that the role of government was to determine -- through force and penalties -- the size of our bodies, the logistics seem daunting. People in the US weren't even willing to skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, there's no way they'd just blithely accept the government determining how much food we're allowed to have on the tables at those gatherings. I am not sure if we're talking about a specifically American context here or not, but I just don't see that being pulled off.
The point was that it was a ridiculous proposal -- as ridiculous as lockdowns. I never thought Americans would accept banning socialization, education, and work for a year either because of a virus with an over 99% survival rate, yet here we are. If something as extreme as lockdowns are now normal, why not something as extreme as food rationing? Besides, food rationing has been done in the US before, in WWII for example. So it's not even that unheard of.
Also, a lot of people did skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings. The news just cherry-picked the ones who didn't.
Also, the average American eats 3600 calories a day (https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/average-calorie-intake-human-per-day-versus-recommendation-1867.html). Just thought that was interesting -- I bet people didn't expect it was that high.
Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing. And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss. In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively. I understand things may not be the same in your circles, but your experience may not be the universal one that you seem to assume it is.
Some people have had their routines changed significantly in the last year, but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online). Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working! Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online. You're so focused on what has changed that you're unable to see what is actually happening.
I know people who gathered for Thanksgiving and Christmas. This isn't about the news. Again, your experience is not universal. Your experience of lockdown sounds like it has been really negative and that your area has been incredibly restricted. I know that is the reality for some people, but this isn't a nationwide universal. There's a big variation between the urban and rural experiences here, as well as variations between different states or even cities within states. I have siblings in different states and we work different jobs and it's something we've already noticed -- there is no universal experience of this thing, although there are some things that are more common.
That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not seeing anything where overweight or obese people are telling those with mental illnesses that they need to "get over it" so they can be safer. I think you're heavily personalizing public health messages. Which I get, this whole thing has been frustrating in many different ways, but I don't think seeing this as an obese people versus mental illness thing is warranted. To begin with, there is overlap between these two categories!
In discussions I've had, I've seen a lot of overlap between the people who tell anyone who is negatively affected by the lockdowns to "get over it," and the people who get offended when you suggest that people should take more personal responsibility for their own health before asking others to sacrifice for them. I'm not implying that anyone who holds these beliefs is obese, or anyone who doesn't hold these beliefs is not obese. (Ironically, I have several friends who are overweight/obese and agree with me about the obesity/COVID/personal responsibility thing.)I get that you don't understand how anyone can be overweight. It's a common thing, but I promise you that logistical and mental obstacles to weight loss exist, including a lack of information about how CICO works or not understanding how to effectively implement it into one's life.
I never said that I don't understand how anyone can be overweight. I just gave an entire paragraph of reasons why I think people stay overweight. I just said that I don't think lack of access to information is the reason. 20 or 30 years ago, sure, it was a lot harder to find information back then, maybe that would have been a factor. But today, the information is out there, free and available. If someone doesn't look it up, it's because they don't want to know.
And again, regardless of what the reason is why people keep gaining weight, is it not the government's job to fix this public health crisis? Why are governments and our society in general enabling the obesity crisis instead of trying to fix it? If the answer actually is just lack of knowledge, that would be a pretty easy fix, wouldn't it? Why aren't there huge billboards with this information everywhere, the same way there are billboards everywhere about wearing a mask or social distancing?
There's a ton of information on weight loss out there and a lot of it is conflicting.
I think someone can be overweight AND think it's an issue of importance and still not be sure how to proceed. Or maybe they know how to do it, but implementing consistently is an issue. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see this as an us/them issue and I don't think it's a consequence of fat being glamorized.
Daily here, we encounter people who know what to do and aren't quite sure how to do it (given the circumstances of their lives or particular emotional issues). There are also people who know what they want to do, but have inaccurate ideas of how it needs to be done that are either setting them back or causing them to spend energy on controlling irrelevant factors. We're in a society that makes it incredibly easy to consume more energy than our body needs. I can understand how some don't have grace to expend or don't want to expend grace, but I've been there and I think it's more complex than you're making it out to be.
The corollation of obesity and a history of abuse, and of obesity with poverty, is stunning when you dig into it. The number of people in the US who don't have access to a primary care doctor, internet access, or a decent k-12 education as a result of poverty (either urban or rural) is also stunning.
I listened to a podcast comparing access to broadband internet in the US to other industrialized nations and it blew my mind!
As a consequence, I suspect that overweight/obese people are over-represented in the "essential worker" or "meet the public" workforce, when it comes to those outside strict total-PPE health care settings, especially. That appears to me to be true, based on the people in those jobs that I see around me, but I know that my eyesight's not a statistical sample.
I wonder if something like that could also play a role in over-representation of overweight/obese people among those dying of Covid in the US? There's IMU some evidence that higher viral load (loosely, getting more viral bits on/in you when exposed) relates to more severe cases of Covid. It would be interesting to know if those in essential/public-facing/low-PPE jobs are dying at disproportionate rates from the virus.
As someone mentioned above, I don't expect to see those more refined statistical analyses for quite a while yet, to explore questions like that, there currently being fatter fish right now for epidemiologists and their statistician buddies to be frying.
Yep, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of earlier when I said there's a correlation but they don't know for sure the cause. It seems logical that the obesity itself puts you at some kind of disadvantage, but until doctors find a clear physical mechanism for why, there's no way to know if it is primarily physical or a smaller factor.
It's the same with how hard the virus is hitting the black community in the US. Is it because more of them are essential workers still spending all day in public? Is it because they are more likely to be obese? Is it because they are more likely to get poor medical care? Are they more likely to live in densely populated areas? Take public transportation? Is there another condition those with recent African heritage are genetically predisposed to that hampers their ability to fight off the virus?
Anyway, I hope we get these answers at some point, and I hope folks out there who are obese get the message that there are myriad reasons to get to a healthy weight as soon as possible, both for them personally and for society in general.
The bolded is a particularly provocative issue, to me, espeically in context of the fact that Africa (as an overwhelming overgeneralization) so far seems to have had less severity/contagion than many people had expected at the start of all this. I don't I expect we'll tease out even refined, nuanced correlations for quite a while yet, let alone causes. Yes, there is less obesity in Africa. There are also lots of other differences, so I doubt the answers are as simple as bodyweight.
The median age on the African continent is 19.7 years. That might be the single biggest reason their COVID mortality is surprisingly low.
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
There's really not that much difference between making the choice not to go to the liquor store or not to have a drink at a party, and making the choice to avoid foods you're likely to binge on or to only eat a certain portion. I think you are overcomplicating it.Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Not really. It's better to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes a problem. I did the same with food years ago. Maybe if more people did that, we wouldn't be in this health situation now.Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing.
There has also been a lot of romanticizing binging on takeout, "quarantinis," stress baking, etc. and a lot of excuse-making for those who have gained weight ("what can you expect during these trying times?") even in this very discussion thread.And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss.
Which is what makes it especially disturbing that people are getting mad at me on this forum of all places for saying that obesity has negative effects on health (COVID).In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively.
Celebrities are held to much higher standards than the "average person," and even so, an increasing number of them also now follow the "fat acceptance" movement. People congratulate others for weight loss (usually) but they also don't usually encourage weight loss or have an intervention or something when someone clearly has a problem with food. They just let the problem happen for years. The only time it really gets to intervention level usually is when the person gets into the super-morbidly obese range.but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online).
Even the NYTimes agrees that online education is a poor substitute for in person, and that kids have basically lost a year of learning.Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working!
Work has been banned for a lot of people. There were many jobs that it was illegal to have for a large portion of last year, and the ripple effects of that still last.Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online.
There's been messaging all year that anyone who socializes in-person, even in small groups, is a psychopathic murderer. Also, for several months in my area, you weren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household. There are still many places around the world where you aren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household, or can only socialize with one other person/household, and people even get arrested or fined for it. So to say "socializing hasn't been banned" is simply untrue.
Online socializing is not the same as in-person -- again, something which most researchers agree on.That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.
I already told you, food rationing has been done many times throughout history in many societies, including in the US as recently as WWII. It could work similarly now as it did then, with the addition of technology (ie. a refillable card or something like that) for better tracking and to avoid fraud. We could probably get results even just by rationing certain foods like they did during WWII -- specifically, those foods that people are most likely to binge on (which ironically, seem to be the foods that tended to get rationed during wars, also). We could probably even start out just by rationing foods that contain white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc. and see how it goes, and even that might be enough to help -- since people generally don't tend to binge on lentils, rice, vegetables, etc.
But I'm sure whatever answer I come up with won't be good enough for you people because you all just hate me.5 -
Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.16
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.
Absolutely... Which is exactly what happened when rationing was done during WWII...6 -
Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?2
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...1 -
Al Capone was a real peach but then peaches would be rationed.2
-
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
There's really not that much difference between making the choice not to go to the liquor store or not to have a drink at a party, and making the choice to avoid foods you're likely to binge on or to only eat a certain portion. I think you are overcomplicating it.Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Not really. It's better to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes a problem. I did the same with food years ago. Maybe if more people did that, we wouldn't be in this health situation now.Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing.
There has also been a lot of romanticizing binging on takeout, "quarantinis," stress baking, etc. and a lot of excuse-making for those who have gained weight ("what can you expect during these trying times?") even in this very discussion thread.And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss.
Which is what makes it especially disturbing that people are getting mad at me on this forum of all places for saying that obesity has negative effects on health (COVID).In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively.
Celebrities are held to much higher standards than the "average person," and even so, an increasing number of them also now follow the "fat acceptance" movement. People congratulate others for weight loss (usually) but they also don't usually encourage weight loss or have an intervention or something when someone clearly has a problem with food. They just let the problem happen for years. The only time it really gets to intervention level usually is when the person gets into the super-morbidly obese range.but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online).
Even the NYTimes agrees that online education is a poor substitute for in person, and that kids have basically lost a year of learning.Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working!
Work has been banned for a lot of people. There were many jobs that it was illegal to have for a large portion of last year, and the ripple effects of that still last.Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online.
There's been messaging all year that anyone who socializes in-person, even in small groups, is a psychopathic murderer. Also, for several months in my area, you weren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household. There are still many places around the world where you aren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household, or can only socialize with one other person/household, and people even get arrested or fined for it. So to say "socializing hasn't been banned" is simply untrue.
Online socializing is not the same as in-person -- again, something which most researchers agree on.That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.
I already told you, food rationing has been done many times throughout history in many societies, including in the US as recently as WWII. It could work similarly now as it did then, with the addition of technology (ie. a refillable card or something like that) for better tracking and to avoid fraud. We could probably get results even just by rationing certain foods like they did during WWII -- specifically, those foods that people are most likely to binge on (which ironically, seem to be the foods that tended to get rationed during wars, also). We could probably even start out just by rationing foods that contain white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc. and see how it goes, and even that might be enough to help -- since people generally don't tend to binge on lentils, rice, vegetables, etc.
But I'm sure whatever answer I come up with won't be good enough for you people because you all just hate me.
I don't think anyone is mad at you (I'm certainly not). I don't hate you. This is the debate area. If it's hard for you to have that back-and-forth without feeling attacked (and some people are that way, no shame in that), it's okay to step back and stick to the parts of the forum where debate is more limited.
I don't think anyone is arguing here that obesity doesn't have an impact on health, whether we're talking about this pandemic or more generally. What is being challenged are some of the other, more specific, statements you've made.
14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions