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.
Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?
Options
Replies
-
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.7 -
I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
1-) Doing this based on pure calories is disingenuous. If you want to go purely by calorie, probably the cheapest way to spend your dollar is margarine (I can get a stick for a dollar, that's 810 calories!) or flour (that's 1.68 for nearly 5000 calories), but there's more to it than that and we both know it. I'm not sure I consider a whole meal made out of broccoli to actually be healthy, either, at least not on a regular basis. I might even consider it LESS healthy than chicken nuggets, because if you deep fry those you've at least got protein AND fat, and that's certainly going to be more satiating and provide longer energy for most people than a green vegetable. Now if you add a dollar and add a couple of the cheap healthy options together thing you have more food and can eat longer, and be healthier. That is the smarter choice, but again: you've got cheap, tasty, and a couple of macros in one go versus 'have to prepare, and don't like much' with no clear knowledge of WHY you should do that.
2-) Yep, it sure does. Also what we normalize. American society has very normalized views of obesity. What is that number, up to 60% of people are at least overweight?
3-) Yeah, okay but if you went to public school you think you know how to eat. Everyone thinks they know how to eat. Most people don't know what a TDEE IS much less what theirs is. Then there's all the noise on TV and social media filled with bro science and everyone claiming they're right and know what to do. That's a lot of filtering for someone who doesn't know w hat they don't know to do to find a source.
4-) Fine by me. You can use that to pay for an automatic referral to a (registered) dietician with the fastfood tax.
5-) Definitely blast the TV campaign about the dangers of obesity while we're at it. We did cut down on smokers this way. (OTOH it did nothing for the 'war on drugs', and I'm not sure 'war on fat' would be more effective. Maybe. Someone knows. It's not me.)
No seriously I don't care. I think you'd have to tear down and rebuild american society on just about every level to address it all. There are problems. A lot of them. If the answers were simple we wouldn't have the problem because no one who doesn't want to be fat would be fat.7 -
IllustriousBee wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the statement "they can find it." Yes there are services out there that can offer help, but many people are not easily able to access them due to money or other resources. Heck, I can't even get the MFP app on my phone because it is not supported (too old). I'm not a cheapskate by any means, but I'm not going to go out and buy a $1000 phone when the one I have works just fine. This means I have to have a computer.
Also, a note about mental health assistance in the US: it SUCKS! Seriously, it is HARD to get, with or without insurance. I have awesome insurance, but there are ZERO mental health providers locally that accept it. I would have to drive over an hour to get to any, and they more than likely wouldn't even specialize in what I needed. Going without insurance is going to be about $600 for the initial appointment, and then between $200-$500 for all other appointments, so a once a week visit with a mental health professional would cost AT LEAST $800 a month since there are slightly over 4 weeks in a month. Not many people can afford that. Heck, I would struggle affording that, and I would say I'm in the high/middle class with a regular 6-figure income.
So there IS a problem here, but it isn't about providing care to obese patients. It's about doing a complete overhaul of how mental health is treated (not treated) in this country.
My brother receives SSDI, but there is no way on earth he would have been able to go through the application process on his own.
My brother's ex girlfriend from 9 years ago also had mental health issues. She was eligible for lots of services, but was unable to complete applications for them. My mother, a retired social worker, tried to case-manage for her, but didn't make much headway before S ended up back in jail for flunking a drug test for something that is now legal in our state.4 -
This bill seems like a good *piece* of the solution. Recognizes that there are both mental and physical components to obesity.
[Steps on soapbox...]
But it strikes me that it's still just a piece, and doesn't address the fact that obesity is often a function or symptom of other issues.
We should also address the fact that so many people have so much stress in their lives, driven by economic, family, other health issues. Plenty of research shows that stress is a big cause of obesity. Addressing low wages for so many people, economic disparity, making people work multiple jobs and not having time to take care of themselves properly (all this food prep takes time!). This would have a lot of benefits beyond obesity and help with a lot of the mental health issues we're seeing a a society.
I'm also a big fan of M4A or some other program that decouples healthcare from employment (for so many) and provides it for all. I've lived with both systems (US & UK) and seen the shortcomings of both, but still think that poor access to HC shouldn't prevent someone from getting care they need (especially preventative care), or bankrupt a whole family. Again, benefits would go well beyond just addressing obesity, for individuals and society as a whole.
Programs to address (healthy) food deserts and nutrition education have proven effective in pockets. These could be expanded on a data-driven basis. And education on the harms and costs of obesity - like the anti-smoking campaign others have mentioned - could also help.
On the other side of the health equation, exercise is often hampered by the (lack of) safety where many people live. Kids don't play outside because it's dangerous, adults need a gym membership because there is no safe outdoor place to exercise. So addressing these issues could reduce obesity as well as a litany of other issues.
So I guess I'm saying taking steps to address a lot of the broader issues that ail our society would also help reduce obesity (and HC costs!).
But yes, as some have said, there's a "lead a horse to water" component here as well. Some people just want to live like they want to live. Just like people still chose to smoke or other self-desctructive activities. So we could extend the "sin tax" on tobacco and booze to nutritionally-deficient food as well. As an example, Philadelphia imposed a "soda tax" and it's had a real impact on the sales of sugary drinks. Won't have a huge impact on someone who want an occasional drink or twinkie, but may make people think twice, and could fund some of the health programs.
I realize a lot of this is ridiculously pie-in-the-sky, and I'm also not saying that the government is the solution on all fronts, but I would like to see us do more to optimize for the benefit of the many rather than the few.
Okay, this post went waaaayyy off track - I guess it's just things I think about a lot and would like to see to address the pain I see all around. I now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
EDIT TO ADD: I see while I was typing all this out, some others addressed some of these points. I think this is a great discussion.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.
This made me curious about the income demographics of fast food consumers, but the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey doesn't include enough income tiers in this study:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db322.htm
Did the percentage of adults consuming fast food on a given day differ by family income level for 2013–2016?
The percentage of adults who consumed fast food increased with increasing family income level (Figure 3). Overall, 31.7% of lower-income (less than or equal to 130% of the federal poverty level [FPL]), 36.4% of middle-income (greater than 130% to less than or equal to 350% of FPL), and 42.0% of higher-income (greater than 350% of FPL) adults consumed fast food on a given day. A similar pattern was observed for both men and women.
Within each income level, there was no significant difference in the percentage between men and women who consumed fast food.
8 -
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
1-) Doing this based on pure calories is disingenuous. If you want to go purely by calorie, probably the cheapest way to spend your dollar is margarine (I can get a stick for a dollar, that's 810 calories!) or flour (that's 1.68 for nearly 5000 calories), but there's more to it than that and we both know it. I'm not sure I consider a whole meal made out of broccoli to actually be healthy, either, at least not on a regular basis. I might even consider it LESS healthy than chicken nuggets, because if you deep fry those you've at least got protein AND fat, and that's certainly going to be more satiating and provide longer energy for most people than a green vegetable. Now if you add a dollar and add a couple of the cheap healthy options together thing you have more food and can eat longer, and be healthier. That is the smarter choice, but again: you've got cheap, tasty, and a couple of macros in one go versus 'have to prepare, and don't like much' with no clear knowledge of WHY you should do that.
2-) Yep, it sure does. Also what we normalize. American society has very normalized views of obesity. What is that number, up to 60% of people are at least overweight?
3-) Yeah, okay but if you went to public school you think you know how to eat. Everyone thinks they know how to eat. Most people don't know what a TDEE IS much less what theirs is. Then there's all the noise on TV and social media filled with bro science and everyone claiming they're right and know what to do. That's a lot of filtering for someone who doesn't know w hat they don't know to do to find a source.
4-) Fine by me. You can use that to pay for an automatic referral to a (registered) dietician with the fastfood tax.
5-) Definitely blast the TV campaign about the dangers of obesity while we're at it. We did cut down on smokers this way. (OTOH it did nothing for the 'war on drugs', and I'm not sure 'war on fat' would be more effective. Maybe. Someone knows. It's not me.)
No seriously I don't care. I think you'd have to tear down and rebuild american society on just about every level to address it all. There are problems. A lot of them. If the answers were simple we wouldn't have the problem because no one who doesn't want to be fat would be fat.
Come again? disingenuous? ummmm.... that meal that I put out there had 22g of protein. Average 140lbs person needs 56 grams of protein a day per USDA guidelines or 0.4g/lb. 3 meals of that nature would more than meet the guidelines. now fat at .32g per lb that would be about 45gs. So 3 meals of this nature would only be 1320 calories. So, we could get crazy and add 2 tbs of olive oil to the meal for a cost of $0.15. All fat would be met and a sedentary tdee would be reached. cost would still be less per calorie and most micro and macro needs would be met. as far as time.... add all that to a cheap slow cooker before you go to work and hit start...... 15 mins of work. Time in a McDonalds drive though? 15 mins or so.5 -
What....
What part of 'there is not always help accessible to people' - mental or otherwise - has a single blasted thing to do with being 'ever-the-victim'.
You. You do realize that 'there is not enough help out there for people who need it' does not equal = 'nah, nothing is my/their fault at all, no accountability for them!'. It also does not mean 'people who need mental help from a professional are now entirely not accountable for anything in their life - mental health professionals wave a magic wand and make it all better; all work is done BY the professional, none at all by the person who is using them.
I get it, dude. You set your own broken leg and are just fine now! You don't need a doctor! . Congratulations, you can have all the bad@ss points you want, but that doesn't make someone who broke their leg and needs a surgeon and can't walk 23 miles to find one and has to limp through life now is a victim. Nor does them saying "Man, I think more surgeons would be useful and maybe prevent people limping their entire lives" enable 'ever-the-victim' mentality.
11 -
I know I stepped on your last nerve, wunderkind.
I have no idea what you're banging on about with the broken leg...
If you think someone else can fix you, go for it.
Been there, got the Tee shirt. Only one who can fix me is me, I took all the pills, I saw all the counselors, and it was MY Decision to accept the way out...and even when I was on Medicaid, poor, no job, I could still access a doctor who would be more that happy to give me pills (and they did - no cost to me) or send me to counseling (and they did - it was totally useless and horrible.) I really don't understand what world you live in where there is no help. It's certainly not the five states in the U.S. where I have lived and gotten medical care and spiritual/psychological care over the past 50 years.
Feel free to continue to believe that only someone else can fix you - good luck. I'm not going to continue to engage with you while you're this triggered.
Peace out.
6 -
A lot has already been said here.
It's a multi-factorial problem. That implies that there's unlikely to be a single simple solution. More likely: Lots of little solution-bits.
Could this legislation be one solution-bit for some parts of the problem for some people? I think yes.
It's a little bizarre that (in some cases) there's health insurance money to help people (with counseling, meds, etc.) if they get on the track to weight loss surgery and stay on that track, but not as much help for people with the same obesity problem who don't want to go the surgery route.
Would the proposed legislation "solve the obesity problem"? I think no, in any broad universal sense.
IMO, "lots of little solution bits" is what actually happened to reduce smoking. There were scary ads, there were lawsuits against providers, employers decided to make it less convenient to smoke by isolating smokers or forbidding onsite smoking, governments made it illegal to smoke in restaurants/bars in many areas, certain kinds of advertising were banned, certain product variations that were especially seductive were banned, schools turned children into parent-naggers on the subject, publicity about second hand-smoke led to social disapproval of smoking . . . and more. Then it took a long time.
My main concern about the proposed legislation (on an admittedly superficial reading) is the likelihood that it would give rocket fuel to sketchy medical professionals (INO, or in formal credentials only) who'd rush to cash in by pushing nonsense. (They're already out there making big bucks, and many of you could name some - I sure could - but there's no need to turn this thread into *that* argument that we've also had many times before.)9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.
This made me curious about the income demographics of fast food consumers, but the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey doesn't include enough income tiers in this study:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db322.htm
Did the percentage of adults consuming fast food on a given day differ by family income level for 2013–2016?
The percentage of adults who consumed fast food increased with increasing family income level (Figure 3). Overall, 31.7% of lower-income (less than or equal to 130% of the federal poverty level [FPL]), 36.4% of middle-income (greater than 130% to less than or equal to 350% of FPL), and 42.0% of higher-income (greater than 350% of FPL) adults consumed fast food on a given day. A similar pattern was observed for both men and women.
Within each income level, there was no significant difference in the percentage between men and women who consumed fast food.
Tracks well with the data that rising affluence increases obesity..... maybe because people start abandoning their dietary patterns?
@wunderkindking .... I am never going to say that people should seek help. It will help some people. Though, I think we can look into our ancient past and see how people dealt with emotions. They had a very close sense of family and community. When someone was having an issue, they would go to their elder, shaman, tribal circle. There would be talking and sometimes a "ritual" to help them. Everyone had a purpose in the community. So, in a strange way, a church, meeting group, ect.... can act as an extended community. What amazes me is, we are soo connected, yet so damn alone. We sit behind a computer, TV, phone, and do not engage with the world. People work a "job". They have lost their sense of purpose. We have soo much, yet so little. Strength can't be given, it can be lent, but to succeed, we must find out own.
@cmriverside , yes... there seems to be a high sense of victim mentality these days. some warranted, some not.6 -
It might be useful to look at rich countries who don't have an obesity epidemic like us, say Japan or South Korea. It may be something in the culture, like how fat shaming is socially accepted, to the point where fat people are almost ostracized in society.
Also the US is much worse than any other western countries, obesity rates in northern European countries are much less, also certain countries in southern Europe.5 -
It might be useful to look at rich countries who don't have an obesity epidemic like us, say Japan or South Korea. It may be something in the culture, like how fat shaming is socially accepted, to the point where fat people are almost ostracised in society.
Also the US is much worse than any other western countries, obesity rates in northern European countries are much less, also certain countries in southern Europe.
Japan is a country I know some about their dietary patterns. Historically and current time. The traditional Japanese diet is based on starches (I.E rice, potatoes) , beans, pickles, and small amounts of animal products. While there has been some encroaches of a more affluent western diet, many still eat a far more traditional diet. Just look at a "fast" food breakfast. Rice, pickles, bean paste, miso soup, salmon, and an egg is an example of one I have seen. They have access to corner stores that sell fairly affordable "healthy" food. They drink less sugared drinks. That said, there has been an increase in obesity since that introduction of "western" dietary pattern. We have to look culturally as well. They walk more than someone from the USA. They also have a built in caloric restriction, Hara hachi bun me. They are also more of a collectivist society. They do what is good for the group vs America, where we have a higher sense of individualism.6 -
Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ?
It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.4 -
I live in a rural state that ranks 49th in mental health care. I also live where competent medical care may require going out of state. My small town is considered a food desert despite living in a rural area. My state also pays out the lowest medicare reimbursement rates and has a huge lack of doctors and medical facilities.
Speaking as a diabetic/ kidney disease disability recipient, I had very little access to health care until received disability. I hope that medicare will cover semaglutide. It is relatively safe and the most effective drug to date. It does not require medical staff to administer it and is currently being used in 2 diabetes medications.
Obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. I am not sure how much obesity programs can focus on the myriad mental health conditions that express themselves in weight gain or how we can encourage people to change habits established over a lifetime. A sin tax may prove helpful but why stop at fast food when grocery and convenience stores are full of unhealthy options.
Most people on medicare are older with multiple health problems that limit mobility and not likely to engage in vigorous physical activity. Programs that encourage social interaction with gentle physical activity and education along with medications would prove more effective in this demographic.
And before you tell me that you lost your weight the only correct way and that I should, too. I lost 96 pounds in 2010-2012, then had a change in circumstances, regained the weight and have lost 80 pounds since last March. There is no one correct approach to weight loss or maintenance that fits everyone. I had to have financial and mental health counseling before I could lose weight the second time. Will I be able to continue to lose or maintain I do not know. Will I relapse to some extent, that is an almost certainty. Will help be available for me again, more likely now that on disability but not a given.
As for other demographics, a decent minimum wage, early nutrition exposure and education for children and adults and the return of physical education programs available to all children during and after school may slowly change the coming generations along with a crackdown on misinformation on the internet and media regarding diet and obesity.
8 -
Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
No doubt that walking in a larger city is easier. Compared to Japan, America is far more spread out. I live in a rural area, and for me to walk to the store would be nearly 9 miles round trip. So, we have a car culture. In a more urban environment, Japanese walk to public transport, to the market... ect ect. Yes, there is a culture against walking in America... Just look at the people who stand on an escalator vs. taking the stairs. The stairs would be quicker sometimes, yet many choose to not take them. Watch people trying to get a parking spot at a store, many will drive around for a good while until they find a "close" spot. If they had just parked further away, they would have been in the store quicker. So yes, there is a culture against physical activity in America......8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.
Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.7 -
NoLimitFemme wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »NoLimitFemme wrote: »It will be met with pushback from the HAAS and Body Positivity Movement. 🤦🏼♀️ I hope they hold their ground on this issue. Obesity is having horrible ramifications to the health of our nation.
Why do you think those groups would push back, though?
There are multiple social media influencers, celebrities, and just regular people that have had to face the volatile behavior of some of the overly woke political correctness of the body positivity movement/HAAS. Do a YouTube search for
"quit HAES movement" or "toxic body positivity." Its quite apparent.
My personal opinion ... you should love yourself, but you should also be accountable for your body and health, eat a healthy diet and exercise to maximize your mental and physical capabilities. You shouldn't be discriminated against but you shouldn't blame and hate people that may have a different opinion.
I may be mistaken, but this proposed legislation doesn't seem to be forcing something on people who don't want it, or setting forth some kind of penalty for behavior that's deemed as contributing to obesity (e.g., higher taxes on junk food). I think it's suggesting more public health program initiatives to combat obesity and that insurance companies be required to pay for therapies, counseling, etc., to target weight loss. It doesn't seem to be mandating that people who are overweight be required to receive it.
I admittedly don't have a lot of knowledge about the toxic body positivity movement. However, if they're view is so narrow-minded that they don't even approve of people wanting to lose weight for health purposes, I don't think I need to learn more about them.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
Fat-filled, sugar-filled, salt-filled foods are created to be more palatable. They cause all those little endorphins to dance around and make you feel better. Along with placing taxes on all non-nutritional items, maybe somehow turn the big companies around to manufacture healthier options? Just give a thought for a few seconds to all the foods 'out there' that are highly unhealthy that people live on instead of consuming veggies, fruits, whole grains, lean meats, beans and nuts. Some companies and restaurants make an effort but not nearly enough. You go out for a quick bite to eat and easily consume a whole day's worth of calories.
And yes, people need to work on self control, not be in such need of instant gratification, know that what they eat WILL affect them. You can tell a 3 pack a day smoker that that's going to kill them but that's not something that'll become real to them until it happens.
So how will you change a person's eating habits if they're not willing to change or feel they can't?
There is no easy answer. But changing a few laws while costing millions of dollars isn't going to work.
I really don't think crappier food is cheaper than healthier food. I know that's some people's reasoning for not eating healthy foods...it's too expensive. I don't buy that for a minute. And I'm not talking organic because I feel that's overpriced and isn't necessary for healthy eating.
2 -
psychod787 wrote: »Came by this today. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/596/text?r=5&s=1
I wonder if this passes, what the reaction will be?
I find bills hard to read so found this summary:
https://www.obesityaction.org/troa/
Key Facts About the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act- TROA would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity from a diverse range of healthcare providers who specialize in obesity care. The bill would also include coverage of FDA-approved medications for chronic weight management. Specifically, TROA will (1) Expand Medicare benefits for intensive behavioral counseling through community-based programs and additional types of healthcare providers, including: dietitians, psychologists and specialty physicians. (2) Expand coverage of FDA-approved prescription drugs for chronic weight management.
- This bill is important to ALL Americans as health insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. That means that passing TROA can lead to increased obesity care coverage to all Americans.
- Passing this legislation is especially important as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. Obesity, especially in the presence of COVID-19, must be both prevented and treated. Those either currently living with obesity, or at risk for developing obesity, and are ready to address their health, should have expanded access to both prevention and treatment avenues.
8 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Came by this today. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/596/text?r=5&s=1
I wonder if this passes, what the reaction will be?
I find bills hard to read so found this summary:
https://www.obesityaction.org/troa/
Key Facts About the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act- TROA would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity from a diverse range of healthcare providers who specialize in obesity care. The bill would also include coverage of FDA-approved medications for chronic weight management. Specifically, TROA will (1) Expand Medicare benefits for intensive behavioral counseling through community-based programs and additional types of healthcare providers, including: dietitians, psychologists and specialty physicians. (2) Expand coverage of FDA-approved prescription drugs for chronic weight management.
- This bill is important to ALL Americans as health insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. That means that passing TROA can lead to increased obesity care coverage to all Americans.
- Passing this legislation is especially important as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. Obesity, especially in the presence of COVID-19, must be both prevented and treated. Those either currently living with obesity, or at risk for developing obesity, and are ready to address their health, should have expanded access to both prevention and treatment avenues.
I am truly hopeful that this might encourage insurance companies to start covering the new class of glp1 agonists. I think they hold the most promise of all the drugs at the moment. Unfortunately now, they are out of the reach of many folks. I think they could help bridge the gap between lifestyle and weight loss surgery.2 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
They are very agressive towards walkers as well, particularly in the province of Quebec where we have probably the worst drivers in North America, no respect for anyone at all.
But I still walk 30 mins to work everyday, I don't even bother with public transport. I don't have a car and I don't even pay for public transport. I live 2 minutes away from the grocery store, the gym and anything you can think of. I guess i'm lucky.3 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.
Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.
I get that it's part of the "culture" but it doesn't mean you have to conform to that culture. You can choose to walk and live for yourself.
It's the same here, but I choose not to conform to a silly car culture.0 -
It really sort of varies, re: Cars. There's definitely a cultural thing and in some places it's just a cultural thing. My mom lives a minimum 25 mile (one way) trip from the closest grocery store and that's in a location just off a four lane highway. No way is that walkable.
She COULD walk to the nearest deli in a gas station (or two, one each direction), but that's not exactly a way to get a lot of healthy options and even then it's a winding 2 lane road with no sidewalks or bike paths.6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
Come on, MyPlate.Gov. It tells me to eat veggies, lean proteins, whole grains, etc.
What about the Ding Dongs, chips, Double Stuffed Oreos, regular soda, etc, etc. They aren't listed. Oh and modify SNAP so these things aren't eligible.
Agreed old man, but it hurts some peoples fee fee's when you tell them that. Some people blame the old food pyramid and FDA recommendation of the 80's for some of the issues we have. Had people actually followed the guidelines in spirit and word, I don't think we would be in the place we are in today. Now we a pretty color coated picture for people to follow. This is still not enough I guess. As I keep going back to Optimal Foraging Theory to really describe what I has happened in the last 40 years. Animals, and humans, that are opportunistic feeders, will try to get as much energy they can, while expending as little as possible. This can be looked at in resources as well. People try and get as much "bang" calorically for their buck, peso, euro, pound, loonie,,,ect ect,, I often think of it like this. If a person was hungry, not on the brink of starvation, and there was a bush with berries on it 5 feet away. This bush is unguarded and a person could eat as many berries as they needed to get full. Next to that bush is a tree with a Pizza in it. Now, that pizza is 50ft up that tree, there is no ladder to climb it and you must climb it yourself. On top of that, there are hundreds of pissed off stinging bugs that don't want you messing with their pizza, most people are not willing to climb that tree. The energy returns are not worth the pain and expenditure of energy, unless one is always on the brink of not getting enough calories to survive that is. What we have now is a bush with pizza on it and no hinderance of getting to it. So, we need to create a barrier for people having easy access to these kinds of foods.8 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
No doubt that walking in a larger city is easier. Compared to Japan, America is far more spread out. I live in a rural area, and for me to walk to the store would be nearly 9 miles round trip. So, we have a car culture. In a more urban environment, Japanese walk to public transport, to the market... ect ect. Yes, there is a culture against walking in America... Just look at the people who stand on an escalator vs. taking the stairs. The stairs would be quicker sometimes, yet many choose to not take them. Watch people trying to get a parking spot at a store, many will drive around for a good while until they find a "close" spot. If they had just parked further away, they would have been in the store quicker. So yes, there is a culture against physical activity in America......
Never mind the store, how about the people that do that *kitten* at the gym?
Personally I look for where the furthest car is parked, then park 100 ft. further away. Hate door dings on my vehicles.
Yup... then the ultimate irony is many then get on a treadmill to walk.... fml...🤦♂️3 -
It might be useful to look at rich countries who don't have an obesity epidemic like us, say Japan or South Korea. It may be something in the culture, like how fat shaming is socially accepted, to the point where fat people are almost ostracized in society.
Also the US is much worse than any other western countries, obesity rates in northern European countries are much less, also certain countries in southern Europe.
Oooffff. No
Promoting fat shaming is not a good solution. Yikes. Wow. Yuck. No.7 -
Fidgetbrain wrote: »Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.
Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.
Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? It's an individual choice, I think.
Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!
Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.
Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.
I get that it's part of the "culture" but it doesn't mean you have to conform to that culture. You can choose to walk and live for yourself.
It's the same here, but I choose not to conform to a silly car culture.
By "you", I assume you meant "people" or the generic "one"? I walk for transport more than average here. Currently, it's an 8+ mile round trip to the nearest grocery store. When I lived in a place where it was less than a mile, it seemed viable to do 40-50 pounds of groceries with an ash pack basket, and I did. At age 65, that's sadly more than I'm up for, at 8-ish miles. Smaller loads, on a bike, or to a closer convenience store walking, sure. I do try to organize so that groceries are on route home from more distant things, to save the resources.
Do more while you can, and it'll help you do more, longer, for sure.MargaretYakoda wrote: »Yikes there is a couple tons of ableism here in this conversation.
I, too, took the conversation in the recent posts to be about the generally able-bodied. Clearly, IMO, community transportation systems ought to account for varied abilities. Generalities tend to be about the general population, which is fortunate and able-bodied.2 -
Beautyofdreams wrote: »I live in a rural state that ranks 49th in mental health care. I also live where competent medical care may require going out of state. My small town is considered a food desert despite living in a rural area. My state also pays out the lowest medicare reimbursement rates and has a huge lack of doctors and medical facilities.
Speaking as a diabetic/ kidney disease disability recipient, I had very little access to health care until received disability. I hope that medicare will cover semaglutide. It is relatively safe and the most effective drug to date. It does not require medical staff to administer it and is currently being used in 2 diabetes medications.
Obesity is a chronic relapsing condition. I am not sure how much obesity programs can focus on the myriad mental health conditions that express themselves in weight gain or how we can encourage people to change habits established over a lifetime. A sin tax may prove helpful but why stop at fast food when grocery and convenience stores are full of unhealthy options.
Most people on medicare are older with multiple health problems that limit mobility and not likely to engage in vigorous physical activity. Programs that encourage social interaction with gentle physical activity and education along with medications would prove more effective in this demographic.
And before you tell me that you lost your weight the only correct way and that I should, too. I lost 96 pounds in 2010-2012, then had a change in circumstances, regained the weight and have lost 80 pounds since last March. There is no one correct approach to weight loss or maintenance that fits everyone. I had to have financial and mental health counseling before I could lose weight the second time. Will I be able to continue to lose or maintain I do not know. Will I relapse to some extent, that is an almost certainty. Will help be available for me again, more likely now that on disability but not a given.
As for other demographics, a decent minimum wage, early nutrition exposure and education for children and adults and the return of physical education programs available to all children during and after school may slowly change the coming generations along with a crackdown on misinformation on the internet and media regarding diet and obesity.
THANK YOU!
Mind if I send you a friend request?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions