Have you seen FED UP - the documentary?

(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)

Too bad no one claimed this. I said that I didn't know anyone who would think that a Lean Pocket was, objectively, health food, or if you prefer akin to fish and vegetables, not that I didn't know anyone who might think it was more healthy than a Hot Pocket. In fact, I specifically said that in the post that Danielle was replying to.

(This seems silly to me.)

It is silly that people think this way, but they still do it. Some people genuinely think that these are health foods, partially because they are offered as the alternative to an "unhealthy" food.

I seriously don't care if everyone decides to just eat lean pockets all of the time. I don't care if every commercial has a dancing lean pocket with happy people catching them in their mouths. I simply have a problem with the fact that we do have a pervasive message in our society that switching regular foods for diet foods is the cure-all of obesity, and that if you fail it's your fault. This message serves the food companies because it maximizes profits, but it hurts us as individuals.

I know you all have beaten it to death, but I don't feel like that is a message at all. I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that either. Ignorance isn't a free pass. If one can't take the 15 minutes to figure how much they should be eating, why is it the food manufacturers fault?

I don't think that food manufacturers should be expected to do anything other than market their product. Sure, it would be great if they would stop paying for misleading ads/studies/government regulations/etc, but I'm not even going that far. What I am saying is that we should discuss/educate.

I think that all of you are projecting other arguments onto me because all of the people who want to burn the sugar industry to the ground left the thread.

BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.

Also, wouldn't it be great if the discussion we're having right now were happening on a larger stage where more people could be exposed to it and participate? That's what I'm saying.

Okay...so I agree with you...lol. There was a lot to follow in this thread and maybe I misinterpreted the points you were getting at.

But in reality, switching the son out to lean pockets will help him lose weight if all things remain the same. They are less calories after all.

That's what the lean pockets want you to think. She did this with all of his food, and the boy actually gained weight. He needs a tool like MFP to help him track his intake and activity. Unfortunately, his mom thought that what she was doing was the right thing. Without someone educating her or at least exposing her to other opinions on the subject, she and her son will continue to make these types of misguided choices. It's sad.

(I also agree with you- how someone doesn't know someone who wouldn't grab a lean pocket vs a hot pocket thinking it was healthier- seriously- I know tons of people like that- its baffling)

Too bad no one claimed this. I said that I didn't know anyone who would think that a Lean Pocket was, objectively, health food, or if you prefer akin to fish and vegetables, not that I didn't know anyone who might think it was more healthy than a Hot Pocket. In fact, I specifically said that in the post that Danielle was replying to.

(This seems silly to me.)

It is silly that people think this way, but they still do it. Some people genuinely think that these are health foods, partially because they are offered as the alternative to an "unhealthy" food.

I seriously don't care if everyone decides to just eat lean pockets all of the time. I don't care if every commercial has a dancing lean pocket with happy people catching them in their mouths. I simply have a problem with the fact that we do have a pervasive message in our society that switching regular foods for diet foods is the cure-all of obesity, and that if you fail it's your fault. This message serves the food companies because it maximizes profits, but it hurts us as individuals.

I know you all have beaten it to death, but I don't feel like that is a message at all. I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks that either. Ignorance isn't a free pass. If one can't take the 15 minutes to figure how much they should be eating, why is it the food manufacturers fault?

I don't think that food manufacturers should be expected to do anything other than market their product. Sure, it would be great if they would stop paying for misleading ads/studies/government regulations/etc, but I'm not even going that far. What I am saying is that we should discuss/educate.

I think that all of you are projecting other arguments onto me because all of the people who want to burn the sugar industry to the ground left the thread.

BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.

Also, wouldn't it be great if the discussion we're having right now were happening on a larger stage where more people could be exposed to it and participate? That's what I'm saying.

Okay...so I agree with you...lol. There was a lot to follow in this thread and maybe I misinterpreted the points you were getting at.

But in reality, switching the son out to lean pockets will help him lose weight if all things remain the same. They are less calories after all.

That's what the lean pockets want you to think. She did this with all of his food, and the boy actually gained weight. He needs a tool like MFP to help him track his intake and activity. Unfortunately, his mom thought that what she was doing was the right thing. Without someone educating her or at least exposing her to other opinions on the subject, she and her son will continue to make these types of misguided choices. It's sad.

So overconsuming products the mom thought were "healthier" caused the boy to gain weight. In an instance where a person is just trying to lose weight, calories would be the determining factor on whether it is "more healthy" than the Hot Pocket. The Lean Pockets are less calories, therefore, they are healthier for someone trying to lose weight (especially since most of the macros are pretty close other than fat).

BTW, the reason the lean pocket thing keeps coming up is because it is a direct reference to this particular documentary. There is a woman who tries to help her son lose weight. She switches out his hot pockets for lean pockets and seriously thinks that it's the "healthy" alternative.

With regard to the Yoplait ad, I was using that as an example of how a food company portrays to the public that their food is "healthy" and will help you lose weight if you switch to it. It portrays to the viewer that simply choosing this product over another product will result in weight loss.

Depending on the trade off, it might. Just like eating one cookie instead of 10 or eating cookies once a week instead of twice a day might. I don't see how this is an example of a false ad. It's puffery.

Anyone who claims they think they can lose weight just by adding Yoplait to a terrible diet that contains many more calories than they need is (a) lying, or (b) willfully choosing to fool themselves.

Either way, there's nothing I can do about it but say what I think is true, which I do already.

To suggest this is the fault of anyone but the individual involved is wrong, IMO. At least when I was gaining weight I didn't try to blame others. I knew it was because I was too inactive and eating too much.

You just don't understand what I'm saying.

Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.

We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.

It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.

Here is a breakdown of my argument:

1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.

2. People like the food and eat too much of it.

3. Some people become overweight and obese.

4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.

5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)

6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.

7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.

This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.

- Despite fitness club memberships more than doubling across the U.S. between 1980 and 2000, obesity rates doubled.

You just don't understand what I'm saying.

Quite possible.

Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.

I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)

We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.

Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)

It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.

I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).

Here is a breakdown of my argument:

1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.

Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.

2. People like the food and eat too much of it.

We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.

3. Some people become overweight and obese.

4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.

5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)

Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?

6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.

Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.

BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.

Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.

7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.

I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.

But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.

This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.

So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.

I didn't defend the message of the documentary. I said that these types of movies can lead to a discussion about what's happening. Despite the bias and unsupported conclusions of the film, it does have some relevant data and observations.

I'm also not saying that telling people to track will work. I'm just saying that looking at these types of issues and offering additional viewpoints and solutions can help people better help themselves.

With regard to the dead horse that is food advertising, the industry wants your money and will tell you what you want to hear to get it. It's simple, really. That's how it works. These companies do not want people to stop eating their products. If I decide that I want to lose weight and cut out oreos, then Nabisco loses money. Nabisco wants me to believe that reduced-fat oreos are the answer to my dilemma. When every food company does this and no one counters that message, then we have people who eat like this:

Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar

Some people who eat this way will lose or maintain, but others will not. When those people fail, they're told that it's their fault, and the problem continues.

ETA: I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat those foods. I'm saying that there are people who are eating this type of diet so that they can lose weight because that's what marketing tells them to do. When they aren't successful, they get discouraged and think that something must be inherently wrong with them because nothing works for them.

You just don't understand what I'm saying.

Quite possible.

Yes, sometimes a person can create a calorie deficit by switching out a high calorie dessert for a yogurt. However, it's the deficit that creates the weight loss, not the yogurt.

I thought that's what my "side" of the conversation was saying. Of course I agree with this. I don't see food companies as the main opponents to this message (they are happy to sell low calorie products to be used by people seeking to create deficits, as well as high calorie products for those who don't care). It's the anti sugar, anti grains, anti "junk food", anti "processed foods", etc. people who claim that the deficit isn't the issue. They are the current heirs of the anti fat people of the '70s and '80s who this woman in the documentary may still be influenced by. Being anti sugar is no different than being anti butter back in the day. (I do get that you are not anti sugar, but you seem to be arguing for the documentary, which is why I'm confused here.)

We both agree that the ad is puffery. That's Yoplait's goal because they want to sell more yogurts. It also adds to the misconception that just changing all of your foods to the lighter versions is going to help you lose weight.

Okay, but I really don't think that's primarily a message from the food companies. It's popular because people don't want to eat less and don't want to give up the products they enjoy. So they try to sub lower cal versions of those products, just like they wanted to keep eating cookies so ate Snackwells. (I am not saying you can't lose weight and eat cookies. Of course you can.)

It can be the fault of the individual and there can still be other factors at play. If someone chooses to overeat, yes that's their fault. I never said that it was. The problem - for me - occurs when someone decides to do something about it and receives the wrong information from an entity that has an interest in misguiding the individual, in this case the food industry.

I just think you are overstating the role of the food industry in the messages people get and understating personal responsibility and the messages from lots of other places (including medical authorities who continue to say to eat less fat, the diet industry, etc.).

Here is a breakdown of my argument:

1. Food companies want to make a profit. This is what is supposed to be happening because that's how capitalism works.

Okay. But this doesn't mean that they are really the primary source of the messages about diet. They just use those messages to their own end. That's my point.

2. People like the food and eat too much of it.

We agree. That's why you don't need some "addiction" theory to explain people gaining weight.

3. Some people become overweight and obese.

4. Some of the overweight and obese people decide that they want to lose weight.

5. Food companies, fearing loss of profits, create alternative foods that are lighter, leaner, lower fat, etc. The food companies portray these foods as the answer to weight loss because it allows them to continue to make sales. (Capitalism - not arguing against this, though I think it's the wrong thing to do.)

Sure, although I don't see why it's the wrong thing to do. Under this logic Fage 0% (my current favorite yogurt) would be bad, bad, very bad, because some dumb person might think it magically causes weight loss. Yet I admit that one reason I eat 0% on many occasions is, gasp, fewer calories and macros that better fit my needs. While I could, yes, eat chicken instead for the protein and eat less Fage full fat, why on earth is it bad for me to choose a lower calorie product if I like it? Why is the company bad for meeting the demand for that product?

6. Some overweight and obese people believe the messages that they receive from the food company and switch their foods.

Again, I think you are overstating the extent that the message is from the companies vs. numerous other sources, as set forth above.

BUT, more importantly, what difference does it make why the people get these ideas? IMO, it's wishful thinking, but what really matters is that it would be better if they understood how weight loss works, we agree on that.

Having seen lots of discussions of these topics on MFP, however, I think the person is going to continue believing what he or she wants to believe in more cases than not. And for those open to learning, the correct information is already available.

7. These people are largely unsuccessful because they aren't tracking. They become discouraged because they are "doing everything right." Society tells them that it's their fault and to take personal responsibility. That person believes that they did.

I love tracking and think it's a great (and extremely available) tool, but I think you are overly optimistic about how much it would help most people who don't already gravitate to it. It's actually possibly easier for the person who doesn't like the idea to lose by just focusing on serving sizes and food choice. But sure, evangelize for tracking. I'll back you up and say I find it really enjoyable and helpful.

But I still don't think that someone who lives off Lean Pockets in unlimited quantities can really, in good faith, think she is "doing everything right." Having been fat and all, I think most fat people know deep down why they gained weight and aren't losing. Being fat doesn't make you dumb.

This is where we land. It's not that we should take responsibility for these people or take their food away. It's about creating a public discussion and encouraging nutritional education.

So have a discussion. Who is stopping you? I just think the discussion must include criticizing bad ideas, and the current "sugar=heroin" nonsense is one of those bad ideas.

I didn't defend the message of the documentary. I said that these types of movies can lead to a discussion about what's happening. Despite the bias and unsupported conclusions of the film, it does have some relevant data and observations.

I'm also not saying that telling people to track will work. I'm just saying that looking at these types of issues and offering additional viewpoints and solutions can help people better help themselves.

With regard to the dead horse that is food advertising, the industry wants your money and will tell you what you want to hear to get it. It's simple, really. That's how it works. These companies do not want people to stop eating their products. If I decide that I want to lose weight and cut out oreos, then Nabisco loses money. Nabisco wants me to believe that reduced-fat oreos are the answer to my dilemma. When every food company does this and no one counters that message, then we have people who eat like this:

Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar

Some people who eat this way will lose or maintain, but others will not. When those people fail, they're told that it's their fault, and the problem continues.

ETA: I'm not saying that people shouldn't eat those foods. I'm saying that there are people who are eating this type of diet so that they can lose weight because that's what marketing tells them to do. When they aren't successful, they get discouraged and think that something must be inherently wrong with them because nothing works for them.

Danielle, have you met the choir? When people aren't successful some quit and some seek answers. Maybe they find a registered dietician, or do more reading about their diet. Whatever the successful people do to find their success it probably doesn't involve giving a rat's *kitten* about the food companies. And whoever is telling the people who fail it is their fault, it is only their fault if they listen. Not sure who you think is telling people it is their fault. You mentioned society, but there was several posts ago. At any rate, I'm sort of getting a hankering for pop tarts so thanks. OMG I'm listening to someone else.. . . . .it is your fault!!!!!!

Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar

A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.

Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.

I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.

At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:

I'm not arguing. I think you've been stating your case quite well, although I don't agree with all of it. You're quite eloquent and tenacious in the face of assholicness.

Personally, the food listed above wouldn't do it for me at all. I'd rather be fat than eat like that. If that's how MFPers stay thin, okay. Like I said, it's not for me. I'll take real food, cook it, eat it and wear it on my *kitten* if I have to.

As for sugar, I have a love/hate with it. I love the cheap thrill of eating it with its flavor punch and euphoria producing characteristics. I hate how it makes me feel and look.

Breakfast: Low fat pop tarts
Morning Snack: 100 calorie pack of pretzels
Lunch: Lean pockets
Afternoon Snack: Yoplait light
Dinner: Lean Cuisine
Dessert: Skinny Cow ice cream bar

A lot of MFP food diaries look like this.

Yep. The owners of those diaries will lose weight because they created a deficit, not because they ate diet food. I'm not sure why people keep arguing with me about this. It's kind of the whole point of this site.

I'm focused on the importance of a discussion and more education regarding nutrition. I'm also not sure why people are against a public discourse since I'm not specifying a specific message or trying to coerce people. I'm also not saying that I'm an expert who want to show everyone the truth. I just think that we need an active discussion as a community.

At this point I'm bored, though. I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this. If something new comes up, them maybe I'll have something else to say. Maybe not. I think I've already posted too much today as it is. :yawn:

whenever someone in my office makes one of those lean cuisine-type meals, the whole building smells of MSG. it's got to be the only thing making them edible.

For hundreds of years sugar was a luxury item...not a staple in the diet. Now the high sugar rates are being linked to a rise of diabetes and even Alzheimers.

Diabetes isn't CAUSED by sugar if you didn't know. Diabetes is more genetic ALTHOUGH being overweight/obese directly affects risk of it. Even the ADA states that it's a link, but not the actual cause since increased weight can happen without consuming a lot of sugar.
As for Alzeihemer's, there are SO MANY other things besides sugar that it's linked to.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Wow

From the ADA:

Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.

Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/?loc=db-slabnav#sthash.zMNRGiPD.dpu

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

For more on the genetic risk factors and the environmental ones, complete with links to all of the studies including peer reviewed ones, go here: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabetes/14046739.php It goes more into why being overweight isn't the ONLY thing that will cause diabetes but just one of several risk factors, albeit the most common after genetics.

Thanks. I know that being overweight is a risk factor, but also know of many leaner people who have diabetes. In fact one of our trainers (male) is type 1. Can't tell by how fit he looks.
Thanks again for the link. I'll check it out.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

We have people who are taking personal responsibility but doing the wrong thing.

Maybe it's time to think COMPLETELY out of the box?

IncentiveThe only thing that works to motivate the human being and corporations to change something is incentive. Away with the scare-tactics and educational down the drain leaflets. The most powerful tool I use when I need to change a behavior I know is bad, is to focus on what I will win by changing. I think most of us are this way, cause there's an inherent conservatism "why change what's working" attitude.

As long as people don't instantly and miraculously gain the box of cookies on their butt after swallowing, making millions of people change their mind is impossible. To my mind there is no doubt that orange is not the new "black", obesity is. (not trying to offend anyone). When I grew up I knew only one person who was morbidly obese. Where I live the general population used to skinny. Now, I can't go anywhere on a daily basis without seeing someone in the street who clearly is so heavy, they have a hard time walking. It's hard for them.

Win money loosing weight. So what do I propose? Make it profitable to be within normal weight. Yes, this is a madwoman's ranting thoughts. But it struck me after reading this long and very heated thread yesterday. None of you were discussing the gravity of the situation. Our governments, which are already in deficit, will possibly go bankrupt if the numbers of obesity related diseases keeps growing at the present rate. Already you are asked by the insurance companies if you're a smoker or other lifestyle factors. It's very touchy and I think many will be mad at me.

Giving people real money benefit to stay within normal weight range. Give them a really good reason to NOT overeat. They will educate themselves to get that extra money. They will demand true "diet" products that WORK in their supermarkets. They will demand accountability from the food industry, simply by refusing to buy foods that doesn't work.

How would this economical gift be given and what are the rules, I don't know. But I would think it should be an annual or bi-annual affair. A weigh-in at a doctor's office maybe? Maybe insurance companies will start to give lower price for their services if someone is not obese? I would think that a lot of people wouldn't mind paying less to the insurance company if that was an option . Maybe the government should start giving a substantial sum of money to people who are within healthy weight ranges? That money would be spent on health care anyway...

I know, there are a lot of issues with these ideas. And I'm not trying to demonize fat people. I only wanted to make it more appealing to loose weight. Make it a positive choice. We all know how hard it is to change to a slimmer lifestyle. There isn't a day in the forums where there's a thread about someone not loosing weight and the reply is: "do you weigh everything you eat?" You need to REALLY want it, we all know that.

Ok, now I aired some thoughts...shoot me down, lol.

Edit: If there is a medical condition that changes the game. I'm only talking about overeating as a lifestyle choice. Added formatting for easier read.