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.
We're not responsible for being obese?
Replies
-
Yes we are. Unless you are a child or being force fed, we most certainly are responsible for our own body.
I eat processed food, fast food, and all kinds of other "junk" food. I'm losing weight. I'm down to 168lbs from a high of 350lbs.
No one forced me to eat enough for two people, just like no one is forcing me to lose the weight. It's my choice and my own doing.10 -
Aside from some medical issue (glands, meds, etc.) I think everyone is responsible for the actions they take that lead them to being overweight. The food industry isn't going to make things easy, especially since they've perfected the process of making engineered food hit a persons "bliss point" and those foods are huge profit for them. I know I am overweight because I dove right into every junk food imaginable for years knowing full well what the impact it could do to my body. In reality the food had little to do with it, I was in a sense self medicating for issues in my life at the time. I had to deal with those issues rather than drown myself in a big bowl of comfort food (which can be just as addictive as any other vice). In my opinion it's worth taking a step back and looking at the food industry and your relationship with food and then taking responsibility for your actions which will illicit change in your life.4
-
Yes we are responsible for our own weights. Obese people are responsible for that, not anyone else. Although I do think there are certain things that our society or culture in general do to make it easier for people to become fat (huge serving sizes, convenience of fast food, free refills, desk jobs, living in suburban areas where you must drive everywhere etc), but that doesn't mean that it's not that persons responsibility.3
-
Sometimes, I think the root cause of nearly all problems is a READING problem. Or perhaps a Comprehension problem.
How many can say they actively seek out multiple sources of information on a single subject, and read all of it, and think about what they read, drilled into understanding the differences in what was written, and gave some serious objective consideration about how what they read applied to their own situation?
Look at all the posts asking about others' successes with this, that, or the other quick loss diet plan, as just one example in support of my thesis.1 -
Wall of text ahead:
I think this type of discussion often misses the point of not "blaming" ourselves for becoming overweight, and instead "blaming" our environment (as you can see, I don't think very highly of using "blame" in this context -- it just strikes me as so besides-the-point).
Call me a cynic -- and I know some people will -- but I really don't have that much faith in your average person's "will power". It's plain to see that the vast majority of people want to change something about themselves but simply don't, and it's not for lack of wanting. I don't view that as a negative judgment, however. It's like expecting a dog to walk on two legs -- sure, it might happen, but would you bet money on it happening? Is it a bad dog for not walking on two legs?
Most people's daily behaviors are a product of their environment. Myself included. They do not develop most of their habits deliberately, nor are they often conscious of their responses to the cues around them, but habits and cues are one of the main drivers in predictable long-term behavior. Your brain saves you the energy of having to make a million decisions every day by automating some of these decisions into what we call habits. However, it can only work with the input it's got, so maladaptive behaviors develop all the time. You're not to "blame" for this, and if you are, then we are all guilty.
Some of you might be thinking at this point that I am saying we can't change ourselves because it's all hardwired, so it's useless to try. This is not what I am saying. Obviously, if I thought that, I wouldn't be on here, trying to and succeeding in losing weight. I am saying that your environment matters way more than people are willing to acknowledge. We did not used to have an obesity crisis and it's not because human nature has somehow rapidly changed in the last 100 years from having will power to not having it. Whole countries do not skirt the obesity crisis by sheer power of will -- trust me, I've been to them, they're full of ordinary humans. However, their culture and environment regarding food is different than what I encounter at home in the US -- it was easy not to overeat there as you don't have to think about it.
We can conclude from this that, if at all possible, you should try to manipulate your environment first. Influence the inputs your brain has to work with when it's automating your decisions. It's the difference between "buy your usual bag of chips but try not to eat the whole bag at 7 PM when you come home super stressed from work and too tired to make dinner", and "just don't buy the chips, you can't eat them if they're not there" or "if you're going to buy the chips and nothing can stop you, buy the small bag". Which do you think is more likely to happen?
I think if more people let go of the whole "lose weight by sheer power of will" self-flagellating atonement superman crap (which, in my opinion, is more about ego than it is about results), they might have some more success. That attitude works for relatively few people. If it doesn't work for you, don't hold on to it. My advice to most people (who ask), above all else, is "don't set yourself up". Will power is a muscle, and a relatively small one at that. It gets tired. Don't put yourself in situations where you'll probably make a bad choice and hope will power gets you out of it. Don't pile on a bunch of restrictions on yourself suddenly all at once. Don't pin your whole strategy on some behavior or set of behaviors that historically has not worked for you. This time probably WON'T be different. Make small changes that are realistic for you. Know yourself and work with it.
TL;DR: "Blame" is dumb and unproductive, will power is unreliable, don't set yourself up, your environment matters so be mindful of it, be realistic with yourself, make small changes.
I generally agree with your "wall of text" (I found that description humorous). I teach in a public school. Unfortunately almost ALL of my coworkers are overweight and do little for exercise. I'll be honest - it wears on me when I'm out busting my rear on a cold, early morning run - or eating sensibly while I watch coworkers wolf down calorie dense foods - and nobody else (in my world) is doing it. I've had to struggle to find new friends (real and virtual) that share my lifestyle now. The point is that - yes - our surroundings do have an influence on our behavior. We have free will and can choose our own actions, but the environment does exert behavior pressure on us.5 -
Aside from some medical issue (glands, meds, etc.) I think everyone is responsible for the actions they take that lead them to being overweight. The food industry isn't going to make things easy, especially since they've perfected the process of making engineered food hit a persons "bliss point" and those foods are huge profit for them. I know I am overweight because I dove right into every junk food imaginable for years knowing full well what the impact it could do to my body. In reality the food had little to do with it, I was in a sense self medicating for issues in my life at the time. I had to deal with those issues rather than drown myself in a big bowl of comfort food (which can be just as addictive as any other vice). In my opinion it's worth taking a step back and looking at the food industry and your relationship with food and then taking responsibility for your actions which will illicit change in your life.
I don't even know how much you can blame meds.
For instance, I am on some MH meds - search the internet, there are a lot of people who say the meds make them gain weight, they can't lose weight etc.
The truth is - the meds can ravage your appetite and make you almost insatiable. They did this to me - yet when I truly decided to get it under control, careful meal timing pretty much solved that problem and I've cut over 50lbs pretty easy.
Maybe that's not always the case, but imo "meds" can be thrown out as an excuse just like any other.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »They began to make the argument that virtually all of these pills, 'We now know--science now knows--that, you know, 5000 years of experience with the opium poppy be damned, we now know that these pills are virtually non-addictive when used to treat pain.'
Now, this is pain that is probably going to last you, oh, no more than 3-5 days. If it lasts more than 5 days there's something else wrong. But, they would prescribe 30 days' worth of Vicodin or Oxycontin--these are common--Vicodin is another common opiate painkiller.
Not to be all conspiracy, but this really doesn't sound like it happened by accident.
0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »They began to make the argument that virtually all of these pills, 'We now know--science now knows--that, you know, 5000 years of experience with the opium poppy be damned, we now know that these pills are virtually non-addictive when used to treat pain.'
Now, this is pain that is probably going to last you, oh, no more than 3-5 days. If it lasts more than 5 days there's something else wrong. But, they would prescribe 30 days' worth of Vicodin or Oxycontin--these are common--Vicodin is another common opiate painkiller.
Not to be all conspiracy, but this really doesn't sound like it happened by accident.
Truly, at the time, I think convenience was enough of a reason. I don't think you need conspiracy. (Occam's razor applies.)
We were then in a time when opiates - IMO - were truly over-restricted, even for people who were never going to recover from their pain (think end-stage cancer). We should give people in very extreme circumstances all the opiates they need . . . even to the point of suppressing all respiration, sometimes.
But, from that point of true over-restriction, the pendulum swung too far back in the other direction (that's what pendulums do) - doctors prescribed more opiates for people in temporary extreme pain, because of that perception that people in extreme pain couldn't become addicted. Overall, we made mistakes.
Now we know better . . . but we may go back too far in the other direction again, and deprive people of needful drugs.4 -
I don't think I wrote that.
There's a good book on the topic: Dreamland, by Sam Quinones. Drug Dealer MD looks really good too, although I haven't read it yet.
I don't think "doctors/drug companies intended people to get addicted" is the explanation, however.
For the record, I've been prescribed vicodin, and I took it less than the prescribed time (which was only 1 week, doctors were careful, and this was about 2002 -- post the Brett Favre addiction which seemed to put it being addictive into public awareness around here and way past Rush Limbaugh's oxy issue) and kept the extra for a while and then much later tossed it. And this was during a period where I was (first) an active drunk and then (well before I tossed it) a newly sober person, and it never crossed my mind to try finishing/getting more of the vicodin, so I'd say it's clear not everyone gets hooked, I think it's more complicated. Thus that doctors were wrong about it doesn't mean they were villainous.1 -
Truly, at the time, I think convenience was enough of a reason. I don't think you need conspiracy. (Occam's razor applies.)
We were then in a time when opiates - IMO - were truly over-restricted, even for people who were never going to recover from their pain (think end-stage cancer). We should give people in very extreme circumstances all the opiates they need . . . even to the point of suppressing all respiration, sometimes.
But, from that point of true over-restriction, the pendulum swung too far back in the other direction (that's what pendulums do) - doctors prescribed more opiates for people in temporary extreme pain, because of that perception that people in extreme pain couldn't become addicted. Overall, we made mistakes.
Now we know better . . . but we may go back too far in the other direction again, and deprive people of needful drugs.
But 30 days of supply for something that will only cause 3-5 days of pain? How is convenience an explanation for that? In what situation would any competent dentist think that a routine wisdom tooth removal with no complications requiring a followup, will cause an entire month of severe pain? BTW we already know the drug companies lied about the effectiveness and habit-forming properties of OxyContin. The LA Times did an article on it a few years ago. https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ It's not that much of a stretch to say people did other sketchy things to increase revenue. "Pill mills" aka doctors' offices that were more like legal drug dealers are also well documented. EDIT: Apparently what I'm getting at, which is that some doctors tried to get their patients addicted on purpose, actually has been documented to happen: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2018/06/08/queens-doctor-accused-of-turning-practice-into-pill-millI don't think I wrote that.
There's a good book on the topic: Dreamland, by Sam Quinones. Drug Dealer MD looks really good too, although I haven't read it yet.
I don't think "doctors/drug companies intended people to get addicted" is the explanation, however.
For the record, I've been prescribed vicodin, and I took it less than the prescribed time (which was only 1 week, doctors were careful, and this was about 2002 -- post the Brett Favre addiction which seemed to put it being addictive into public awareness around here and way past Rush Limbaugh's oxy issue) and kept the extra for a while and then much later tossed it. And this was during a period where I was (first) an active drunk and then (well before I tossed it) a newly sober person, and it never crossed my mind to try finishing/getting more of the vicodin, so I'd say it's clear not everyone gets hooked, I think it's more complicated. Thus that doctors were wrong about it doesn't mean they were villainous.
It was in the passage you posted from the Sam Quinones interview on page 2 of this thread. I excerpted the relevant quotes for ease of reading.
1 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Truly, at the time, I think convenience was enough of a reason. I don't think you need conspiracy. (Occam's razor applies.)
We were then in a time when opiates - IMO - were truly over-restricted, even for people who were never going to recover from their pain (think end-stage cancer). We should give people in very extreme circumstances all the opiates they need . . . even to the point of suppressing all respiration, sometimes.
But, from that point of true over-restriction, the pendulum swung too far back in the other direction (that's what pendulums do) - doctors prescribed more opiates for people in temporary extreme pain, because of that perception that people in extreme pain couldn't become addicted. Overall, we made mistakes.
Now we know better . . . but we may go back too far in the other direction again, and deprive people of needful drugs.
But 30 days of supply for something that will only cause 3-5 days of pain? How is convenience an explanation for that? In what situation would any competent dentist think that a routine wisdom tooth removal with no complications requiring a followup, will cause an entire month of severe pain? BTW we already know the drug companies lied about the effectiveness and habit-forming properties of OxyContin. The LA Times did an article on it a few years ago. https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ It's not that much of a stretch to say people did other sketchy things to increase revenue.I don't think I wrote that.
There's a good book on the topic: Dreamland, by Sam Quinones. Drug Dealer MD looks really good too, although I haven't read it yet.
I don't think "doctors/drug companies intended people to get addicted" is the explanation, however.
For the record, I've been prescribed vicodin, and I took it less than the prescribed time (which was only 1 week, doctors were careful, and this was about 2002 -- post the Brett Favre addiction which seemed to put it being addictive into public awareness around here and way past Rush Limbaugh's oxy issue) and kept the extra for a while and then much later tossed it. And this was during a period where I was (first) an active drunk and then (well before I tossed it) a newly sober person, and it never crossed my mind to try finishing/getting more of the vicodin, so I'd say it's clear not everyone gets hooked, I think it's more complicated. Thus that doctors were wrong about it doesn't mean they were villainous.
It was in the passage you posted from the Sam Quinones interview on page 2 of this thread. I excerpted the relevant quotes for ease of reading.
There was a perception, as I said, coming out of previous over-restriction, that people who were truly in pain would not become addicted. There was even research supporting that idea, at the time. With that notion, the regular routines for prescribing drugs were followed (you get a 30 day script for a lot of things, right?), rather than extra-cautious ones.
Give people enough drugs to get through a variable period of pain (without running back every few days to get more), and (it was thought) when the pain is gone, they'll stop taking it. As the overwhelming majority of us did (as lemur's personal anecdote illustrates; and I went through similar ones more than once myself . . . and I can't even begin to tell you how enjoyable I find some opiates: Codeine is like a cup of hot cocoa, warm flannel jammies, and a sweet fuzzy teddy bear for my brain . . . yet I took codeine-containing drugs multiple times, and didn't become addicted.) I'm not calling those who do become addicted weak, or criticising them in any way. Like lemur said, it's more complicated.
The current situation grew out of very different times, in a a surprisingly organic way . . . or that's my perception, as someone who was adult and paying attention for the whole thing. We'd come out of an environment where opiates were available way too little, there was research suggesting that certain earlier fears were overblown, a pretty widespread societal perception that people with chronic pain were suffering too much, for kind of stupid reasons . . . and things went too far in the other direction.
Did the drug companies hide behind outdated perceptions and supplanted research results for way too long? That sounds like regular humans with vested interests to me: Clinging to biases that are advantageous, long after a good many neutral parties see the writing on the wall. Thinking of them as demons, completely different from (way more venial and heartless than) you and me, is a cognitive bias, too, if you ask me. (It's way more scary to think that they're mostly regular people we'd like, and maybe find basically decent (but deluded), I think. Conspiracy theory is facile. Does that mean I think they shouldn't be subject to legal action? Nope. Do I think none were cynical manipulators? Nope.)
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.1 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Truly, at the time, I think convenience was enough of a reason. I don't think you need conspiracy. (Occam's razor applies.)
We were then in a time when opiates - IMO - were truly over-restricted, even for people who were never going to recover from their pain (think end-stage cancer). We should give people in very extreme circumstances all the opiates they need . . . even to the point of suppressing all respiration, sometimes.
But, from that point of true over-restriction, the pendulum swung too far back in the other direction (that's what pendulums do) - doctors prescribed more opiates for people in temporary extreme pain, because of that perception that people in extreme pain couldn't become addicted. Overall, we made mistakes.
Now we know better . . . but we may go back too far in the other direction again, and deprive people of needful drugs.
But 30 days of supply for something that will only cause 3-5 days of pain? How is convenience an explanation for that? In what situation would any competent dentist think that a routine wisdom tooth removal with no complications requiring a followup, will cause an entire month of severe pain? BTW we already know the drug companies lied about the effectiveness and habit-forming properties of OxyContin. The LA Times did an article on it a few years ago. https://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/ It's not that much of a stretch to say people did other sketchy things to increase revenue. "Pill mills" aka doctors' offices that were more like legal drug dealers are also well documented. EDIT: Apparently what I'm getting at, which is that some doctors tried to get their patients addicted on purpose, actually has been documented to happen: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2018/06/08/queens-doctor-accused-of-turning-practice-into-pill-millI don't think I wrote that.
There's a good book on the topic: Dreamland, by Sam Quinones. Drug Dealer MD looks really good too, although I haven't read it yet.
I don't think "doctors/drug companies intended people to get addicted" is the explanation, however.
For the record, I've been prescribed vicodin, and I took it less than the prescribed time (which was only 1 week, doctors were careful, and this was about 2002 -- post the Brett Favre addiction which seemed to put it being addictive into public awareness around here and way past Rush Limbaugh's oxy issue) and kept the extra for a while and then much later tossed it. And this was during a period where I was (first) an active drunk and then (well before I tossed it) a newly sober person, and it never crossed my mind to try finishing/getting more of the vicodin, so I'd say it's clear not everyone gets hooked, I think it's more complicated. Thus that doctors were wrong about it doesn't mean they were villainous.
It was in the passage you posted from the Sam Quinones interview on page 2 of this thread. I excerpted the relevant quotes for ease of reading.
Oh, thanks. This reaches too far back into the past for my memory.
One thing you have to recall is that people's understanding of all this has changed a lot in recent years too. As Ann said, there was a prior concern that it had been cruel to not give relief to people in chronic pain, and that addictiveness was not the problem we now know it is.0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »They began to make the argument that virtually all of these pills, 'We now know--science now knows--that, you know, 5000 years of experience with the opium poppy be damned, we now know that these pills are virtually non-addictive when used to treat pain.'
Now, this is pain that is probably going to last you, oh, no more than 3-5 days. If it lasts more than 5 days there's something else wrong. But, they would prescribe 30 days' worth of Vicodin or Oxycontin--these are common--Vicodin is another common opiate painkiller.
Not to be all conspiracy, but this really doesn't sound like it happened by accident.
Truly, at the time, I think convenience was enough of a reason. I don't think you need conspiracy. (Occam's razor applies.)
We were then in a time when opiates - IMO - were truly over-restricted, even for people who were never going to recover from their pain (think end-stage cancer). We should give people in very extreme circumstances all the opiates they need . . . even to the point of suppressing all respiration, sometimes.
But, from that point of true over-restriction, the pendulum swung too far back in the other direction (that's what pendulums do) - doctors prescribed more opiates for people in temporary extreme pain, because of that perception that people in extreme pain couldn't become addicted. Overall, we made mistakes.
Now we know better . . . but we may go back too far in the other direction again, and deprive people of needful drugs.
The root cause is a need vs want issue.
Patients need to address the root cause of their pain and quite often this is behavioral e.g. managing weight. The medical community realized for years that the likelihood of successful behavioral modification is depressingly low and made the decision to address the symptoms and opt for pain management over root cause. Long term this is a disaster and we've only begun to feel the damage of this unsustainable strategy. But we gave the people what they wanted, not what they needed.
The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction and we've been treating addiction as a criminal offense.
Here is a link to one of the most profound statements on our misconception of addiction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
I believe this can be applied to nearly everything and particularly applicable to those with an unhealthy relationship with food. This isn't my field of expertise and cannot speak to the psychological element, but the biochemical evidence is overwhelming that Dr. Hari's hypothesis is absolutely correct.4 -
There’s growing evidence that our propensity to overeat (or not) may be at least in part genetic. Prof Giles Yeo has a book out on the subject.2
-
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »
That's not how epigenetics works. At all.6 -
johnslater461 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
That's not how epigenetics works. At all.
OK then how does it work?2 -
Your brain saves you the energy of having to make a million decisions every day by automating... Will power is a muscle, and a relatively small one at that. It gets tired. Don't put yourself in situations where you'll probably make a bad choice and hope will power gets you out of it.
I agree. I feel that decision making muscle weaken as the day or week wears on—if I leave a jar of candy on my counter I have to see it and consciously make the decision to pass it by every time I walk by. I’m a SAHM, so that’s about a bajillion times a day. By the end of a long day, what are the odds it doesn’t get opened? If the candy is up on the cabinet of rarely used pots, I don’t have to wear out my willpower. I think many people live in the first situation, either out of their own choice or bc of their environment (they work next to a donut shop, the guy in the next office has a candy dish outside the door, their work caters lunch a few times a week, etc). You watch a lot of tv, you’re always getting the message to treat yourself, you deserve it! Eventually you say, you know I did have a rough day. I deserve a little treat!
Not to say you’re powerless, but you and those around you shaping your environment can make it easier or harder.
4 -
richardgavel wrote: »http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/27/opinions/life-expectancy-corporations-opinion-sachs/index.html
Just read this article on CNN and it really infuriated me. I think the line that was the toughest to stomach was "While the obesity and opioid epidemics are sometimes written off as "bad life choices," these epidemics are largely the handiworks of an irresponsible corporate sector." More and more, we're being told that we're not responsible for our own actions, that our lives, our own destinies, are the result of the actions of others and not ourselves. You're overweight? Blame the soda/fast food vendors? Trump won the election? Blame Russia.
</rant>
Russia definitely helped though.12 -
gradchica27 wrote: »Your brain saves you the energy of having to make a million decisions every day by automating... Will power is a muscle, and a relatively small one at that. It gets tired. Don't put yourself in situations where you'll probably make a bad choice and hope will power gets you out of it.
I agree. I feel that decision making muscle weaken as the day or week wears on—if I leave a jar of candy on my counter I have to see it and consciously make the decision to pass it by every time I walk by. I’m a SAHM, so that’s about a bajillion times a day. By the end of a long day, what are the odds it doesn’t get opened? If the candy is up on the cabinet of rarely used pots, I don’t have to wear out my willpower. I think many people live in the first situation, either out of their own choice or bc of their environment (they work next to a donut shop, the guy in the next office has a candy dish outside the door, their work caters lunch a few times a week, etc). You watch a lot of tv, you’re always getting the message to treat yourself, you deserve it! Eventually you say, you know I did have a rough day. I deserve a little treat!
Not to say you’re powerless, but you and those around you shaping your environment can make it easier or harder.
I agree completely.
Not to mention advertising. You pass a jar of candy, sure. But, if you watch any television or listen to radio or go online, you get a bajillion messages that coke is happiness, burgers are joy, you WANT THAT CANDY YOU WANT IT EAT IT! Then you feel terrible and you are now conditioned to think the candy will help.
Not to mention how the food is designed to make you want to eat the largest volume possible.
Sure, it's our responsibility to not get obese. But it's also true that corporations are spending billions of dollars to make that as difficult for you as humanly possible. And we don't have any organization spending billions to make it easier.
Ignoring this is to laser focus on individual responsibility is bizarre to me.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions