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.
What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?
I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?
Objectively. Weight discrimination law.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).
No worries - I apologize if I conveyed any ill intent. Addition or removal of a single law has little direct impact, but dramatic impact over time. I tend to focus on how law shapes generations and the long game as opposed to the short term. I look at all the laws passed in the US in 1980-1990 and the resulting damage done to the millennials. If we understood the impact in hindsight would you have done the same?
Neither do I, but then again my livelihood isn't negatively impacted by law - or I have adapted to this and managed to continue a live with purpose.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.
I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?
More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.
Like the 18th Amendment?
Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.
In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?
Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...
...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.
I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.
Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.
The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.
When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?
The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.
There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.
The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.
Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.
Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.
This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.
So when you said
Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.
you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.
This was the intent.
There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.
Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.
I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).
No worries - I apologize if I conveyed any ill intent. Addition or removal of a single law has little direct impact, but dramatic impact over time. I tend to focus on how law shapes generations and the long game as opposed to the short term. I look at all the laws passed in the US in 1980-1990 and the resulting damage done to the millennials. If we understood the impact in hindsight would you have done the same?
Neither do I, but then again my livelihood isn't negatively impacted by law - or I have adapted to this and managed to continue a live with purpose.
I didn't feel any ill intent from your posts at all, but thank you.
I am not sure what laws from 1980-1990 you're referring to, so I have no idea if I would have done the same. Like many people, I find that I support some laws and am opposed to others.
As far as laws specifically designed to curb obesity or address health (or laws that I interpret to have that goal), I think many of them miss the mark by a lot. I don't think a soda tax is going to save us. My opinion is that in our current state of food abundance, many of us have to *choose* not to be fat and that is a choice that many of us are failing to make. I can't think of anything the government could do to fix that (other than actively imposing limits on food or requiring physical activity, neither of which are remotely acceptable to me).5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.
Gotta say, as a very fair-skinned person, the fact that wearing bright orange makes me look jaundiced has been a powerful motivator in my life!12 -
NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?
The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.
Did the law stop you or did you contemplate the ramifications of committing this action?
...and I agree with you personally, but the evidence does not support this.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
7 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
I use both a car and bike, including biking on street and paths, and do contribute through the various taxes. But even if I did not own and use a car, that's not really true.
https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads
https://frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Who Pays for Roads vUS.pdf
2 -
If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.11
-
I checked the WHO county obesity statistics (ranked by BMI) and the US is #17 while Austria is #117. Since I’m living abroad in Austria, I’ve been trying think of what is different. I come up with a few things like better public transport and universal health insurance. But I think it’s really more about cultural attitudes. Being active seems to be really important in Austria. So many people hike, walk, ride bike, swim in the lakes, and even in the winter people are skating, sledding, skiing. And not just fit people either! It’s all very social – meeting up with friends or family to do these things, especially on Sundays when all the shops are closed. The only thing I’m struggling to explain is that there’s usually lots of food and beer involved afterward.
My other observation is that they eat a lot more “in-season” produce. When it’s asparagus time in the Spring, it’s everywhere in supermarkets and restaurants, then it’s gone for the rest of the year. Same with peaches, strawberries, pumpkins... Maybe these foods are “treats” so people really appreciate them. Same with sodas. Soda is really expensive, even compared with beer or wine, so people only order one and enjoy it almost as snack, not guzzled down with food and then refilled. (No free re-fills here!)
I don’t think you can legislate this. It’s quite frustrating to me that most of my American family treat these activities (let alone exercise) as something to be avoided. When did we stop seeing an after dinner walk or Saturday bike ride as something fun? End of my rant!
9 -
MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
This would be the ideal, but would destroy a 66 billion dollar industry.4 -
MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Exactly the problem. The reality is there is no consensus on nutrition. I have read numerous studies on various nutritional and weight loss topics...you can find one to support just about any view. The best you can do is read up and make your own informed judgment on how you want to eat.
The science on nutritional issues is simply not definitive enough.
The only established "facts" are that if you eat less you will lose weight. Frankly, everybody already knows this. I am tired of hearing some people claim that people are fat because they just don't know any better. That is ridiculous. Just eat less!!! You don't need studies and nutritionists and "experts" and classes and government sanctioned websites to tell you what is obvious.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Evidently the European Union.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.
I'm as sympathetic as anyone can be to frustration about misinformation about weight loss online, but "completely false" is still a definition that can be weaponized and misused. We're basically talking about silencing people via a politically administered process.
I'm not even sure that it would be that effective at meeting the stated goals, as many weight loss claims aren't "completely false" but instead based on not-yet-proven suppositions or just misleading.
Is Jason Fung, for example, "completely false"? In what I've read, his writing is a clever mixture of established, relatively uncontroversial facts that are then spun into supposition. So what exactly is he going to be barred from posting? And if he disagrees that a statement is "completely false," how does he get his right to speak restored?3 -
FireOpalCO wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.
Who would be the authority on this though?
Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.
Basically we need peer reviewed websites.
If and only if we relied on actual objective evidence, then there would be much fewer panics. "Ground breaking" to the scientific community now means a conventional shift greater than 5%. There's always that one rogue "scientist" who pushes the boundaries of evidence and inserts bias.
1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
What? I'm about to hit 100,000 miles on my Subaru. It runs on gas just like your car, and they tax mine too.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?-1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.
What? I'm about to hit 100,000 miles on my Subaru. It runs on gas just like your car, and they tax mine too.
That's irrelevant. It's like saying, "Why should I have to pay income tax? I pay sales tax and property, just like everybody else." The fuel taxes we're talking about are rough proxies for use of the roads and wear and tear on the roads, because the costs of setting up tolling gates and weighing stations at every ingress and egress to public roads and every jurisdictional line (at a minimum) are deemed higher than the costs of the inaccuracies in using consumption of motor fuels as a proxy for road use.3 -
I think health insurance companies should be made to offer free or discounted gym memberships. My husband is on disability, so he gets free Medicare, which offers free gym memberships. However, I am paying through the nose for health insurance at work just for myself, and the only weight loss they pay for is either prescription pills, which I am scared of because most turn out to be dangerous for your heart, or gastric bypass, which, by the time I lose the required weight they make you lose to "prove" you're serious, I will not need. It makes no sense to me. I know that gastric bypass is by no means the "easy" way out, but it seems that my insurance company is only willing to pay for "quick" fixes.1
-
Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but when discussing adding requirements for labeling calories and nutrition information on menu items or any other food for that matter, the FDA only requires labels to be within 20% of what is actually in the food, so the labeling could be pretty inaccurate.
https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocumentsregulatoryinformation/labelingnutrition/ucm063113.htm
Also, if you are using a device to track your fitness (Apple Watch/Fitbit, etc...) it is prudent to note that the energy expenditure calculations can be way off... on average 27%, and at worst 93%.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
So, regardless of labels being provided on food, your calorie calculations could be off by a ton of calories if including labels and energy expenditure.
I think awareness is far more important than any legislation that restricts a person's freedom of choice.3 -
As a Libertarian, I'm against most government intervention as a rule. The least offensive way (in my opinion) for the government to attempt to influence it's citizen's food choices would be to take all that corn subsidy money and use it to fund cheaper fruits and veggies, instead. Ideally, I'd be in favor of repealing ALL subsidies, but this would be a fair compromise for me.5
-
Charge for insurance based on health risk factors.
If you are obese, smoke, don't exercise (probably harder to determine) then you would be subject to higher rates, even for government supplied health care.
As long as we don't rate based on risk and allow the costs of higher risk behaviors transferred to the populace in general through taxation, there is little incentive for people to change their behaviors.
For the vast majority of obese people, it's avoidable and not some chronic condition causing obesity.
When we shield people from or distribute the consequences to others, we encourage bad behaviors.
I'm also Libertarian, so I think the best solution would be for government to get out of the health business all together. People would be responsible for the costs of their care. We wouldn't require hospitals to treat someone just because they walked in the door.
Charity would still be legal, it just wouldn't be imposed by Federal fiat.
Insurance would still exist, but would be voluntary arrangements. The insured and the insurance company would mutually agree upon a policy without federal interference. We wouldn't require 50 something men who have had a vasectomy to have coverage that covers pre-natal visits and well woman exams because he doesn't need them. He would be free to buy a policy that meets his needs. Insurance companies wouldn't be required to offer a government mandated set of coverage, and could rate policies based on risk.13 -
nathanellsworth wrote: »Also, if you are using a device to track your fitness (Apple Watch/Fitbit, etc...) it is prudent to note that the energy expenditure calculations can be way off... on average 27%, and at worst 93%.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/05/fitness-trackers-accurately-measure-heart-rate-but-not-calories-burned.html
Bear in mind the referenced studies have all used the devices incorrectly for allowing the normal improvement to calculating calories burned.
Like tweaking stride length for the daily step aspect, or learning resting HR and workout frequency to improve the workout calorie calc's.
They strap the devices on a for a study period there in the lab for some tests and that's it. The researchers didn't do their research on how they work to setup a good study.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »FireOpalCO wrote: »Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
32 hour workweek.
Investment in mass transit systems over highways
Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)
To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.
Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.
You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.
lol wut
Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.
You use the road when you're on your bike, and taxes on motor fuels support the building and maintenance of roads. Why should other people have to pay higher gas taxes to pay for your use of the roads?
How does my use of a bike cost you money? It doesn't. This is about sour grapes.7 -
BuiltLikeAPeep wrote: »I think health insurance companies should be made to offer free or discounted gym memberships. My husband is on disability, so he gets free Medicare, which offers free gym memberships. However, I am paying through the nose for health insurance at work just for myself, and the only weight loss they pay for is either prescription pills, which I am scared of because most turn out to be dangerous for your heart, or gastric bypass, which, by the time I lose the required weight they make you lose to "prove" you're serious, I will not need. It makes no sense to me. I know that gastric bypass is by no means the "easy" way out, but it seems that my insurance company is only willing to pay for "quick" fixes.
And the $x a month for membership is included in your premium. Ain't nothing free.
Just buy the membership of you want it. A3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions