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.
Cancer Research UK Controversial Ads - Thoughts?
Replies
-
Replying to this: "I think obesity can be caused by a large range of things, sometimes it's a choice and sometimes it's not. The blanket statement is upsetting but I understand the point its trying to drive home."
No - not true at all.
It's simple physics: You can't create matter out of nothing. Even our wonderful bodies can't just create matter.
You have to have a specific amount of matter to convert to fat. In this case: it's calories.
Each calorie can only be converted into a specific amount of fat - no more, no less.
The laws of our universe don't allow anything else.
The logic that we are spreading today to make ourselves feel better about being overweight are only harming us. We have to stop lying to ourselves while we watch our life expectancies get smaller and smaller.
The real science is out there - but whenever someone uses real science, the people that don't want to hear the truth use 'fat shaming' and 'health at any size' to shut it down.
It's fine if you don't want to put in the work to lose weight. But don't try to stop others that just want to he healthy.6 -
Replying to this: "I think obesity can be caused by a large range of things, sometimes it's a choice and sometimes it's not. The blanket statement is upsetting but I understand the point its trying to drive home."
No - not true at all.
It's simple physics: You can't create matter out of nothing. Even our wonderful bodies can't just create matter.
You have to have a specific amount of matter to convert to fat. In this case: it's calories.
Each calorie can only be converted into a specific amount of fat - no more, no less.
The laws of our universe don't allow anything else.
The logic that we are spreading today to make ourselves feel better about being overweight are only harming us. We have to stop lying to ourselves while we watch our life expectancies get smaller and smaller.
The real science is out there - but whenever someone uses real science, the people that don't want to hear the truth use 'fat shaming' and 'health at any size' to shut it down.
It's fine if you don't want to put in the work to lose weight. But don't try to stop others that just want to he healthy.
I agree with most of what you say here, except the bolded, I don't think it's true that people necessarily don't want to put the work in, it's just that they don't understand the basics or that they have underlying issues that need to be dealt with before weight loss can be tackled successfully whether this be mental health issues, disordered eating or issues with medication side effects (appetite/fatigue).
For example there's not a hope in hell I could have lost weight successfully on one particular kind of contraceptive pill that my doctor put me on (despite my protesting the change, it was a government guideline to get me off the one that had worked fine for 16 years so my Dr didn't really have much choice either). I was having heavy painful periods with just a 2 week break in between, my appetite was all over the place and I was extremely fatigued as a result to the point where I had to quit my job overseas and return to the UK. Yes CICO would apply, did I want to lose weight for my health? Yes, could I? probably but at a detriment to my mental health, did I? No because it wasn't my top priority, my top priority at that time was sorting out the hormonal imbalance caused by the medication and finding a new job/home.
So whilst I agree medication doesn't directly cause weight gain or stop weight loss, it can indirectly cause issues if they are not dealt with.3 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »Replying to this: "I think obesity can be caused by a large range of things, sometimes it's a choice and sometimes it's not. The blanket statement is upsetting but I understand the point its trying to drive home."
No - not true at all.
It's simple physics: You can't create matter out of nothing. Even our wonderful bodies can't just create matter.
You have to have a specific amount of matter to convert to fat. In this case: it's calories.
Each calorie can only be converted into a specific amount of fat - no more, no less.
The laws of our universe don't allow anything else.
The logic that we are spreading today to make ourselves feel better about being overweight are only harming us. We have to stop lying to ourselves while we watch our life expectancies get smaller and smaller.
The real science is out there - but whenever someone uses real science, the people that don't want to hear the truth use 'fat shaming' and 'health at any size' to shut it down.
It's fine if you don't want to put in the work to lose weight. But don't try to stop others that just want to he healthy.
I agree with most of what you say here, except the bolded, I don't think it's true that people necessarily don't want to put the work in, it's just that they don't understand the basics or that they have underlying issues that need to be dealt with before weight loss can be tackled successfully whether this be mental health issues, disordered eating or issues with medication side effects (appetite/fatigue).
Right, or their mental energy is taken up by so many other things that figuring out how to lose weight (which many people assume is much more complicated than it is, and that it must be a very unpleasant process) does't make it to the top of their priorities, but gets put off again and again.
I tend to think that seeing it as a medical issue is helpful, as it does give a reason to prioritize it, and it also is a different type of focus than people often have. Medical intervention (doctor saying you need to lose weight for health reasons) can be a major incentive, it's one of the top reasons people who lose give for their incentive, from what I've read.4 -
liaoverbrook wrote: »I was aware from a vvv young age my father was overweight and if i saw that back then, my fears of his early death would have been even more exacerbated.
I agree with the intent but the broad, blanket statement of the advert is a bit of a hard thing to swallow
Are you opposed to or find "hard to swallow" the ads and messages on cigarette packages about the health risks of cigarettes? Because when I was growing up (and likely even now) lots of kids had parents who smoked, so the same reasoning would seem to apply.6 -
Advertising this is great. The only issue I've ever found with certain advertising is that people who don't care, still won't care. Surgeon General writes on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking. How many smokers really care? Here we in CA we have a warning at all fast food drive thrus (Prop 65) that states there may be cancer causing chemicals in some of the food. Fast food is still booming business in the US.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
Advertising this is great. The only issue I've ever found with certain advertising is that people who don't care, still won't care. Surgeon General writes on cigarette packs of the dangers of smoking. How many smokers really care? Here we in CA we have a warning at all fast food drive thrus (Prop 65) that states there may be cancer causing chemicals in some of the food. Fast food is still booming business in the US.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
But it does seem to be working in the long run, far less young people take up smoking and the number of smokers has dramatically dropped in the UK & Ireland (not sure about the rest of the EU) since it was banned in public places and cigarette advertising was banned on TV/sports events/etc.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-smoking/statistics-on-smoking-england-2018/part-4-smoking-patterns-in-children1 -
My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
3 -
My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.3 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
I would question those statistics actually, there are lots and lots of homeless families stuck in hostels and b+bs who dont have access to fridges or freezers or adequate cooking or storage facilities. Even those who arent in temporary accommodation, they are often in rented accommodation with possibly a lack of facilities.
In practice it is 'easy' to cook up a batch of bean/lentil based casseroles/soups or cheap chicken stew type dishes and have that throughout the week. But it takes appliances and storage to do that, its also quite boring to eat the same thing day in and day out.
Ive seen the ads and they are part of many factors which for me has made me commit to being rid of this fat once and for all. However what has helped me is coming off my anti deprssants which used to make my appetite out of control. I hope I dont need to go back on them as this has happened before, I come off them, lose weight, get ill again and have to go back on them and put all the weight back on due to my cravings.4 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
3 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.
No but you're burning a little more without creating a higher appetite (which is why a lot of people fail at weight loss when trying to do it by exercising). People who are entirely sedentary are going to find it hard to stick at exercise routines, I see my friends do it every January, starting by just incorporating more activity into a normal day can lead to an interest in becoming more and more active, progressing from just moving around that extra bit to more challenging walks or an interest in intentional exercise. Basically learning to crawl before you can run.1 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »My weight had crept up until in November a Doctor's visit had the nurse tell me I had become borderline obese and was at greater risk of cancer and diabetes.
I think most of us don't become fat overnight - it is a slow process of consuming too much over time and a series of short sharp shocks is what some people need to get themselves in better shape. But this is easy for me to say as I have an amateur sporting history so running/cycling/gym work is all familiar and effective - I know how much I can push this 60-year old body and I have no problem with motivation, injury or recovery.
People who have never exercised are in a different place so whilst this sort of advertising affects me very positively, I can also understand how an obese person who has never trained could be just stigmatised by this.
That's just it though, you don't need intentional exercise to lose weight (although it's good for your health). Many people here on MFP have lost and maintained that loss by just eating less (small tweaks to portions of higher calorie foods and including more lower calorie high volume foods) and increasing their NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis) with little tweaks to their existing routine - parking a little further away when going to the supermarket, taking the stairs instead of an escalator, watching a little less TV and doing something on their feet instead, etc. This is exactly why better education and support is needed from governments, so people don't think it's more complex than it actually is.
But with exercise you get treats too when your net calorie intake still shows less than your daily target!
To be fair I 'get' that some people can't/won't exercise but for fast and lasting results and to drive the sort of lifestyle change you need to maintain in the longer term, exercise is a vital component. I think it is enormously hard to lose weight and keep it off just by diet alone - and much research tends to suggest that fitter and leaner is the holy grail not just leaner.
Increasing NEAT also has the same benefits, for example, moving from Sedentary (accounts for approx 3000 steps per day and under) to Lightly Active (5-7000 steps per day) would increase someones net intake from BMR x 1.25 to BMR x 1.4 less a deficit.
So if Jane Doe has a BMR of 1600 cals, by moving more throughout her day, she goes from a maintenance intake of 2000 to 2240 and losing a pound per week on 1740 instead of 1500 calories without going anywhere near a gym/bike/etc, still gets the benefits of moving more (better cardio health, etc) and doesn't cost a penny.
But that's the point - you are not burning 500 kcal a day by doing an extra 3000 steps at an activity intensity that is barely raising the heart rate (unless maybe you are 300lb or more). Similarly you will get almost zero cardio training effect from this so your are neither burning enough calories nor getting aerobically or anaerobically fitter.
It is all about calories in and calories out - but restricting calories in on its own (including some minor movement changes) just elongates the process and significantly increases the likelihood of Jane Doe falling off the wagon.
Exercising can be brought into everyones lives through long mildly challenging walks or non-competitive cycle rides - you don't need running shoes or a gym membership, but you do need to get the heart going a bit and for a reasonable length of time on a regular basis.
No but you're burning a little more without creating a higher appetite (which is why a lot of people fail at weight loss when trying to do it by exercising). People who are entirely sedentary are going to find it hard to stick at exercise routines, I see my friends do it every January, starting by just incorporating more activity into a normal day can lead to an interest in becoming more and more active, progressing from just moving around that extra bit to more challenging walks or an interest in intentional exercise. Basically learning to crawl before you can run.
That is so true, my exercise of choice is swimming but it actually makes me put on weight because I just cant stop eating if I regularly swim.0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »In my opinion, in the UK, the reason people buy more fast food than fresh is that it's more convenient rather than it being cheaper. Much easier to bang some stuff in the oven and microwave, than cook something from scratch. Not that this is the case for all, but I am sure it's the case for the majority, particularly now we're at the point where in most families both parents are out at work all day and have to choose between spending time with their kids or in the kitchen prepping and making dinner.
I think this is unquestionably the case in the US too. You can cook for a family cheaper than feeding them fast food costs, and stuff like candy/soda is in addition to whatever meals are, so people eating a lot of that stuff are spending more.
That's assuming you have time to cook, can afford the energy costs, have appliances that work in order to cook said food, etc.
True, but the vast majority of people have the appliances (99.9% of households have a refrigerator, 99.7% have cooking appliances), and cooking does not have to take much time. There are going to be exceptions, but that doesn't mean the societal cause of obesity is that it's too expensive to eat healthfully, as was suggested above.
I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
I would question those statistics actually, there are lots and lots of homeless families stuck in hostels and b+bs who dont have access to fridges or freezers or adequate cooking or storage facilities. Even those who arent in temporary accommodation, they are often in rented accommodation with possibly a lack of facilities.
In practice it is 'easy' to cook up a batch of bean/lentil based casseroles/soups or cheap chicken stew type dishes and have that throughout the week. But it takes appliances and storage to do that, its also quite boring to eat the same thing day in and day out.
Ive seen the ads and they are part of many factors which for me has made me commit to being rid of this fat once and for all. However what has helped me is coming off my anti deprssants which used to make my appetite out of control. I hope I dont need to go back on them as this has happened before, I come off them, lose weight, get ill again and have to go back on them and put all the weight back on due to my cravings.
Homeless wouldn't count as "households" I don't think (also, are about 0.17% of the population), and 99.7 does allow for a lot of families who don't have cooking appliances given total population, but the point is that we cannot say those things have a meaningful effect on the obesity stats.
It is false to say (as the original post I was responding to was suggesting) that people are obese because fast food is cheaper than "eating healthy." Not only is that just not true as a general rule, but of course you don't have to eat any particular diet to lose weight.
I am not saying that losing weight is always easy or that having other life stresses won't make it harder (I think there are many reasons obesity is somewhat correlated with lower incomes), but that the problem is NOT that fast food is too cheap or that "eating healthy" is somehow incredibly expensive. (And food is actually not more expensive than in the past, but the opposite, if adjusted for overall price/wage increases.)
I find the argument that it's supposedly too hard to eat healthfully because one can get a 99 cent burger at McD's baffling. Again, if you price it out it's not actually cheaper to eat at McD's, especially if you make sure to include veg and so on, but even more that McD's is pretty cheap doesn't make other foods more expensive. It's a pet peeve of an argument.5 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.3
-
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
How could homeless people be included as a household in demographic surveys? How would a researcher decide how to measure each household if they are in a shelter or actually on the street? Do researchers just use a recently arrived at statistic for how many people are homeless in the study area, consider each adult a household, and assume they don't have appliances? These are honest questions - I would assume homeless people aren't included in statistics that go by household.6 -
I dont claim that 'eating healthy' is cheaper than pre cooked takeaway/fast food, I was just commenting on those statistics. I am talking about those in the UK however and yes, homeless families are certainly households.
How could homeless people be included as a household in demographic surveys? How would a researcher decide how to measure each household if they are in a shelter or actually on the street? Do researchers just use a recently arrived at statistic for how many people are homeless in the study area, consider each adult a household, and assume they don't have appliances? These are honest questions - I would assume homeless people aren't included in statistics that go by household.
Well if you rent a room say, or are in a b+b, then you are a household. So census returns for example will record the 'household' wherever they are living whether that be in a massive house or hostel room.
People on the street tend to be single (generally speaking). A household doesnt mean you live in a house, its a group of people who live together, or a single person.
I work with children and families many of whom are in dire deprivation, so many of our families have accommodation that is either temporary, or sofa surfing or hostel based or just poor quality. Most of whom dont have methods of cooking or storing food (or washing their clothes having to ask others to do that for them).
I dont know what the technical answers are in terms of researchers as Im not one. I might do a bit of googling to find out. I know surveys of poverty in the UK do apply to homeless households (which does sound an oxymoron) and that what often comes out of that is the lack of cooking and storage facilities.4
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
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions