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?
Options
Replies
-
cayenne_007 wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
All the correct information is available, yes - but so are an awful lot of far more palatable lies.
In addition, you can only do so much by willpower alone. If I had relied on willpower in my weight loss, I'd still weigh 385 lb. Willpower does nothing for my binge eating issues, and the high availability of calorie-dense food everywhere I go also doesn't help. When my office isn't full of cookies and doughnuts, I don't binge on them. I don't even think about them. I certainly wouldn't go out and get them. In a world where food weren't so omnipresent, I wouldn't have been so fat.
Was my weight solely down to personal responsibility? Is my binge-eating my own fault? Or is there an interaction here between the external environment and internal weaknesses?
Yes - I alone am responsible for the food I choose to put in my mouth. I'm also the only one responsible for the decisions I make to exercise/take care of my body.
As grown adults - we are responsible for our own well being or lack thereof.
Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?6 -
CipherZero wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Where do you draw the line? Mom & pop restaurants aren't required to post the calories & a lot of the edible cookie dough brands (looked at a few brands online that I had wanted to try) & I assume most mom & pop sweet treat makers don't list the calorie info online or at their bakery.
I don’t buy the line of mom & pops places can’t list the calories. They know what’s going into what the make, otherwise they have no way operating at a profit of when to reorder product.
A cheeseburger, chicken parm, and fritttas have an ingredient list, same as the food I make at home.
The thing is, commercial restaurants that list calorie info aren't just putting a recipe into MFP and publishing that. The recipes are sent out to a lab to test. They hire someone to formulate their menus, ingredients, and determine which items can be called out as light or a healthy choice or whatever.
If I'm an individual running a restaurant, I'm probably just barely getting by and struggling to find good help, pay them decently, and keep my business in the black. The last thing I need is to publish nutrition info that I have no training in but am assuming I'm figuring correctly, make a mistake, and have a customer question it or even try to sue me over deceptive info or something ridiculous like that.
And food service is one of the roughest businesses to turn a profit in. If they are, it is usually slim profit margins with long hours and limited (if any) time off. And figuring how much product to keep on hand in order to have enough to feed whatever random number of people happen to come in, without wasting money on unused food you'll have to throw out, is difficult and often leads to substitutions and ingredient proportions changing on the fly. Small restaurants go out of business all the time.
I've seen other people's diaries here. I wouldn't trust some random person who owns and runs a small burger joint to figure the calories correctly anyway.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I ate 1/2 cup (measured by the gram weight) regularly (as in 2-3 times a week) while I was losing weight (I'd still be doing it, but for some reason I've lost my sweet tooth lately, I'm sure I will again). I thought it was a quite reasonable serving.
No one consumes 4-5 servings (2-2.5 cups) thinking they are eating a serving. A pint of ice cream is 4 servings if a serving is .25 cups (apparently it is or will be changed to 1/3 cup, but I still would usually eat a half cup). Even when I was fat and didn't count cals I wouldn't normally eat a pint. I'd eat about half a pint and look at the back sometimes and do the math (2xcals for a serving). Or sometimes I wouldn't. Sure, I did occasionally eat a pint, it was an indulgence, but I knew that was overeating, not a serving. To eat 5 servings would be more than a complete pint. So no, I reject the claim that a "reasonable" portion size would be a whole pint or a pint + 1/4 pint. That's not even a restaurant size, and everyone knows restaurant sizes are very often huge and unrealistic.
Also, it's extremely easy to see what a defined size is -- why try to normalize enormous and excessive portions by defining them as a serving? Bad idea!
A pint of ice cream is 8 servings if a serving is .25 cups. Did you mean .5 cup?
Yeah, I did mean 1/2 cup (as I said at the beginning of the post), as that's the standard serving size. The proposed new one is 2/3 cup. My confusion or typo later in the post!
(Curious -- were you actually really confused given the post as a whole.)3 -
CipherZero wrote: »kellyjellybellyjelly wrote: »Where do you draw the line? Mom & pop restaurants aren't required to post the calories & a lot of the edible cookie dough brands (looked at a few brands online that I had wanted to try) & I assume most mom & pop sweet treat makers don't list the calorie info online or at their bakery.
I don’t buy the line of mom & pops places can’t list the calories. They know what’s going into what the make, otherwise they have no way operating at a profit of when to reorder product.
A cheeseburger, chicken parm, and fritttas have an ingredient list, same as the food I make at home.
The thing is, commercial restaurants that list calorie info aren't just putting a recipe into MFP and publishing that. The recipes are sent out to a lab to test. They hire someone to formulate their menus, ingredients, and determine which items can be called out as light or a healthy choice or whatever.
If I'm an individual running a restaurant, I'm probably just barely getting by and struggling to find good help, pay them decently, and keep my business in the black. The last thing I need is to publish nutrition info that I have no training in but am assuming I'm figuring correctly, make a mistake, and have a customer question it or even try to sue me over deceptive info or something ridiculous like that.
And food service is one of the roughest businesses to turn a profit in. If they are, it is usually slim profit margins with long hours and limited (if any) time off. And figuring how much product to keep on hand in order to have enough to feed whatever random number of people happen to come in, without wasting money on unused food you'll have to throw out, is difficult and often leads to substitutions and ingredient proportions changing on the fly. Small restaurants go out of business all the time.
I've seen other people's diaries here. I wouldn't trust some random person who owns and runs a small burger joint to figure the calories correctly anyway.
This!!^ As a retired chef and restaurant/ catering company owner, I can tell you that calories are the least of your problems. You are fighting to stay profitable and manage all the items Kimny mentions above and more. For chains, they are typically franchises and have a centralized support/ administration function that handles this kind of thing across all locations. All the locations contribute to this through their franchise fees or in the case of company owned locations, through an administrative allocation.
It's easy to say what someone else should do and have a sense of entitlement about these things from the outside. Run a one off /mom and pop restaurant and see of if you still feel that way.6 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I ate 1/2 cup (measured by the gram weight) regularly (as in 2-3 times a week) while I was losing weight (I'd still be doing it, but for some reason I've lost my sweet tooth lately, I'm sure I will again). I thought it was a quite reasonable serving.
No one consumes 4-5 servings (2-2.5 cups) thinking they are eating a serving. A pint of ice cream is 4 servings if a serving is .25 cups (apparently it is or will be changed to 1/3 cup, but I still would usually eat a half cup). Even when I was fat and didn't count cals I wouldn't normally eat a pint. I'd eat about half a pint and look at the back sometimes and do the math (2xcals for a serving). Or sometimes I wouldn't. Sure, I did occasionally eat a pint, it was an indulgence, but I knew that was overeating, not a serving. To eat 5 servings would be more than a complete pint. So no, I reject the claim that a "reasonable" portion size would be a whole pint or a pint + 1/4 pint. That's not even a restaurant size, and everyone knows restaurant sizes are very often huge and unrealistic.
Also, it's extremely easy to see what a defined size is -- why try to normalize enormous and excessive portions by defining them as a serving? Bad idea!
A pint of ice cream is 8 servings if a serving is .25 cups. Did you mean .5 cup?
Yeah, I did mean 1/2 cup (as I said at the beginning of the post), as that's the standard serving size. The proposed new one is 2/3 cup. My confusion or typo later in the post!
(Curious -- were you actually really confused given the post as a whole.)
I didn't know which number was the error, the 8 or the .25 (or perhaps the word pint or cups). I wouldn't characterize that as confusion on my part -- I knew there was an error, but I didn't know where it was, so I knew there was a failure in communication, and it wasn't on my end. I sought clarification. If it makes you feel better to call me confused, that's fine.2 -
Um, if you were actually confused (i.e., unsure as to my meaning) it was my fault, so not sure what "if it makes you feel better" is doing here. I did initially say .5. The .25 was a screw up on my part due to a serving being 1/4 of a pint.
I am skeptical whether you were actually unclear as to my meaning and thus wondered if rather than clarification you were interested in a gotcha, but perhaps I am being uncharitable. Anyway, I hope it's now clear, and I've done my mea culpa.2 -
Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
With the exception of convenience stores, all of those things have existed for centuries, at least.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
With the exception of convenience stores, all of those things have existed for centuries, at least.
Centuries is not the same as 'thousands of years'. And even if chocolate bars and ice cream existed in the 1700s (did they really?) , I'm preeetty confident they were not widely available for everyday consumption by the masses...
So here's a question. If you believe that the modern food-rich environment has nothing to do with obesity, what is your explanation for why obesity is a modern phenomenon?0 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
All the correct information is available, yes - but so are an awful lot of far more palatable lies.
In addition, you can only do so much by willpower alone. If I had relied on willpower in my weight loss, I'd still weigh 385 lb. Willpower does nothing for my binge eating issues, and the high availability of calorie-dense food everywhere I go also doesn't help. When my office isn't full of cookies and doughnuts, I don't binge on them. I don't even think about them. I certainly wouldn't go out and get them. In a world where food weren't so omnipresent, I wouldn't have been so fat.
Was my weight solely down to personal responsibility? Is my binge-eating my own fault? Or is there an interaction here between the external environment and internal weaknesses?
Yes - I alone am responsible for the food I choose to put in my mouth. I'm also the only one responsible for the decisions I make to exercise/take care of my body.
As grown adults - we are responsible for our own well being or lack thereof.
Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?
I'm not saying that eating disorders don't exist......however, if I have a health issue, it is my problem to seek treatment and manage it - no one else is on the hook for my problems.
Learning to take responsibility for oneself seems to be becoming a lost art.
10 -
garystrickland357 wrote: »I think we have enough laws for the most part. As far as policy goes, I'd like to see communities develop infrastructure that promotes a healthy lifestyle.
THIS. We need to design at the human scale not the automotive scale. We need to mandate parks, bike lanes, and sidewalks. We need to encourage cluster developments where housing is located near desirable destinations such as grocery stores and entertainment so that it is possible to walk or ride our bikes to those destinations.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
With the exception of convenience stores, all of those things have existed for centuries, at least.
Centuries is not the same as 'thousands of years'. And even if chocolate bars and ice cream existed in the 1700s (did they really?) , I'm preeetty confident they were not widely available for everyday consumption by the masses...
Just because I think it's interesting: https://www.idfa.org/news-views/media-kits/ice-cream/the-history-of-ice-creamThe first official account of ice cream in the New World comes from a letter written in 1744 by a guest of Maryland Governor William Bladen. The first advertisement for ice cream in this country appeared in the New York Gazette on May 12, 1777, when confectioner Philip Lenzi announced that ice cream was available "almost every day." Records kept by a Chatham Street, New York, merchant show that President George Washington spent approximately $200 for ice cream during the summer of 1790. Inventory records of Mount Vernon taken after Washington's death revealed "two pewter ice cream pots." President Thomas Jefferson was said to have a favorite 18-step recipe for an ice cream delicacy that resembled a modern-day Baked Alaska. Check out President Jefferson's vanilla ice cream recipe here. In 1813, Dolley Madison served a magnificent strawberry ice cream creation at President Madison's second inaugural banquet at the White House.
Until 1800, ice cream remained a rare and exotic dessert enjoyed mostly by the elite. Around 1800, insulated ice houses were invented. Manufacturing ice cream soon became an industry in America, pioneered in 1851 by a Baltimore milk dealer named Jacob Fussell. Like other American industries, ice cream production increased because of technological innovations, including steam power, mechanical refrigeration, the homogenizer, electric power and motors, packing machines, and new freezing processes and equipment. In addition, motorized delivery vehicles dramatically changed the industry. Due to ongoing technological advances, today's total frozen dairy annual production in the United States is more than 1.6 billion gallons.
Wide availability of ice cream in the late 19th century led to new creations. In 1874, the American soda fountain shop and the profession of the "soda jerk" emerged with the invention of the ice cream soda. In response to religious criticism for eating "sinfully" rich ice cream sodas on Sundays, ice cream merchants left out the carbonated water and invented the ice cream "Sunday" in the late 1890's. The name was eventually changed to "sundae" to remove any connection with the Sabbath."
Back to the real point, however:So here's a question. If you believe that the modern food-rich environment has nothing to do with obesity, what is your explanation for why obesity is a modern phenomenon?
I think the modern food-rich environment does have to do with obesity, as does the decline in social customs that tended to make food less available throughout the day (i.e., standard eating times and rituals), the fact that food doesn't require an investment of much greater shopping and cooking time (unless one chooses to eschew convenience, and even then since cooking is much easier now than during much of the past), and, of course, less physical activity.
I think many of the modern conveniences (chocolate bars, fast food, TV dinners) did, however, exist well before obesity became an issue, so I think focusing on those things is too narrow a consideration.
I also think -- as I've said before -- that this thread seems to conflate two different discussions. One is whether an individual is responsible for their own weight and whether that person has the power to lose weight even in the current environment. IMO, the answer to that is yes, but it's not really what this thread is supposed to be about. The other question is that, given that obesity is a social problem not just a problem for individuals, is there anything that we can do as a society to reduce the obesity rate? I think that's a worthwhile question, although I don't have a good answer to it.8 -
Wouldn't it be nice if we all forgot about more legislation and just followed what the healthiest countries do? The US is pretty far down by the way.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-healthiest-countries-in-the-world-2019-2In new rankings, Europe takes up six of the top 10 spots with North American countries struggling. The US placed lower at 35th for 2019, five places behind Cuba which was the highest ranked non "high income" country on the list.
Studies have suggested that a "Mediterranean diet" supplemented with foods like extra-virgin olive oil and nuts, had a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than others, giving added significance to a country's geography on the rankings.
Asian countries improved their rankings generally with South Korea improving seven places while China rose to 52nd in the world, according to the Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index.
The study took into account 169 countries and graded nations on factors like life expectancy but also penalised tobacco use and obesity. Bloomberg's rankings also considered environmental factors such as sanitation and clean water.
The Bloomberg link is in there, but I didn't link it here as it seems to limit the number of views/paywall?...
It does make me want to chase that Mediterranean diet though...2 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?
I'm not saying that eating disorders don't exist......however, if I have a health issue, it is my problem to seek treatment and manage it - no one else is on the hook for my problems.
Learning to take responsibility for oneself seems to be becoming a lost art.
Seeking treatment is not the same thing as being cured.
I took responsibility for my mental health issues back in my late teens; and yet, despite counselling and medication and the various other things I tried, I was still struggling with them well into my thirties. I did not have the bandwidth at that time to deal with my eating issues as well, and I prioritised working on the thing that was most life-threatening.
I really don't appreciate essentially being told that I spent those years 'choosing' to overeat, or that I was being in some way irresponsible.6 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?
I'm not saying that eating disorders don't exist......however, if I have a health issue, it is my problem to seek treatment and manage it - no one else is on the hook for my problems.
Learning to take responsibility for oneself seems to be becoming a lost art.
Seeking treatment is not the same thing as being cured.
I took responsibility for my mental health issues back in my late teens; and yet, despite counselling and medication and the various other things I tried, I was still struggling with them well into my thirties. I did not have the bandwidth at that time to deal with my eating issues as well, and I prioritised working on the thing that was most life-threatening.
I really don't appreciate essentially being told that I spent those years 'choosing' to overeat, or that I was being in some way irresponsible.
I don't see that in what she or others are saying ceiswyn...I've seen you mention the thought that they're saying it's your fault. It's not. You did not wake up one day and decide you were going to develop a binge eating disorder any more than I chose to wake up one day and be an alcoholic.
Being an alcoholic is not my fault. I didn't choose it and did not/do not want it, but here it is. It not being my fault though, does not remove that component of personal responsibility to do something about it, which I did, with a lot of help and have been doing daily for over 32 years. Every single day.
Having the disorder =/= being responsible for the consequences, nor does having the disorder make you or I a "Bad" person, at fault.
We both suffered a lot under the weight of our disorders, we both recognized the problem, we both, with help did (and continue to do) something about our disorders which is consistent with taking personal responsibility for the problem...
All that said, it is absolutely no one elses fault or responsibility that I became an alcoholic, not even the guys I partied with that continually pushed alcohol on me.
The remarkable thing about my recovery is that letting everyone else, no exceptions, off the hook, gave me a personal freedom I never expected to enjoy.
That's my experience recognizing and recovering from a disorder that's at least as dangerous and damaging as yours. Personal responsibility is not the same as "fault".13 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?
I'm not saying that eating disorders don't exist......however, if I have a health issue, it is my problem to seek treatment and manage it - no one else is on the hook for my problems.
Learning to take responsibility for oneself seems to be becoming a lost art.
Seeking treatment is not the same thing as being cured.
I took responsibility for my mental health issues back in my late teens; and yet, despite counselling and medication and the various other things I tried, I was still struggling with them well into my thirties. I did not have the bandwidth at that time to deal with my eating issues as well, and I prioritised working on the thing that was most life-threatening.
I really don't appreciate essentially being told that I spent those years 'choosing' to overeat, or that I was being in some way irresponsible.
I think you are taking this personally when it's likely not meant that way. (For the record, I'd say my weight is my responsibility and under my individual control, and I'd also say that I prioritized correctly, to the extent I was able, at times I focused on certain other things vs. my weight.)
I again think there are cross-purposes in this thread -- can people lose weight in the current environment, is it ultimately our responsibilities and not the gov't? Sure, of course. I wouldn't want someone else thinking my weight was their responsibility.
But the question of the thread is whether there are public policy things that can be done to make it easier for people or lead to better outcomes for society as a whole. Such things as calories on labels and at chain restaurants IMO make it easier for people and are good, even though they likely don't affect the overall obesity rate. Education about nutrition and calories, good. Maybe cooking lessons being available low cost or free or in schools. More walkable communities with public recreation areas, IMO good.
I'm skeptical that any of this makes a huge difference, but I think they are positives.
On a separate note, I think the cultural approach we have (at least in the US, but I get the sense in Canada and the UK too, at least) is not healthy. There seems to be this idea that people either have no control or must do lots of really complicated and specific things, that weight loss (and even being healthy) must be hard or about deprivation or about finding that one special trick, that it can't just be finding a way to eat the right amount of cals, being more active if possible, eating a sensible balanced diet, etc. That seems the opposite of the approach in the traditional Blue Zones, where there's so much less stress about these things. With the diet wars and all the "my way is the best way, no one not doing [insert trend here] is doing it wrong," it's even partisan, just what we need. That's why I get so annoyed (counterproductive!) with the claims that there's OneTrueWay to lose and we must all worry about carbs/sugar/eating times/no meat/all meat/detox so on and on and on. It's not actually that complicated although on an individual level dealing with the factors that make it harder not to overeat for you may well be!7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.
Was your 80's date about the time GMO's and hormones were introduced into the diet of our food chain sources?9 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »Are you saying that binge eating disorder, for example, isn’t a thing?
I'm not saying that eating disorders don't exist......however, if I have a health issue, it is my problem to seek treatment and manage it - no one else is on the hook for my problems.
Learning to take responsibility for oneself seems to be becoming a lost art.
Seeking treatment is not the same thing as being cured.
I took responsibility for my mental health issues back in my late teens; and yet, despite counselling and medication and the various other things I tried, I was still struggling with them well into my thirties. I did not have the bandwidth at that time to deal with my eating issues as well, and I prioritised working on the thing that was most life-threatening.
I really don't appreciate essentially being told that I spent those years 'choosing' to overeat, or that I was being in some way irresponsible.
I think you are taking this personally when it's likely not meant that way. (For the record, I'd say my weight is my responsibility and under my individual control, and I'd also say that I prioritized correctly, to the extent I was able, at times I focused on certain other things vs. my weight.)
I again think there are cross-purposes in this thread -- can people lose weight in the current environment, is it ultimately our responsibilities and not the gov't? Sure, of course. I wouldn't want someone else thinking my weight was their responsibility.
But the question of the thread is whether there are public policy things that can be done to make it easier for people or lead to better outcomes for society as a whole. Such things as calories on labels and at chain restaurants IMO make it easier for people and are good, even though they likely don't affect the overall obesity rate. Education about nutrition and calories, good. Maybe cooking lessons being available low cost or free or in schools. More walkable communities with public recreation areas, IMO good.
I'm skeptical that any of this makes a huge difference, but I think they are positives.
On a separate note, I think the cultural approach we have (at least in the US, but I get the sense in Canada and the UK too, at least) is not healthy. There seems to be this idea that people either have no control or must do lots of really complicated and specific things, that weight loss (and even being healthy) must be hard or about deprivation or about finding that one special trick, that it can't just be finding a way to eat the right amount of cals, being more active if possible, eating a sensible balanced diet, etc. That seems the opposite of the approach in the traditional Blue Zones, where there's so much less stress about these things. With the diet wars and all the "my way is the best way, no one not doing [insert trend here] is doing it wrong," it's even partisan, just what we need. That's why I get so annoyed (counterproductive!) with the claims that there's OneTrueWay to lose and we must all worry about carbs/sugar/eating times/no meat/all meat/detox so on and on and on. It's not actually that complicated although on an individual level dealing with the factors that make it harder not to overeat for you may well be!
Oh, clearly nobody is setting out to say 'hey, ceiswyn, the first 38 years of your life and your current struggles are entirely your own fault and choice because you didn't take responsibility'. However, the things that people are saying lead to that conclusion. And I don't agree with it.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.
Was your 80's date about the time GMO's and hormones were introduced into the diet of our food chain sources?
15 -
cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
Must be that's what the GMOs and hormones did. (<== Joke! Really!)
7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
That bold might be a difficult concept to digest (pun intended) for anyone who has lived in a fairly free society long enough. "They" would never....is the mindset/rationale I've been offered regarding certain, previously unthinkable policy changes. These were hypothetical discussions not related to weight control though.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
The primary change in the last century was a shift from scarcity to abundance. Self control isn't an innate human quality, although it is reinforced through cultural and societal means. As the cultural concepts of sacrificing the present for the future diminished much of the "old wisdom" has died.
Weight is simply one of the most visible symptoms of a deeper root cause.8 -
Dietitians should be included on any health insurance plan under the category preventative healthcare
Gym membership subsidies to all gyms, if you are obese, should be part of your insurance coverage.
No taxes on fresh produce, lean meats and cheeses.
Gym equipment in parks - they do this in Miami and it is great
This works in Europe where I lived for many years, it can work here.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
Not last century maybe last 30 years or so. The collective "we" have come to expect instant gratification with little or no effort expended. We can satisfy ourselves so fast that self control/thought goes out the window.
And on your policy discussion, regardless of politics, I'm pretty sure if there is some large change in US healthcare where there is increased government involvement there will be excise taxes on high calorie, nutrient poor foods.
1 -
gatamadriz wrote: »Dietitians should be included on any health insurance plan under the category preventative healthcare
Gym membership subsidies to all gyms, if you are obese, should be part of your insurance coverage.
No taxes on fresh produce, lean meats and cheeses.
Gym equipment in parks - they do this in Miami and it is great
This works in Europe where I lived for many years, it can work here.
Many parks have taken away gym equipment on playgrounds for supposed safety reasons (read cover you *kitten* from lawsuits). There are even articles there that the "safe" playgrounds are promoting lack of self confidence and anxiety in kids which is rearing it's head now for those in their 20's.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/11/29/rethinking-ultra-safe-playgrounds-why-its-time-to-bring-back-thrill-provoking-equipment-for-kids/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/2 -
Work with reality not against it1
-
I would say self-control is the innate quality of humans. When it comes to more instinct driven areas, are brains aren't much bigger or better than other primates, possibly worse since we use so much less sense of smell. What tends to make humans different is a large prefrontal cortex, the area that tends to make you do the hard thing when necessary. There's a very simple test of this in that give a chimp the choice to reach for an empty hand or hand with food, and even when they understand reaching for the empty hand will actually give food, they'll never do it - and chimps are the next closest primates to humans in PFC size. Almost any human child, on the other hand, can learn that you get a bigger reward for going against what is in front of your eyes drawing your desire.magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
The primary change in the last century was a shift from scarcity to abundance. Self control isn't an innate human quality, although it is reinforced through cultural and societal means. As the cultural concepts of sacrificing the present for the future diminished much of the "old wisdom" has died.
Weight is simply one of the most visible symptoms of a deeper root cause.
There have always been people with access to abundance since we've had classed societies. I don't think the lords of Europe had an obesity epidemic like we see now.
I also don't think there is some great store of old wisdom where people have lost the ability to sacrifice for future gain. That seems to be saying we did lose the capacity for self control3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I would say self-control is the innate quality of humans. When it comes to more instinct driven areas, are brains aren't much bigger or better than other primates, possibly worse since we use so much less sense of smell. What tends to make humans different is a large prefrontal cortex, the area that tends to make you do the hard thing when necessary. There's a very simple test of this in that give a chimp the choice to reach for an empty hand or hand with food, and even when they understand reaching for the empty hand will actually give food, they'll never do it - and chimps are the next closest primates to humans in PFC size. Almost any human child, on the other hand, can learn that you get a bigger reward for going against what is in front of your eyes drawing your desire.magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
The primary change in the last century was a shift from scarcity to abundance. Self control isn't an innate human quality, although it is reinforced through cultural and societal means. As the cultural concepts of sacrificing the present for the future diminished much of the "old wisdom" has died.
Weight is simply one of the most visible symptoms of a deeper root cause.
There have always been people with access to abundance since we've had classed societies. I don't think the lords of Europe had an obesity epidemic like we see now.
I also don't think there is some great store of old wisdom where people have lost the ability to sacrifice for future gain. That seems to be saying we did lose the capacity for self control
So what's your explanation?0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I would say self-control is the innate quality of humans. When it comes to more instinct driven areas, are brains aren't much bigger or better than other primates, possibly worse since we use so much less sense of smell. What tends to make humans different is a large prefrontal cortex, the area that tends to make you do the hard thing when necessary. There's a very simple test of this in that give a chimp the choice to reach for an empty hand or hand with food, and even when they understand reaching for the empty hand will actually give food, they'll never do it - and chimps are the next closest primates to humans in PFC size. Almost any human child, on the other hand, can learn that you get a bigger reward for going against what is in front of your eyes drawing your desire.magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
The primary change in the last century was a shift from scarcity to abundance. Self control isn't an innate human quality, although it is reinforced through cultural and societal means. As the cultural concepts of sacrificing the present for the future diminished much of the "old wisdom" has died.
Weight is simply one of the most visible symptoms of a deeper root cause.
There have always been people with access to abundance since we've had classed societies. I don't think the lords of Europe had an obesity epidemic like we see now.
I also don't think there is some great store of old wisdom where people have lost the ability to sacrifice for future gain. That seems to be saying we did lose the capacity for self control
So what's your explanation?
There is a multitude of things going on, but I absolutely do believe advertising has an effect on people's eating habits. Perhaps I'm biased in that I work for an advertising company. I think a number of large scale social effects and policies matter - I don't think it is as simple as people make choices in a vacuum unimpacted by society, economics, or stressors. My point isn't that I secretly am the one man with the actual perfect solution for the obesity epidemic. I am, however, here to say social policy absolutely can work: we have fewer smokers now, and it is absolutely measurable that some of the reasons why are things like sin tax on cigarrettes and anti-smoking informational campaigns. While I'm ambivalent about the moral arguments - the shoulds - anyone that wants to say we can't influence these things via policy is ignorant or motivated to deluded their self in my esteem. Yet I think people want that delusion sometimes because it is easier to handle than having to come up with the hard arguments in the realm of morals for why we can or can't justify acting or not acting to change things.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I would say self-control is the innate quality of humans. When it comes to more instinct driven areas, are brains aren't much bigger or better than other primates, possibly worse since we use so much less sense of smell. What tends to make humans different is a large prefrontal cortex, the area that tends to make you do the hard thing when necessary. There's a very simple test of this in that give a chimp the choice to reach for an empty hand or hand with food, and even when they understand reaching for the empty hand will actually give food, they'll never do it - and chimps are the next closest primates to humans in PFC size. Almost any human child, on the other hand, can learn that you get a bigger reward for going against what is in front of your eyes drawing your desire.magnusthenerd wrote: »cayenne_007 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.
...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...
...sorry, what was your point again?
The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.
Nobody is ‘forcing’ anyone to purchase those items, but humans evolved to deal with food scarcity, not abundance. As a result we have all sorts of inbuilt mechanisms to try to make sure we eat enough (eg hunger) but no similar drives to avoid overeating tasty high-calorie food. And you just can’t willpower 24/7.
So once you’ve finished telling fat people that everything is their own fault, do you have anything to offer that’s actually helpful?
Your firat phraae 'nobody is forcing anyone to purchase those items" is correct.
IMO, the rest of the post regarding evolution, etc pretty much excuses for lack of personal eesponsibility.
Not going to fix a problem if one does not admit one is there.
Well, in that case nothing anyone can do is gonna change a thing. If it’s 100% personal responsibility, might as well just let fat people be fat and stop any kind of efforts to help ‘em.
You can't help someone that isn't motivated to make a change - it has to be their idea. All the information is readily available but they have to do the work.
I can't think of a single overweight friend that I have that doesn't know what they need to change to lose weight - it's just not important enough to them to stay consistent and do the work. One of my good friends is really heavy -she knows eating sugar and junk food doesn't help and yet she still does it because she enjoys it. I love her to pieces but there's nothing anyone else can do to help her - it's on her.
I find that statement a bit off in a policy discussion. We literally can cause people to change behavior. Certainly at a given individual, there could be people that will do something if they want it strongly enough, but most people fall on a bell curve of what they'll do to something as simple as a price increase - it is a bit of the most fundamentals of economics. We literary can change or influence behavior at the aggregate level, that's what policies are for.
And what is missed in discussing "well when was the chocolate bar invented" is the question of how can personal responsibility be explanatory of the issue, if we're making it an alternative hypothesis? Did the human capacity for self control just simply change in the last century?
The primary change in the last century was a shift from scarcity to abundance. Self control isn't an innate human quality, although it is reinforced through cultural and societal means. As the cultural concepts of sacrificing the present for the future diminished much of the "old wisdom" has died.
Weight is simply one of the most visible symptoms of a deeper root cause.
There have always been people with access to abundance since we've had classed societies. I don't think the lords of Europe had an obesity epidemic like we see now.
I also don't think there is some great store of old wisdom where people have lost the ability to sacrifice for future gain. That seems to be saying we did lose the capacity for self control
In comparison to animals, yes.
In your example the bigger reward for going against what is in front of your eyes (sacrificing your present for your future) is learned - not innate.
I suspect it's more an issue of the rate of abundance:
Note the explosion in food production and population following WWII and the conversion from military build up to agricultural and industrial build up. Also has a great deal to do with the logistical issue of transporting and storing food. Refrigeration is a relatively new concept and localized to colder climates prior to the 1920s. Most of the calorie dense food we commonly eat today was created out of necessity for storage during winter - heavy breads, jellies, cheeses, etc. These tend to taste better laden with sugar and salt and while rare treats historically these are used everyday.
There's also the issue of physical expenditure. Those of the higher class in the past needed to move more than the average person today.
I can't remember the term, but there was a calculation for the amount of work required for an individual to survive throughout the ages. This has dropped dramatically in the 1900s and is down to only a few hours. Compare this to anyone attempting to survive in Alaska which is over 100 hours/week.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions