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.
Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations
Options
Replies
-
siberiantarragon wrote: »Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need.
Spoken like a person who's never been socially isolated.
Like...are you kidding me???? Have you ever read about Harry Harlow's "pit of despair" experiments? Or seen the results of solitary confinement on mental and physical health? Socialization is ABSOLUTELY a basic need. People go psychotic without it. The effects of loneliness on health are as bad as being obese or smoking a pack a day, according to studies (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/loneliness-can-be-as-bad-for-your-health-as-smoking/2224574/ )
It actually really disturbs me that you're a therapist and yet you don't think socialization is a basic need.However, nobody has made working illegal.
People have been arrested and heavily fined for opening their businesses in my state.If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday.
So you want to apply your own experience as a one size fits all. And you probably want the lockdowns to go on forever because they suit your lifestyle.
You’re certainly making a lot of inaccurate assumptions about me and my lifestyle. Lol
I have been socially isolated. I’m not a therapist. I don’t want lockdown to go on forever. It doesn’t suit my lifestyle. I never said what worked for me was one size fits all... that doesn’t exist. I’ve read plenty on social experiments. I also know that everyone has been dealing with lockdowns since March 2020. There are still ways to socialize so let’s not use extremist comparisons like those being put in solitary confinement. Are they our preferred method of socialization? Maybe not, but we can all still socialize in some capacity.
I have my opinions. You have yours. We obviously have very different ways of thinking and I’m okay with that. ✌🏼 I don’t need everyone to agree with mine, that’s why I find the debate forum interesting. But I also don’t just change my mind based on a couple articles and someone yelling louder than me.
10 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs... socialization is not a basic need.
Spoken like a person who's never been socially isolated.
Like...are you kidding me???? Have you ever read about Harry Harlow's "pit of despair" experiments? Or seen the results of solitary confinement on mental and physical health? Socialization is ABSOLUTELY a basic need. People go psychotic without it. The effects of loneliness on health are as bad as being obese or smoking a pack a day, according to studies (https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/loneliness-can-be-as-bad-for-your-health-as-smoking/2224574/ )
It actually really disturbs me that you're a therapist and yet you don't think socialization is a basic need.However, nobody has made working illegal.
People have been arrested and heavily fined for opening their businesses in my state.If I’m being honest, I’ve actually done better not getting out and socializing everyday.
So you want to apply your own experience as a one size fits all. And you probably want the lockdowns to go on forever because they suit your lifestyle.janejellyroll wrote: »You're limiting your alcohol consumption because you know consuming it to the point of it being a problem is a possibility. If food was your coping mechanism, you wouldn't have the option of just not eating. You'd still need to purchase food and ideally enough of it so that you don't have to shop every couple of days. You'd still have to eat each day. The option you have with alcohol just wouldn't be there.
I mean, like, I literally have a bottle of rum in my kitchen cabinet and I haven't touched it. I have a liquor store right next to where I live that I haven't visited. I've been able to drink reasonably during the last two outings I went on. So maybe I just have better self-control than some people?
And I've gained weight due to stress eating in the past. I gained 10 pounds in a year once due to stress eating, and, if I had continued that way, I'd be obese by now. But, I decided to lose weight BEFORE it got to be a problem where I ended up overweight, and I was able to lose it by calorie counting. There's nothing special about me. I don't have any magical junk food avoidance properties. If I can do it, anyone can do it.And, like you note with alcohol, our already food-obsessed culture seems to have increased its focus on food during this period -- note all the chatter about pandemic baking, creamy coffee drinks, and ordering takeout -- as well as a focus in some areas about how we have this alleged responsibility to help support restaurants.
...yes and that was exactly my point in the first place! How our culture normalizes obesity and tells people it's not a big deal to overeat! How many times do I have to say it?janejellyroll wrote: »I don't even understand how food rationing would operate. Presumably we'd get assigned the number of calories we need to maintain our ideal weight, but everyone has a different amount of activity based on their lifestyle and job. So does that mean I'd get assigned the 1,460 I need to maintain at a sedentary level (because I have an office job) and I'd just have to stop exercising? I actually need 2,000 a day to maintain my weight, so my choices would be to resort to the black market or eliminate activity.
Or is the idea that only the overweight and obese would be subject to rationing?
I'm really curious about the mechanics of this proposal. Even if one believed that the role of government was to determine -- through force and penalties -- the size of our bodies, the logistics seem daunting. People in the US weren't even willing to skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings, there's no way they'd just blithely accept the government determining how much food we're allowed to have on the tables at those gatherings. I am not sure if we're talking about a specifically American context here or not, but I just don't see that being pulled off.
The point was that it was a ridiculous proposal -- as ridiculous as lockdowns. I never thought Americans would accept banning socialization, education, and work for a year either because of a virus with an over 99% survival rate, yet here we are. If something as extreme as lockdowns are now normal, why not something as extreme as food rationing? Besides, food rationing has been done in the US before, in WWII for example. So it's not even that unheard of.
Also, a lot of people did skip large Thanksgiving and Christmas gatherings. The news just cherry-picked the ones who didn't.
Also, the average American eats 3600 calories a day (https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/average-calorie-intake-human-per-day-versus-recommendation-1867.html). Just thought that was interesting -- I bet people didn't expect it was that high.
Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing. And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss. In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively. I understand things may not be the same in your circles, but your experience may not be the universal one that you seem to assume it is.
Some people have had their routines changed significantly in the last year, but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online). Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working! Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online. You're so focused on what has changed that you're unable to see what is actually happening.
I know people who gathered for Thanksgiving and Christmas. This isn't about the news. Again, your experience is not universal. Your experience of lockdown sounds like it has been really negative and that your area has been incredibly restricted. I know that is the reality for some people, but this isn't a nationwide universal. There's a big variation between the urban and rural experiences here, as well as variations between different states or even cities within states. I have siblings in different states and we work different jobs and it's something we've already noticed -- there is no universal experience of this thing, although there are some things that are more common.
That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm not seeing anything where overweight or obese people are telling those with mental illnesses that they need to "get over it" so they can be safer. I think you're heavily personalizing public health messages. Which I get, this whole thing has been frustrating in many different ways, but I don't think seeing this as an obese people versus mental illness thing is warranted. To begin with, there is overlap between these two categories!
In discussions I've had, I've seen a lot of overlap between the people who tell anyone who is negatively affected by the lockdowns to "get over it," and the people who get offended when you suggest that people should take more personal responsibility for their own health before asking others to sacrifice for them. I'm not implying that anyone who holds these beliefs is obese, or anyone who doesn't hold these beliefs is not obese. (Ironically, I have several friends who are overweight/obese and agree with me about the obesity/COVID/personal responsibility thing.)I get that you don't understand how anyone can be overweight. It's a common thing, but I promise you that logistical and mental obstacles to weight loss exist, including a lack of information about how CICO works or not understanding how to effectively implement it into one's life.
I never said that I don't understand how anyone can be overweight. I just gave an entire paragraph of reasons why I think people stay overweight. I just said that I don't think lack of access to information is the reason. 20 or 30 years ago, sure, it was a lot harder to find information back then, maybe that would have been a factor. But today, the information is out there, free and available. If someone doesn't look it up, it's because they don't want to know.
And again, regardless of what the reason is why people keep gaining weight, is it not the government's job to fix this public health crisis? Why are governments and our society in general enabling the obesity crisis instead of trying to fix it? If the answer actually is just lack of knowledge, that would be a pretty easy fix, wouldn't it? Why aren't there huge billboards with this information everywhere, the same way there are billboards everywhere about wearing a mask or social distancing?
There's a ton of information on weight loss out there and a lot of it is conflicting.
I think someone can be overweight AND think it's an issue of importance and still not be sure how to proceed. Or maybe they know how to do it, but implementing consistently is an issue. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see this as an us/them issue and I don't think it's a consequence of fat being glamorized.
Daily here, we encounter people who know what to do and aren't quite sure how to do it (given the circumstances of their lives or particular emotional issues). There are also people who know what they want to do, but have inaccurate ideas of how it needs to be done that are either setting them back or causing them to spend energy on controlling irrelevant factors. We're in a society that makes it incredibly easy to consume more energy than our body needs. I can understand how some don't have grace to expend or don't want to expend grace, but I've been there and I think it's more complex than you're making it out to be.
The corollation of obesity and a history of abuse, and of obesity with poverty, is stunning when you dig into it. The number of people in the US who don't have access to a primary care doctor, internet access, or a decent k-12 education as a result of poverty (either urban or rural) is also stunning.
I listened to a podcast comparing access to broadband internet in the US to other industrialized nations and it blew my mind!
As a consequence, I suspect that overweight/obese people are over-represented in the "essential worker" or "meet the public" workforce, when it comes to those outside strict total-PPE health care settings, especially. That appears to me to be true, based on the people in those jobs that I see around me, but I know that my eyesight's not a statistical sample.
I wonder if something like that could also play a role in over-representation of overweight/obese people among those dying of Covid in the US? There's IMU some evidence that higher viral load (loosely, getting more viral bits on/in you when exposed) relates to more severe cases of Covid. It would be interesting to know if those in essential/public-facing/low-PPE jobs are dying at disproportionate rates from the virus.
As someone mentioned above, I don't expect to see those more refined statistical analyses for quite a while yet, to explore questions like that, there currently being fatter fish right now for epidemiologists and their statistician buddies to be frying.
Yep, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of earlier when I said there's a correlation but they don't know for sure the cause. It seems logical that the obesity itself puts you at some kind of disadvantage, but until doctors find a clear physical mechanism for why, there's no way to know if it is primarily physical or a smaller factor.
It's the same with how hard the virus is hitting the black community in the US. Is it because more of them are essential workers still spending all day in public? Is it because they are more likely to be obese? Is it because they are more likely to get poor medical care? Are they more likely to live in densely populated areas? Take public transportation? Is there another condition those with recent African heritage are genetically predisposed to that hampers their ability to fight off the virus?
Anyway, I hope we get these answers at some point, and I hope folks out there who are obese get the message that there are myriad reasons to get to a healthy weight as soon as possible, both for them personally and for society in general.
The bolded is a particularly provocative issue, to me, espeically in context of the fact that Africa (as an overwhelming overgeneralization) so far seems to have had less severity/contagion than many people had expected at the start of all this. I don't I expect we'll tease out even refined, nuanced correlations for quite a while yet, let alone causes. Yes, there is less obesity in Africa. There are also lots of other differences, so I doubt the answers are as simple as bodyweight.
The median age on the African continent is 19.7 years. That might be the single biggest reason their COVID mortality is surprisingly low.
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
There's really not that much difference between making the choice not to go to the liquor store or not to have a drink at a party, and making the choice to avoid foods you're likely to binge on or to only eat a certain portion. I think you are overcomplicating it.Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Not really. It's better to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes a problem. I did the same with food years ago. Maybe if more people did that, we wouldn't be in this health situation now.Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing.
There has also been a lot of romanticizing binging on takeout, "quarantinis," stress baking, etc. and a lot of excuse-making for those who have gained weight ("what can you expect during these trying times?") even in this very discussion thread.And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss.
Which is what makes it especially disturbing that people are getting mad at me on this forum of all places for saying that obesity has negative effects on health (COVID).In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively.
Celebrities are held to much higher standards than the "average person," and even so, an increasing number of them also now follow the "fat acceptance" movement. People congratulate others for weight loss (usually) but they also don't usually encourage weight loss or have an intervention or something when someone clearly has a problem with food. They just let the problem happen for years. The only time it really gets to intervention level usually is when the person gets into the super-morbidly obese range.but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online).
Even the NYTimes agrees that online education is a poor substitute for in person, and that kids have basically lost a year of learning.Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working!
Work has been banned for a lot of people. There were many jobs that it was illegal to have for a large portion of last year, and the ripple effects of that still last.Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online.
There's been messaging all year that anyone who socializes in-person, even in small groups, is a psychopathic murderer. Also, for several months in my area, you weren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household. There are still many places around the world where you aren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household, or can only socialize with one other person/household, and people even get arrested or fined for it. So to say "socializing hasn't been banned" is simply untrue.
Online socializing is not the same as in-person -- again, something which most researchers agree on.That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.
I already told you, food rationing has been done many times throughout history in many societies, including in the US as recently as WWII. It could work similarly now as it did then, with the addition of technology (ie. a refillable card or something like that) for better tracking and to avoid fraud. We could probably get results even just by rationing certain foods like they did during WWII -- specifically, those foods that people are most likely to binge on (which ironically, seem to be the foods that tended to get rationed during wars, also). We could probably even start out just by rationing foods that contain white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc. and see how it goes, and even that might be enough to help -- since people generally don't tend to binge on lentils, rice, vegetables, etc.
But I'm sure whatever answer I come up with won't be good enough for you people because you all just hate me.5 -
Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.16
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.
Absolutely... Which is exactly what happened when rationing was done during WWII...6 -
Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?2
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...1 -
Al Capone was a real peach but then peaches would be rationed.2
-
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes, you can choose to just not touch alcohol. Choosing to not drink for an extended period or control the situations in which you drink is a method that you can use to reduce the risk of developing an alcohol dependency. That's not an option we have with food -- even if you know that it is hard for you to stop eating once you start, you've still got to start eating. Some people worry about developing an alcohol dependency. We literally all have a food dependency and that is the complicating factor for those who have to focus on controlling their food intake.
There's really not that much difference between making the choice not to go to the liquor store or not to have a drink at a party, and making the choice to avoid foods you're likely to binge on or to only eat a certain portion. I think you are overcomplicating it.Using your lack of an alcohol dependency to congratulate yourself on the self-control of not having an alcohol dependency is a curiously circular argument.
Not really. It's better to nip a problem in the bud before it becomes a problem. I did the same with food years ago. Maybe if more people did that, we wouldn't be in this health situation now.Given that all the chatter about food is accompanied by a focus on lockdown related weight gain and new exercise routines, I would not argue that obesity is being normalized. Your experience and social interactions is valid, but in my circles I hear a lot of negative talk from those who have gained weight. It is not seen as a positive or even neutral thing.
There has also been a lot of romanticizing binging on takeout, "quarantinis," stress baking, etc. and a lot of excuse-making for those who have gained weight ("what can you expect during these trying times?") even in this very discussion thread.And I'll note we're having this conversation on a whole forum that is dedicated to weight management and most users are either seeking to lose weight or looking to maintain weight loss.
Which is what makes it especially disturbing that people are getting mad at me on this forum of all places for saying that obesity has negative effects on health (COVID).In the world in which I live, weight loss is seen as a positive thing, something that people get congratulated and complimented for. When celebrities gain weight, they're often discussed negatively.
Celebrities are held to much higher standards than the "average person," and even so, an increasing number of them also now follow the "fat acceptance" movement. People congratulate others for weight loss (usually) but they also don't usually encourage weight loss or have an intervention or something when someone clearly has a problem with food. They just let the problem happen for years. The only time it really gets to intervention level usually is when the person gets into the super-morbidly obese range.but it isn't true that education has been banned (some schools are meeting in person, some are online).
Even the NYTimes agrees that online education is a poor substitute for in person, and that kids have basically lost a year of learning.Work hasn't been banned. Lots of people are working. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are working!
Work has been banned for a lot of people. There were many jobs that it was illegal to have for a large portion of last year, and the ripple effects of that still last.Socializing hasn't been banned. Some people never stopped, others are meeting in smaller groups, lots of people are socializing online.
There's been messaging all year that anyone who socializes in-person, even in small groups, is a psychopathic murderer. Also, for several months in my area, you weren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household. There are still many places around the world where you aren't allowed to socialize with anyone outside your household, or can only socialize with one other person/household, and people even get arrested or fined for it. So to say "socializing hasn't been banned" is simply untrue.
Online socializing is not the same as in-person -- again, something which most researchers agree on.That you can't even articulate how food rationing to force weight loss would work makes it self-evident that lockdowns are not equally ridiculous. We can discuss how lockdowns are functioning in various areas, as well as understand when behavior is or isn't compatible with local guidelines. We can discuss how they can be improved or what is working well. You can't even outline a basic concept of how government-enforced calorie limits would work.
I already told you, food rationing has been done many times throughout history in many societies, including in the US as recently as WWII. It could work similarly now as it did then, with the addition of technology (ie. a refillable card or something like that) for better tracking and to avoid fraud. We could probably get results even just by rationing certain foods like they did during WWII -- specifically, those foods that people are most likely to binge on (which ironically, seem to be the foods that tended to get rationed during wars, also). We could probably even start out just by rationing foods that contain white flour, refined sugar, hydrogenated oils, etc. and see how it goes, and even that might be enough to help -- since people generally don't tend to binge on lentils, rice, vegetables, etc.
But I'm sure whatever answer I come up with won't be good enough for you people because you all just hate me.
I don't think anyone is mad at you (I'm certainly not). I don't hate you. This is the debate area. If it's hard for you to have that back-and-forth without feeling attacked (and some people are that way, no shame in that), it's okay to step back and stick to the parts of the forum where debate is more limited.
I don't think anyone is arguing here that obesity doesn't have an impact on health, whether we're talking about this pandemic or more generally. What is being challenged are some of the other, more specific, statements you've made.
14 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...
We are on the same page❤️2 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
It actually did, in a way. Read the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent (it is a great book!) The US used to have a serious, serious alcohol problem. The temperance movement didn't just come out of nowhere -- it was a response to out-of-control alcohol use issues in US society. While the temperance movement didn't stop alcoholism or alcohol use entirely, it did help with the problematic drinking culture that had taken root in the US, and alcohol use levels have never since reached the levels where they were at in the 1800s. It also popularized the concept of "alcoholism" and the idea of treatment for alcohol use disorder.1 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »Prohibition didn’t work, it backfired. I picture an underground network of people selling loaves of bread and skittles.
Absolutely... Which is exactly what happened when rationing was done during WWII...
Yep, it's a great way to create a black market for Wonder Bread and Mountain Dew.
While food rationing was implemented during WWII, there's a huge difference in context. For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat. The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods. Also key was that it was always conceived of as a limited duration plan that was required by the war, not a general strategy for requiring people to eat in a government-approved fashion. The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat.
Calorie-dense items and addictive processed foods weren't being grown in those gardens. It was mostly fruits and vegetables.The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods.
They WERE chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them. They just wanted people to eat less of them for a different reason than preventing obesity. This would be about preserving life for the anti-COVID/anti-dying of preventable causes in general effort. I don't see how the difference in aims makes it unworkable.The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.
Yet the idea that we need permission from the government to have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, go to a friend's house, or even GO OUTSIDE FOR A WALK is perfectly fine?3 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
It actually did, in a way. Read the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent (it is a great book!) The US used to have a serious, serious alcohol problem. The temperance movement didn't just come out of nowhere -- it was a response to out-of-control alcohol use issues in US society. While the temperance movement didn't stop alcoholism or alcohol use entirely, it did help with the problematic drinking culture that had taken root in the US, and alcohol use levels have never since reached the levels where they were at in the 1800s. It also popularized the concept of "alcoholism" and the idea of treatment for alcohol use disorder.
That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."
The temperance movement did have an effect on alcohol consumption levels, though. Alcohol consumption levels had already fallen significantly by the 1920s, as a result of the temperance movement. Perhaps it was a victim of its own success, in a way.
Also note that this article ALSO says: "But one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. "
The problem was it also caused other secondary effects such as an increase in crime, but, hey, nobody cared about secondary effects when it came to lockdown because "if it saves just one life," right? (Says the person who had to move due to a lockdown-induced crime spike in the area in which I used to live.)
Also, Prohibition involved banning alcohol entirely. Whereas this rationing plan wouldn't involve banning junk food entirely, just limiting it. I think that's an important distinction. Moderation and prohibition are two very different things. I'm not even sure why people are comparing the two, really, as it's a totally false comparison.
1 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat.
Calorie-dense items and addictive processed foods weren't being grown in those gardens. It was mostly fruits and vegetables.The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods.
They WERE chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them. They just wanted people to eat less of them for a different reason than preventing obesity. This would be about preserving life for the anti-COVID/anti-dying of preventable causes in general effort. I don't see how the difference in aims makes it unworkable.The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.
Yet the idea that we need permission from the government to have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, go to a friend's house, or even GO OUTSIDE FOR A WALK is perfectly fine?
People were specifically encouraged to grow potatoes due to their relative calorie density. Yeah, they grew fruits and vegetables -- what ELSE are you going to grow in a backyard garden? The goal of food rationing was never, for a moment, designed to limit the number of calories in the American diet. You're talking about taking a limited duration ban designed exclusively to preserve resources for the war effort and using it as a template to force weight loss on the population.
I am not sure what area you are referencing when people cannot walk outside. Even in California, where restrictions are pretty tight, there is a specific exemption for people walking or hiking outside. There may be areas in the US right now where people are not allowed to walk outside, but that would not be the norm. To use that to make the case that the federal government should artificially restrict my access to white flour seems like an overreaction.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »People were specifically encouraged to grow potatoes due to their relative calorie density. Yeah, they grew fruits and vegetables -- what ELSE are you going to grow in a backyard garden? The goal of food rationing was never, for a moment, designed to limit the number of calories in the American diet. You're talking about taking a limited duration ban designed exclusively to preserve resources for the war effort and using it as a template to force weight loss on the population.
I really doubt people are going to get obese off of backyard-grown potatoes and I also don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion. I also really doubt people are going to starve to death if they're only allowed to buy a limited number of desserts and fast-food meals per week.I am not sure what area you are referencing when people cannot walk outside. Even in California, where restrictions are pretty tight, there is a specific exemption for people walking or hiking outside. There may be areas in the US right now where people are not allowed to walk outside, but that would not be the norm. To use that to make the case that the federal government should artificially restrict my access to white flour seems like an overreaction.
Restrictions on outdoor exercise up to and including outright bans have occurred in the UK, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, China, and probably some other places I'm missing. Sure, they're not in the US, but they still count as places, right? (And many people say we should have followed their example.) In my area they also closed all the parks for a couple of months, which effectively banned outdoor exercise for anyone who doesn't live in a walkable neighborhood. They also banned driving unless you're going to the store or somewhere else "essential," so, no driving to a more walkable neighborhood either. They reversed those restrictions for now, but if it happened once, it can happen again.
3 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.
From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts
While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."
The temperance movement did have an effect on alcohol consumption levels, though. Alcohol consumption levels had already fallen significantly by the 1920s, as a result of the temperance movement. Perhaps it was a victim of its own success, in a way. Also note that this article ALSO says: "But one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. "
Also, Prohibition involved banning alcohol entirely. Whereas this rationing plan wouldn't involve banning junk food entirely, just limiting it. I think that's an important distinction. Moderation and prohibition are two very different things. I'm not even sure why people are comparing the two, really, as it's a totally false comparison.
That alcohol consumption levels dropped due to the Temperance movement's pre-Prohibition efforts to persuade people to voluntarily limit their drinking is not a reason to conclude that Prohibition itself worked. I do note that the article itself notes that the decline was sustained for "several years." It caught my attention because of your claim that we never returned to 1800s level drinking levels and I realized what you were trying to do there -- make it seem like Prohibition itself had permanently caused the drinking level to decline. It didn't. And Prohibition itself had terrible consequences. I know you WANT it to have worked because it fits nicely with what you want to do to my pantry. That doesn't mean it DID work.
Also, Prohibition didn't entirely ban alcohol. It was allowed for medicinal and sacramental use. I think Okrent even discusses this in his book. In fact, you could even HAVE alcohol, there were just restrictions on the sale, production, and transport. It is more similar to what you're proposing than you seem to realize.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »That alcohol consumption levels dropped due to the Temperance movement's pre-Prohibition efforts to persuade people to voluntarily limit their drinking is not a reason to conclude that Prohibition itself worked. I do note that the article itself notes that the decline was sustained for "several years." It caught my attention because of your claim that we never returned to 1800s level drinking levels and I realized what you were trying to do there -- make it seem like Prohibition itself had permanently caused the drinking level to decline. It didn't. And Prohibition itself had terrible consequences. I know you WANT it to have worked because it fits nicely with what you want to do to my pantry. That doesn't mean it DID work.
We didn't return to 1800s level drinking levels, as a result of the temperance movement. Prohibition came after the drinking levels had already significantly dropped from their peak in the 1830s...as a result of the temperance movement. Drinking levels reduced DURING Prohibition, and then went back up several years after it ended...because there was no more Prohibition. So, at the time the policy existed, it did reduce drinking levels. And drinking levels also reduced in the decades beforehand due to the actions of the people who supported the policy.
So you think we should have an analogue of the temperance movement instead of outright rationing to reduce obesity? I mean, I'm just wondering, I'm literally the only person coming up with solutions here and you're all trashing me, but do you have any better ideas? Or do you want the obesity levels to keep going up until we're at 100% obesity? What is your great idea for solving the problem?
(Let's ignore the fact that the entire food-rationing thing started as a criticism of lockdowns in the first place and wasn't even meant to be serious!)Also, Prohibition didn't entirely ban alcohol. It was allowed for medicinal and sacramental use. I think Okrent even discusses this in his book. In fact, you could even HAVE alcohol, there were just restrictions on the sale, production, and transport. It is more similar to what you're proposing than you seem to realize.
That's kind of the difference between Zoom Thanksgiving and actual Thanksgiving, isn't it?
The concept of junk-food speakeasies is pretty amusing though. Wasn't that an episode of The Simpsons?2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions