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.
Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?
Replies
-
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.6 -
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
I don't know, man. I've been poor, had incapacitating anxiety that prevented me from leaving the house and it took me FOUR YEARS to find help for it and it wasn't for lack of looking. It was rurality combined with lack of professionals to see and lack of money.
Twenty years later and my eldest kid took 18 months to find someone to help with pretty severe depression issues and that one wasn't lack of money that was limited professionals in a 3 hour radius and none of them taking patients, or even referrals from GPs. Crisis facilities exist, but if not actively ready to die, they weren't an option.
Yeah, and I solved my mental health issues without professional help. There are churches, meetings, school counselors, online communities, LIBRARIES are free.
I've had big mental health issues in the past too. What I've learned is it's always an inside job. No one can "fix" it for me, least of all the Federal Government. I'm in charge of my own mental health, my own brain and my own weight.
Yep, Individual has to do the work but you also sometimes require a professional - or you know, medication. I am absolutely sure that a library and church would have TOTALLY managed my uncles schizophrenia just fine. Great for brain chemistry issues and people with mental health issues so bad they're not thinking clearly.
No big.
BOOTSTRAPS!!!!
God I hate that crap so much. Good sign of 'I am a jerk' though, so serves as a decent warning.
Really? You're gonna compare obesity with schizophrenia?
Seriously?
Oh no momma-bird.... they are really really different. I've worked with people with MH issues. Some people that have high adiposity just like the way they live and see no need to change. (my old self) There are some that claim they eat their emotions. Ok, I get that, but what are they eating when they do? I'm going to start a Shite show with this, but I don't think "food addiction is real".. Now food that has addictive like properties... oh hell yes. I'm sure that some people will eat their emotions on rice and plain beans, but many probably won't. Though, after 2020... I think we all need some therapy......
Let me put this bluntly:
They are not the same thing. There is intersection. My uncle is dead now (unrelated to MH) but he absolutely, entirely, got into extra trouble with his weight at the point his meds needed adjusted and then decided that the only food that wasn't poisoned was prepackaged, sealed, food that he acquired himself. From a gas station. Every time his meds were off or he went off him the first sign was his weight going WAY up or plummeting WAY low.
Now, this government bill wouldn't help crap - I'm not claiming they're the same issue, and I'm not claiming this is a normal factor. However you add depression, anxiety, sexual assault, and impulsivity factors that people either don't recognize or don't know how to address, it's probably relevant. Many people will be able to help themselves out of those things. Some will not. At that point that they cannot and it is negatively impacting their lives and health, you've got something that needs a professional.
Along with a lot of other factors related to obesity that may or may not intersect, and I acknowledged. Big issue. Mental health is a big issue. There is some overlap. That's... about the extent of what I said.
Well that and:
You can't just BOOTSTRAPS at a mental health problem is productive or kind.
And frankly I think anyone trying to change ingrained habits could do with a LITTLE professional guidance. People quitting smoking and trying to stop biting their nails or whatever ALSO seek and benefit from therapy of various sorts. Behavioral change is easier that way. I don't think addressing that is a bad thing and I sure as heck don't think it's true that anyone who wants help can find it.
That's... about the extent of it.
Mental health is a big issue. There is some overlap.
I will not deny this, but for some people, this is not the case. I think that for many people, its not psychological per se, but brain and evolution issues. Now, while we obesity prior to 1980, why have we seen a skyrocketing of it after that time? Did people just start waiting until the 80's to eat their emotions? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think OFT does a great job of telling us what happened post 1980. Its just our nature and our culture. As far as "Bootstraps"? Well, I don't disagree with this statement, but I am a large believer in self accountability. If one needs therapy please get it. I personally think they should be giving it out to everyone after this year.
4 -
psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.2 -
I think from what I gleaned from reading this, this sounds like a good thing. This is where my dad (RIP) would be helpful in interpreting this, since he actually helped write our state laws. Anyway, obesity has become a huge problem in the US, so I think it makes sense that more programs be created and that private insurance companies be required to pay for them. I would think they wouldn't object to this anyway, since this would be preventative and could save them money in the future.
If people are really wanting universal healthcare (which I realize a whole other touchy debate subject), this kind of thing should be expected. I didn't read thoroughly, but I'm assuming that public-funded programs like Medicaid would also be providing these types of programs. I think this is very much a good thing, because obesity-related diseases like Type 2 diabetes are more prevalent in lower income populations. And yes, access to quality, low cost foods is definitely a factor. That's even more true when you don't necessarily have the knowledge of what those lower cost healthier options might be, or how to prepare them so it's actually tasty! As others have mentioned, behavior and often psychological changes are necessary for weight loss to be permanent, and simply educating people on the basics of weight loss isn't enough.
3 -
NoLimitFemme wrote: »It will be met with pushback from the HAAS and Body Positivity Movement. 🤦🏼♀️ I hope they hold their ground on this issue. Obesity is having horrible ramifications to the health of our nation.
Why do you think those groups would push back, though?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
I don't know, man. I've been poor, had incapacitating anxiety that prevented me from leaving the house and it took me FOUR YEARS to find help for it and it wasn't for lack of looking. It was rurality combined with lack of professionals to see and lack of money.
Twenty years later and my eldest kid took 18 months to find someone to help with pretty severe depression issues and that one wasn't lack of money that was limited professionals in a 3 hour radius and none of them taking patients, or even referrals from GPs. Crisis facilities exist, but if not actively ready to die, they weren't an option.
Yeah, and I solved my mental health issues without professional help. There are churches, meetings, school counselors, online communities, LIBRARIES are free.
I've had big mental health issues in the past too. What I've learned is it's always an inside job. No one can "fix" it for me, least of all the Federal Government. I'm in charge of my own mental health, my own brain and my own weight.
Not everyone can, though. It's actually a HUGE pet peeve of mine that because someone had one experience, that everyone else should be able to do the same.15 -
psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
I don't know, man. I've been poor, had incapacitating anxiety that prevented me from leaving the house and it took me FOUR YEARS to find help for it and it wasn't for lack of looking. It was rurality combined with lack of professionals to see and lack of money.
Twenty years later and my eldest kid took 18 months to find someone to help with pretty severe depression issues and that one wasn't lack of money that was limited professionals in a 3 hour radius and none of them taking patients, or even referrals from GPs. Crisis facilities exist, but if not actively ready to die, they weren't an option.
Yeah, and I solved my mental health issues without professional help. There are churches, meetings, school counselors, online communities, LIBRARIES are free.
I've had big mental health issues in the past too. What I've learned is it's always an inside job. No one can "fix" it for me, least of all the Federal Government. I'm in charge of my own mental health, my own brain and my own weight.
Yep, Individual has to do the work but you also sometimes require a professional - or you know, medication. I am absolutely sure that a library and church would have TOTALLY managed my uncles schizophrenia just fine. Great for brain chemistry issues and people with mental health issues so bad they're not thinking clearly.
No big.
BOOTSTRAPS!!!!
God I hate that crap so much. Good sign of 'I am a jerk' though, so serves as a decent warning.
Really? You're gonna compare obesity with schizophrenia?
Seriously?
Oh no momma-bird.... they are really really different. I've worked with people with MH issues. Some people that have high adiposity just like the way they live and see no need to change. (my old self) There are some that claim they eat their emotions. Ok, I get that, but what are they eating when they do? I'm going to start a Shite show with this, but I don't think "food addiction is real".. Now food that has addictive like properties... oh hell yes. I'm sure that some people will eat their emotions on rice and plain beans, but many probably won't. Though, after 2020... I think we all need some therapy......
Let me put this bluntly:
They are not the same thing. There is intersection. My uncle is dead now (unrelated to MH) but he absolutely, entirely, got into extra trouble with his weight at the point his meds needed adjusted and then decided that the only food that wasn't poisoned was prepackaged, sealed, food that he acquired himself. From a gas station. Every time his meds were off or he went off him the first sign was his weight going WAY up or plummeting WAY low.
Now, this government bill wouldn't help crap - I'm not claiming they're the same issue, and I'm not claiming this is a normal factor. However you add depression, anxiety, sexual assault, and impulsivity factors that people either don't recognize or don't know how to address, it's probably relevant. Many people will be able to help themselves out of those things. Some will not. At that point that they cannot and it is negatively impacting their lives and health, you've got something that needs a professional.
Along with a lot of other factors related to obesity that may or may not intersect, and I acknowledged. Big issue. Mental health is a big issue. There is some overlap. That's... about the extent of what I said.
Well that and:
You can't just BOOTSTRAPS at a mental health problem is productive or kind.
And frankly I think anyone trying to change ingrained habits could do with a LITTLE professional guidance. People quitting smoking and trying to stop biting their nails or whatever ALSO seek and benefit from therapy of various sorts. Behavioral change is easier that way. I don't think addressing that is a bad thing and I sure as heck don't think it's true that anyone who wants help can find it.
That's... about the extent of it.
Mental health is a big issue. There is some overlap.
I will not deny this, but for some people, this is not the case. I think that for many people, its not psychological per se, but brain and evolution issues. Now, while we obesity prior to 1980, why have we seen a skyrocketing of it after that time? Did people just start waiting until the 80's to eat their emotions? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think OFT does a great job of telling us what happened post 1980. Its just our nature and our culture. As far as "Bootstraps"? Well, I don't disagree with this statement, but I am a large believer in self accountability. If one needs therapy please get it. I personally think they should be giving it out to everyone after this year.
Believe it or not I do not disagree with a single bit of that, not the accountability or that something has changed. I definitely believe we could all use some therapy after 2020.
I just disagree that mental health help is readily available to anyone who wants it -- especially affordable and quality assistance -- or that libraries, internet forums, and churches are a substitute for, you know, psychologists and psychiatrists. That is not the case.13 -
Speaking of schizophrenia, my brother is on that spectrum, and I have been so impressed with the services he gets from VinFen, paid for by MassHealth.
https://vinfen.org
He has a case manager come see him weekly and his therapist also does home visits. He gets medication handed to him in a Sunday - Monday container.
8 years ago he didn't have any of this, wasn't taking his meds, was charged with a few misdemeanors, and bounced around from Bridgewater State Hospital, Worcester Recovery Center and Hospital, and jail FOR A YEAR while awaiting trial until my mother switched to an expensive criminal lawyer who got the charges dropped. For a while our family was afraid he would be stuck in Bridgewater forever. This would be horrible for us, but also far more expensive for the state.
I'm trying to formulate a point about an obesity government program hopefully paying for itself when an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but have to run and will hopefully get back to that later.13 -
cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the statement "they can find it." Yes there are services out there that can offer help, but many people are not easily able to access them due to money or other resources. Heck, I can't even get the MFP app on my phone because it is not supported (too old). I'm not a cheapskate by any means, but I'm not going to go out and buy a $1000 phone when the one I have works just fine. This means I have to have a computer.
Also, a note about mental health assistance in the US: it SUCKS! Seriously, it is HARD to get, with or without insurance. I have awesome insurance, but there are ZERO mental health providers locally that accept it. I would have to drive over an hour to get to any, and they more than likely wouldn't even specialize in what I needed. Going without insurance is going to be about $600 for the initial appointment, and then between $200-$500 for all other appointments, so a once a week visit with a mental health professional would cost AT LEAST $800 a month since there are slightly over 4 weeks in a month. Not many people can afford that. Heck, I would struggle affording that, and I would say I'm in the high/middle class with a regular 6-figure income.
So there IS a problem here, but it isn't about providing care to obese patients. It's about doing a complete overhaul of how mental health is treated (not treated) in this country.10 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »NoLimitFemme wrote: »It will be met with pushback from the HAAS and Body Positivity Movement. 🤦🏼♀️ I hope they hold their ground on this issue. Obesity is having horrible ramifications to the health of our nation.
Why do you think those groups would push back, though?
There are multiple social media influencers, celebrities, and just regular people that have had to face the volatile behavior of some of the overly woke political correctness of the body positivity movement/HAAS. Do a YouTube search for
"quit HAES movement" or "toxic body positivity." Its quite apparent.
My personal opinion ... you should love yourself, but you should also be accountable for your body and health, eat a healthy diet and exercise to maximize your mental and physical capabilities. You shouldn't be discriminated against but you shouldn't blame and hate people that may have a different opinion.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.7 -
I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
1-) Doing this based on pure calories is disingenuous. If you want to go purely by calorie, probably the cheapest way to spend your dollar is margarine (I can get a stick for a dollar, that's 810 calories!) or flour (that's 1.68 for nearly 5000 calories), but there's more to it than that and we both know it. I'm not sure I consider a whole meal made out of broccoli to actually be healthy, either, at least not on a regular basis. I might even consider it LESS healthy than chicken nuggets, because if you deep fry those you've at least got protein AND fat, and that's certainly going to be more satiating and provide longer energy for most people than a green vegetable. Now if you add a dollar and add a couple of the cheap healthy options together thing you have more food and can eat longer, and be healthier. That is the smarter choice, but again: you've got cheap, tasty, and a couple of macros in one go versus 'have to prepare, and don't like much' with no clear knowledge of WHY you should do that.
2-) Yep, it sure does. Also what we normalize. American society has very normalized views of obesity. What is that number, up to 60% of people are at least overweight?
3-) Yeah, okay but if you went to public school you think you know how to eat. Everyone thinks they know how to eat. Most people don't know what a TDEE IS much less what theirs is. Then there's all the noise on TV and social media filled with bro science and everyone claiming they're right and know what to do. That's a lot of filtering for someone who doesn't know w hat they don't know to do to find a source.
4-) Fine by me. You can use that to pay for an automatic referral to a (registered) dietician with the fastfood tax.
5-) Definitely blast the TV campaign about the dangers of obesity while we're at it. We did cut down on smokers this way. (OTOH it did nothing for the 'war on drugs', and I'm not sure 'war on fat' would be more effective. Maybe. Someone knows. It's not me.)
No seriously I don't care. I think you'd have to tear down and rebuild american society on just about every level to address it all. There are problems. A lot of them. If the answers were simple we wouldn't have the problem because no one who doesn't want to be fat would be fat.7 -
IllustriousBee wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I am taking the opposite tack here (and I know psychodoc, so I'm guessing he doesn't really have a horse in this race - hey, this should go in Debate!)
I think the federal government is bloated and I think it needs to put its own self on an obesity diet. Not food, but not so many dollars spent on doing things that really won't work.
Obesity is like any other mental health issue. IF and WHEN someone WANTS help, they can find it. It's already available - heck, they can come here for free.
People know they're fat.
Good luck trying to fix that.
While I mostly agree with what you're saying, I disagree with the statement "they can find it." Yes there are services out there that can offer help, but many people are not easily able to access them due to money or other resources. Heck, I can't even get the MFP app on my phone because it is not supported (too old). I'm not a cheapskate by any means, but I'm not going to go out and buy a $1000 phone when the one I have works just fine. This means I have to have a computer.
Also, a note about mental health assistance in the US: it SUCKS! Seriously, it is HARD to get, with or without insurance. I have awesome insurance, but there are ZERO mental health providers locally that accept it. I would have to drive over an hour to get to any, and they more than likely wouldn't even specialize in what I needed. Going without insurance is going to be about $600 for the initial appointment, and then between $200-$500 for all other appointments, so a once a week visit with a mental health professional would cost AT LEAST $800 a month since there are slightly over 4 weeks in a month. Not many people can afford that. Heck, I would struggle affording that, and I would say I'm in the high/middle class with a regular 6-figure income.
So there IS a problem here, but it isn't about providing care to obese patients. It's about doing a complete overhaul of how mental health is treated (not treated) in this country.
My brother receives SSDI, but there is no way on earth he would have been able to go through the application process on his own.
My brother's ex girlfriend from 9 years ago also had mental health issues. She was eligible for lots of services, but was unable to complete applications for them. My mother, a retired social worker, tried to case-manage for her, but didn't make much headway before S ended up back in jail for flunking a drug test for something that is now legal in our state.4 -
This bill seems like a good *piece* of the solution. Recognizes that there are both mental and physical components to obesity.
[Steps on soapbox...]
But it strikes me that it's still just a piece, and doesn't address the fact that obesity is often a function or symptom of other issues.
We should also address the fact that so many people have so much stress in their lives, driven by economic, family, other health issues. Plenty of research shows that stress is a big cause of obesity. Addressing low wages for so many people, economic disparity, making people work multiple jobs and not having time to take care of themselves properly (all this food prep takes time!). This would have a lot of benefits beyond obesity and help with a lot of the mental health issues we're seeing a a society.
I'm also a big fan of M4A or some other program that decouples healthcare from employment (for so many) and provides it for all. I've lived with both systems (US & UK) and seen the shortcomings of both, but still think that poor access to HC shouldn't prevent someone from getting care they need (especially preventative care), or bankrupt a whole family. Again, benefits would go well beyond just addressing obesity, for individuals and society as a whole.
Programs to address (healthy) food deserts and nutrition education have proven effective in pockets. These could be expanded on a data-driven basis. And education on the harms and costs of obesity - like the anti-smoking campaign others have mentioned - could also help.
On the other side of the health equation, exercise is often hampered by the (lack of) safety where many people live. Kids don't play outside because it's dangerous, adults need a gym membership because there is no safe outdoor place to exercise. So addressing these issues could reduce obesity as well as a litany of other issues.
So I guess I'm saying taking steps to address a lot of the broader issues that ail our society would also help reduce obesity (and HC costs!).
But yes, as some have said, there's a "lead a horse to water" component here as well. Some people just want to live like they want to live. Just like people still chose to smoke or other self-desctructive activities. So we could extend the "sin tax" on tobacco and booze to nutritionally-deficient food as well. As an example, Philadelphia imposed a "soda tax" and it's had a real impact on the sales of sugary drinks. Won't have a huge impact on someone who want an occasional drink or twinkie, but may make people think twice, and could fund some of the health programs.
I realize a lot of this is ridiculously pie-in-the-sky, and I'm also not saying that the government is the solution on all fronts, but I would like to see us do more to optimize for the benefit of the many rather than the few.
Okay, this post went waaaayyy off track - I guess it's just things I think about a lot and would like to see to address the pain I see all around. I now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
EDIT TO ADD: I see while I was typing all this out, some others addressed some of these points. I think this is a great discussion.6 -
cmriverside wrote: »I'm in for a 30% tax on fast food. Put it directly into the Medicare/Medicaid system.
There IS help. Remaining ever-the-victim is a personal decision.
This made me curious about the income demographics of fast food consumers, but the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey doesn't include enough income tiers in this study:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db322.htm
Did the percentage of adults consuming fast food on a given day differ by family income level for 2013–2016?
The percentage of adults who consumed fast food increased with increasing family income level (Figure 3). Overall, 31.7% of lower-income (less than or equal to 130% of the federal poverty level [FPL]), 36.4% of middle-income (greater than 130% to less than or equal to 350% of FPL), and 42.0% of higher-income (greater than 350% of FPL) adults consumed fast food on a given day. A similar pattern was observed for both men and women.
Within each income level, there was no significant difference in the percentage between men and women who consumed fast food.
8 -
wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »There is a line between HAES, Body positivity, and Fat acceptance communities.
The fact of the matter is, no one's size and weight should determine whether or not they are treated like, you know, a person.
The other fact of the matter is, obesity is not healthy and the idea that self-love is being really, really overweight is absolute bullcrap.
I absolutely believe people should love themselves where they are, regardless of their size. I also believe everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect (until their actions show otherwise). I even think the diet industry and diet culture are predatory, toxic, and harmful.
None of that changes the toxicity and harm done by the 'health at every size' movement -- and it's vocal, angry, spokes people.
Addressing OP: I don't hate it. It's a health issue. I don't know how effective anything will be given.... so many factors, but I don't hate it. Actually really like the behavioral aspects.
I think it's a start, I honestly don't think it goes far enough. I think it needs to take a more of the fierce antismoking campaigns we have seen since the 70's. It has actually been marginally successful. The amount of smokers has dropped quite a bit. Start showing the the graphic pictures of diabetic amputations, the insides of arteries of people with CAD, people who had strokes because of HTN. Combine this with a tax on hyperprocessed , energy dense, hyperpalatable foods. Mean while making staples foods cheaper and more available. This might have a greater effect imho....
Yeah, the economic thing is a thing I realize very starkly very frequently. I agree with everything you said but the money stuff is a thing I think about a lot, every time I buy groceries. I'm comfortable now, but I still notice. And it bugs the crap out of me, because it's just wrong.
Eating relatively "healthy", does not have to be overly expensive or time consuming. I get that there are some issues with availability in certain "food deserts", but that's one of the reasons I want to see greater incentives to outlets that will go into such areas. Beans, rice, grains and frozen veggies are not hyper expensive. They have been the corner stones of many civilizations diets for years. As far as time, food can be as simple or complex as you make it.
Yep, absolutely.
But it's also a matter of what those cheap foods are competing with and that is very often hyper-processed, super palatable, super fast, food that is *still cheaper* than beans, rice and frozen veg. Which is why you also need to make the choice a little more complicated for people than "10 deep fried chicken nuggets for a dollar, or a bag of beans, rice, and frozen broccoli for 3.00 that will last many more meals" It needs to include some sort of incentive that they see valuable and with HAES screaming about it not being a health issue, most people around you being fat, and no clear nutritional education -- what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good'.
People need a REASON to care.
And a whole lot of people just... don't have that. For lots and lots and lots of, again, very complicated reasons that entwine and build on each other.
1.Cheaper? well the cheapest 10 piece nugget I could find was BK at $1.49 + tax. So $1.60 for 452 calories. Cost per calorie,$0.00351. 2 servings of lentils, one of rice, and 2 frozen broccoli, all from Wal-Mart, $0.74 for 440 calories. Cost per calorie, $0.0016. So does not compute.
2. Some people say being obese is not "contagious, but "most people around you being fat". Hmmm shows the power of our environment.
3. No clear nutritional education?..... https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan..... free......
4."what wins is 'cheap, effortless, and tastes good". Well... that's why I said OFT explains much of what we deal with today. So, we have to create effort barriers to those foods. Wonder how a 30% tax on those items might change things.
1-) Doing this based on pure calories is disingenuous. If you want to go purely by calorie, probably the cheapest way to spend your dollar is margarine (I can get a stick for a dollar, that's 810 calories!) or flour (that's 1.68 for nearly 5000 calories), but there's more to it than that and we both know it. I'm not sure I consider a whole meal made out of broccoli to actually be healthy, either, at least not on a regular basis. I might even consider it LESS healthy than chicken nuggets, because if you deep fry those you've at least got protein AND fat, and that's certainly going to be more satiating and provide longer energy for most people than a green vegetable. Now if you add a dollar and add a couple of the cheap healthy options together thing you have more food and can eat longer, and be healthier. That is the smarter choice, but again: you've got cheap, tasty, and a couple of macros in one go versus 'have to prepare, and don't like much' with no clear knowledge of WHY you should do that.
2-) Yep, it sure does. Also what we normalize. American society has very normalized views of obesity. What is that number, up to 60% of people are at least overweight?
3-) Yeah, okay but if you went to public school you think you know how to eat. Everyone thinks they know how to eat. Most people don't know what a TDEE IS much less what theirs is. Then there's all the noise on TV and social media filled with bro science and everyone claiming they're right and know what to do. That's a lot of filtering for someone who doesn't know w hat they don't know to do to find a source.
4-) Fine by me. You can use that to pay for an automatic referral to a (registered) dietician with the fastfood tax.
5-) Definitely blast the TV campaign about the dangers of obesity while we're at it. We did cut down on smokers this way. (OTOH it did nothing for the 'war on drugs', and I'm not sure 'war on fat' would be more effective. Maybe. Someone knows. It's not me.)
No seriously I don't care. I think you'd have to tear down and rebuild american society on just about every level to address it all. There are problems. A lot of them. If the answers were simple we wouldn't have the problem because no one who doesn't want to be fat would be fat.
Come again? disingenuous? ummmm.... that meal that I put out there had 22g of protein. Average 140lbs person needs 56 grams of protein a day per USDA guidelines or 0.4g/lb. 3 meals of that nature would more than meet the guidelines. now fat at .32g per lb that would be about 45gs. So 3 meals of this nature would only be 1320 calories. So, we could get crazy and add 2 tbs of olive oil to the meal for a cost of $0.15. All fat would be met and a sedentary tdee would be reached. cost would still be less per calorie and most micro and macro needs would be met. as far as time.... add all that to a cheap slow cooker before you go to work and hit start...... 15 mins of work. Time in a McDonalds drive though? 15 mins or so.5 -
What....
What part of 'there is not always help accessible to people' - mental or otherwise - has a single blasted thing to do with being 'ever-the-victim'.
You. You do realize that 'there is not enough help out there for people who need it' does not equal = 'nah, nothing is my/their fault at all, no accountability for them!'. It also does not mean 'people who need mental help from a professional are now entirely not accountable for anything in their life - mental health professionals wave a magic wand and make it all better; all work is done BY the professional, none at all by the person who is using them.
I get it, dude. You set your own broken leg and are just fine now! You don't need a doctor! . Congratulations, you can have all the bad@ss points you want, but that doesn't make someone who broke their leg and needs a surgeon and can't walk 23 miles to find one and has to limp through life now is a victim. Nor does them saying "Man, I think more surgeons would be useful and maybe prevent people limping their entire lives" enable 'ever-the-victim' mentality.
11 -
I know I stepped on your last nerve, wunderkind.
I have no idea what you're banging on about with the broken leg...
If you think someone else can fix you, go for it.
Been there, got the Tee shirt. Only one who can fix me is me, I took all the pills, I saw all the counselors, and it was MY Decision to accept the way out...and even when I was on Medicaid, poor, no job, I could still access a doctor who would be more that happy to give me pills (and they did - no cost to me) or send me to counseling (and they did - it was totally useless and horrible.) I really don't understand what world you live in where there is no help. It's certainly not the five states in the U.S. where I have lived and gotten medical care and spiritual/psychological care over the past 50 years.
Feel free to continue to believe that only someone else can fix you - good luck. I'm not going to continue to engage with you while you're this triggered.
Peace out.
6 -
A lot has already been said here.
It's a multi-factorial problem. That implies that there's unlikely to be a single simple solution. More likely: Lots of little solution-bits.
Could this legislation be one solution-bit for some parts of the problem for some people? I think yes.
It's a little bizarre that (in some cases) there's health insurance money to help people (with counseling, meds, etc.) if they get on the track to weight loss surgery and stay on that track, but not as much help for people with the same obesity problem who don't want to go the surgery route.
Would the proposed legislation "solve the obesity problem"? I think no, in any broad universal sense.
IMO, "lots of little solution bits" is what actually happened to reduce smoking. There were scary ads, there were lawsuits against providers, employers decided to make it less convenient to smoke by isolating smokers or forbidding onsite smoking, governments made it illegal to smoke in restaurants/bars in many areas, certain kinds of advertising were banned, certain product variations that were especially seductive were banned, schools turned children into parent-naggers on the subject, publicity about second hand-smoke led to social disapproval of smoking . . . and more. Then it took a long time.
My main concern about the proposed legislation (on an admittedly superficial reading) is the likelihood that it would give rocket fuel to sketchy medical professionals (INO, or in formal credentials only) who'd rush to cash in by pushing nonsense. (They're already out there making big bucks, and many of you could name some - I sure could - but there's no need to turn this thread into *that* argument that we've also had many times before.)9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions