Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Is the U.S. Government about to try and tackle the Obesity Epidemic?

13567

Replies

  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 319 Member Member Posts: 319 Member
    Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.

    Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.

    Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? :D It's an individual choice, I think.

    Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.
    edited July 11
  • Speakeasy76Speakeasy76 Member Posts: 806 Member Member Posts: 806 Member
    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.

    I may be mistaken, but this proposed legislation doesn't seem to be forcing something on people who don't want it, or setting forth some kind of penalty for behavior that's deemed as contributing to obesity (e.g., higher taxes on junk food). I think it's suggesting more public health program initiatives to combat obesity and that insurance companies be required to pay for therapies, counseling, etc., to target weight loss. It doesn't seem to be mandating that people who are overweight be required to receive it.

    I admittedly don't have a lot of knowledge about the toxic body positivity movement. However, if they're view is so narrow-minded that they don't even approve of people wanting to lose weight for health purposes, I don't think I need to learn more about them.
  • ReenieHJReenieHJ Member Posts: 8,002 Member Member Posts: 8,002 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psychod787 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.

    Fat-filled, sugar-filled, salt-filled foods are created to be more palatable. They cause all those little endorphins to dance around and make you feel better. Along with placing taxes on all non-nutritional items, maybe somehow turn the big companies around to manufacture healthier options? Just give a thought for a few seconds to all the foods 'out there' that are highly unhealthy that people live on instead of consuming veggies, fruits, whole grains, lean meats, beans and nuts. Some companies and restaurants make an effort but not nearly enough. You go out for a quick bite to eat and easily consume a whole day's worth of calories. :/

    And yes, people need to work on self control, not be in such need of instant gratification, know that what they eat WILL affect them. You can tell a 3 pack a day smoker that that's going to kill them but that's not something that'll become real to them until it happens. :( So how will you change a person's eating habits if they're not willing to change or feel they can't?

    There is no easy answer. But changing a few laws while costing millions of dollars isn't going to work. :(

    I really don't think crappier food is cheaper than healthier food. I know that's some people's reasoning for not eating healthy foods...it's too expensive. I don't buy that for a minute. And I'm not talking organic because I feel that's overpriced and isn't necessary for healthy eating.
    edited July 11
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 2,078 Member Member Posts: 2,078 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    psychod787 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.

    Spot on. Also the food "desert" thing can be somewhat BS. I live in a university town, 20k kids at the school. The area around the campus is considered by the federal government a food desert. The kids have a low reported income on average, but of course many are supported by the parents. It is just a few tenths of a mile outside the distance from a proper grocery store to get food desert designation. Never mind many of the kids have cars, student fees provide free bus service to the shopping area and there is Super Walmart, Meijer, Jewel, Sam's Club, Schunks (all with said bus service) within 2 miles of the school.

  • psychod787psychod787 Member, Premium Posts: 4,073 Member Member, Premium Posts: 4,073 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Came by this today. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/596/text?r=5&s=1
    I wonder if this passes, what the reaction will be?

    I find bills hard to read so found this summary:

    https://www.obesityaction.org/troa/

    Key Facts About the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act
    • TROA would expand Medicare coverage to include screening and treatment of obesity from a diverse range of healthcare providers who specialize in obesity care. The bill would also include coverage of FDA-approved medications for chronic weight management. Specifically, TROA will (1) Expand Medicare benefits for intensive behavioral counseling through community-based programs and additional types of healthcare providers, including: dietitians, psychologists and specialty physicians. (2) Expand coverage of FDA-approved prescription drugs for chronic weight management.
    • This bill is important to ALL Americans as health insurance companies model their covered health benefits to reflect coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. That means that passing TROA can lead to increased obesity care coverage to all Americans.
    • Passing this legislation is especially important as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. Obesity, especially in the presence of COVID-19, must be both prevented and treated. Those either currently living with obesity, or at risk for developing obesity, and are ready to address their health, should have expanded access to both prevention and treatment avenues.

    I am truly hopeful that this might encourage insurance companies to start covering the new class of glp1 agonists. I think they hold the most promise of all the drugs at the moment. Unfortunately now, they are out of the reach of many folks. I think they could help bridge the gap between lifestyle and weight loss surgery.
  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 319 Member Member Posts: 319 Member
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.

    Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.

    Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? :D It's an individual choice, I think.

    Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.

    I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!

    They are very agressive towards walkers as well, particularly in the province of Quebec where we have probably the worst drivers in North America, no respect for anyone at all.

    But I still walk 30 mins to work everyday, I don't even bother with public transport. I don't have a car and I don't even pay for public transport. I live 2 minutes away from the grocery store, the gym and anything you can think of. I guess i'm lucky.
    edited July 12
  • Mellouk89Mellouk89 Member Posts: 319 Member Member Posts: 319 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.

    Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.

    Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? :D It's an individual choice, I think.

    Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.

    I’m not American but I’m sure you guys have similar problems with most places being super inaccessible for walkers and cyclists. We have no separate bike lanes in most places and a lot of drivers are very aggressive towards cyclists. A lot of more rural areas don’t even have footpaths or streetlights!

    Where I live (midsized US city, Great Lakes state) there are many areas that are both reasonable safe to walk (crime-wise and traffic-wise), with reasonable facilities for walking (sidewalks, cut curbs, pedestrian signals at intersections, etc.) . . . and very nearly no one walking. That's true even in areas where residential areas are fairly close to business areas (i.e., within a few-block radius). Hardly anyone walks, as a form of transportation. In commercial (detached mall type) areas, it's common to see someone drive a car across the parking area from one store to another, maybe a hundred or two meters, rather than parking and walking across the lot, even when most people aren't buying un-carry-able things.

    Why? I'm sure it's complicated. But I think it's not a walking culture, as a generality.

    I get that it's part of the "culture" but it doesn't mean you have to conform to that culture. You can choose to walk and live for yourself.

    It's the same here, but I choose not to conform to a silly car culture.
    edited July 12
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Member Posts: 2,078 Member Member Posts: 2,078 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    Mellouk89 wrote: »
    Japan has an obesity rate of 4%, the US has a morbid obesity rate of 8%.

    Also who prevents anyone from walking? You can choose to walk or you can choose not to walk. If you live in a big city, it's often better to walk instead spending so much money on a car.

    Are we saying there's a culture that is against walking ? :D It's an individual choice, I think.

    Edit : And yes individualism vs collectivism is the most important aspect.

    No doubt that walking in a larger city is easier. Compared to Japan, America is far more spread out. I live in a rural area, and for me to walk to the store would be nearly 9 miles round trip. So, we have a car culture. In a more urban environment, Japanese walk to public transport, to the market... ect ect. Yes, there is a culture against walking in America... Just look at the people who stand on an escalator vs. taking the stairs. The stairs would be quicker sometimes, yet many choose to not take them. Watch people trying to get a parking spot at a store, many will drive around for a good while until they find a "close" spot. If they had just parked further away, they would have been in the store quicker. So yes, there is a culture against physical activity in America......

    Never mind the store, how about the people that do that *kitten* at the gym?

    Personally I look for where the furthest car is parked, then park 100 ft. further away. Hate door dings on my vehicles.
Sign In or Register to comment.