[Jr_Bullit]

I posted this in the Fitness and Nutrition Forum...but I think it's also a debatable subject.

Global Obesity on the Rise

I know...this one is touchy and sensitive, because we all look in the mirror in the morning and either like or dislike what we see, or squish ourselves into different sizes etc. I'm curious to hear what others think, feel. Is it an issue?

In gymnastics as a kid, there were always bigger girls, but the bigger girls were often the lightest on their feet with the skinny small girls the ones that sounded like a ton of bricks when they impacted with the ground.

Both my parents are technically "overweight" but my Dad went from obese to just a little over weight in the past year with a lot of hard work. He was one of those people that was "fat" his whole life, never really active etc etc. I'm really proud of him for changing and working hard to get healthy.

A close girlfriend of mine went from the mid 200s to just under 150 (she's 5'9").

So where should things lie? How much should change and how do you go about enforcing those changes? Is it just up to the individual or is it something that needs to be imposed upon people?

Discuss

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Oh...and I know that this one may not be appropriate, if so then let it fall to the bottom of the heap.

I know it's much more fun to discuss things objectively that have nothing to do with our personal lives

 

[Andyman_1970]

I don't know how this is political, but I have not been watching much news lately.

I would say it's not the govt's job to regulate what people eat. That said, I do think that being overweight increases your chances of certain health problems. Because of that I think those that are overweight should pay more / have a higher deductable for their health insurance (or whatever) than those of us who are in shape and expend effort to stay that way (IMO).

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I don't know how this is political, but I have not been watching much news lately.

I would say it's not the govt's job to regulate what people eat. That said, I do think that being overweight increases your chances of certain health problems. Because of that I think those that are overweight should pay more / have a higher deductable for their health insurance (or whatever) than those of us who are in shape and expend effort to stay that way (IMO).

Do you think it's the government's (public school's) responsibility to make sure your kids have healthy lunch options?

What about the amount of exercise or what we teach the youngsters?

I don't see educating adults or trying to change behavior as something that would be successful....but targeting a good and young audience...maybe?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I don't know how this is political, but I have not been watching much news lately.

Oh, and I don't watch tons of news. I get my information a lot from written sources and such. I don't think this is political in the sense that we're going to base our votes on how a certain candidate is perceived, but I do think it's political in the sense that this is slowly becoming a bigger issue around the US and around the world. The past few months it seems to have become an even bigger deal, it's just a tough conversation because it is directly related to most people, and no one likes to point fingers at the majority and make commentary.

I'm just stirring up the pot this morning...probably a cause of lack of sleep.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Do you think it's the government's (public school's) responsibility to make sure your kids have healthy lunch options?

If they offer meals (some have breakfast for kids that get there early), I think those meals should be healthy (within reason), or how about balanced. I say within reason, because I don't think public school should be forking out the big $ for free range chicken and stuff like that, IMO.

From what I remember about school, we were never given any junk type food as an option for our lunches.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
What about the amount of exercise or what we teach the youngsters?

Isn't gym class suppose to reinforce that? That to me is primarily the parents responsibility. Here's a hint, unplug the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube and tell the kids to go outside. IMO too many parents use that as a babysitter instead of taking the time to be what they are..............parents.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I don't see educating adults or trying to change behavior as something that would be successful....but targeting a good and young audience...maybe?

I agree with targeting a young audience, however for something like this to truly be effective the parents need to be on board IMO.

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I don't know how this is political, but I have not been watching much news lately.

I would say it's not the govt's job to regulate what people eat. That said, I do think that being overweight increases your chances of certain health problems. Because of that I think those that are overweight should pay more / have a higher deductable for their health insurance (or whatever) than those of us who are in shape and expend effort to stay that way (IMO).

Don't forget to factor in the cost of repairing sports-injuries...

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
If they offer meals (some have breakfast for kids that get there early), I think those meals should be healthy (within reason), or how about balanced. I say within reason, because I don't think public school should be forking out the big $ for free range chicken and stuff like that, IMO.

From what I remember about school, we were never given any junk type food as an option for our lunches.

Isn't gym class suppose to reinforce that? That to me is primarily the parents responsibility. Here's a hint, unplug the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube and tell the kids to go outside. IMO too many parents use that as a babysitter instead of taking the time to be what they are..............parents.

I agree with targeting a young audience, however for something like this to truly be effective the parents need to be on board IMO.

I agree that the parents are the primary ones responsible...but if we leave it to them then won't we simply perpetuate the issue? How many adults are willing to do the work necessary to take care of their health, to exercise, to ride bikes, to do as their doctor suggests at their annual visits?
Even our TV role models these days have pot belly's and work at desk jobs etc etc.

I remember lunches in elementary school would be tins of very cheesy mac and cheese. I remember in HS saving quarters so I could buy little debbie snacks. I remember the very small amount of fruit and veggies available for kids to buy never looking appetizing, and the pile of them rarely getting smaller.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by sshappy
Don't forget to factor in the cost of repairing sports-injuries...

So you feel that the minority of americans that live a reasonably healthy life and actually have sports-related injuries on a regular basis should be factored into the increased health costs of caring for overweight individuals?

Seems kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Though I do acknowledge that if we start encouraging people to exercise more there are going to be more sports-related injuries to deal with. But even simple activities like walking the dog more than a block make a huge difference in a person's health.

 

[LordOpie]

it is political in some ways cuz an unhealthy person is more of a burden to society. Denver's trying to increase the local tax on cigarettes by US$0.60 and channel that money into various local health funds.

Yes, identifying definitively unhealthy foods is harder than cigarettes, but perhaps potato chips should have a higher tax than apples. And use that money for healthcare.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by LordOpie
it is political in some ways cuz an unhealthy person is more of a burden to society. Denver's trying to increase the local tax on cigarettes by US$0.60 and channel that money into various local health funds.

Yes, identifying definitively unhealthy foods is harder than cigarettes, but perhaps potato chips should have a higher tax than apples. And use that money for healthcare.

Well then there's the fact that healthy foods tend to cost far more than the unhealthy ones....

Starving college students live on Ramen...one the highest fat and sodium meals you can have that costs 40 cents a pack.

60 to 70% of my food budget goes to fruit and vegetables every month, the rest to the low-fat meat options, and dairy. I spend far more on food than an average family who consumes unhealthy food options on a regular basis.

It's hard to compete with that .

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I agree that the parents are the primary ones responsible...but if we leave it to them then won't we simply perpetuate the issue?

For people to change their behavior they need incentive. That's why I said in my first post that there should be a $ incentive for having a healthy lifestyle, at least from a health insurance point of view.

Health care costs are so high these days. Why, as a healthy adult male and female, should my wife have to pay increasing health care costs to compensate for those who CHOOSE to have an unhealthy lifestyle (smoking, alcohol, drug use, over weight, etc)?

Give people an incentive to save $ and they will (not all but some will) change their habits.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I remember lunches in elementary school would be tins of very cheesy mac and cheese. I remember in HS saving quarters so I could buy little debbie snacks. I remember the very small amount of fruit and veggies available for kids to buy never looking appetizing, and the pile of them rarely getting smaller.

In elementary and middle school, I remember all the food groups represented in our meals (that was 30 years ago though a kinder, gentler time..........LOL). In HS we could choose between a hamburger, or a "healthier" meal of the day with salad, and to top it off chocolate milk...........YUM.

On an interesting side note (not to derail this thread mind you or even start a discussion on it): there is this behavior that is unhealthy and that is a choice. From what I can tell you seem to advocate some kind of governmental action to change that behavior (I may be wrong there, if so feel free to ignore the rest of this). I find it interesting that it's ok to change a person's behavior in this instance or at least advocate gov't intervention, but you seem to have issues with those of us who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, and tend to have a "hands off" philosophy as far as the gov't is concerned (regarding homosexuals and say the whole marriage thing).

I didn't throw that in to start a big hairy discussion, I thought it was interesting. JB feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss that.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
For people to change their behavior they need incentive. That's why I said in my first post that there should be a $ incentive for having a healthy lifestyle, at least from a health insurance point of view.

Health care costs are so high these days. Why, as a healthy adult male and female, should my wife have to pay increasing health care costs to compensate for those who CHOOSE to have an unhealthy lifestyle (smoking, alcohol, drug use, over weight, etc)?

Give people an incentive to save $ and they will (not all but some will) change their habits.



In elementary and middle school, I remember all the food groups represented in our meals (that was 30 years ago though a kinder, gentler time..........LOL). In HS we could choose between a hamburger, or a "healthier" meal of the day with salad, and to top it off chocolate milk...........YUM.

On an interesting side note (not to derail this thread mind you or even start a discussion on it): there is this behavior that is unhealthy and that is a choice. From what I can tell you seem to advocate some kind of governmental action to change that behavior (I may be wrong there, if so feel free to ignore the rest of this). I find it interesting that it's ok to change a person's behavior in this instance or at least advocate gov't intervention, but you seem to have issues with those of us who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, and tend to have a "hands off" philosophy as far as the gov't is concerned (regarding homosexuals and say the whole marriage thing).

I didn't throw that in to start a big hairy discussion, I thought it was interesting. JB feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss that.

No...s'all good You are exactly right that I'm against having government "impose" a code of ethics on citizens. I'd rather see government dollars spent on better education, including how to eat healthy and how to live a healthy sexual adult life. In other words, I believe the better educated our children are, the less likely they are to engage in "unhealthy" choices.

However, to me it is a matter of opinion of what's unhealthy. I know my views on healthy lifestyle are very regimented when it comes to food and exercise, but I'm very relaxed when it comes to what is "healthy" choices sexually, because I have no moral problems with homosexual behavior (slippery slope or not).

However, I did find an interesting article yesterday linking certain diseases more to homosexual males than any other group of people, and in that instance, yes, I believe government should be involved to help protect people from the spread of such diseases.

Make sense? I think that we have an obligation to each other to live healthy lives. Homosexual behavior, by itself, is not physically unhealthy. It is different, and it requires a different mindset, but it does not physically impair your ability to work and live a full life. Obesity, smoking, drugs, they do impair your ability to work and live a full life so to me those are issues where someone needs to step in and gently sway the masses to a different path.

 

[drtbikrr]

Here's the thing, I'm fat. I have tried every kind of fad diet and they all fail. Even though I'm fat I still think I'm in good shape (god bless my bike) I think that charging me more for health insurance would be unfair, instead why don't we have a little fitness test to calculate how much to pay. That way the people that are unfit will be the only ones that are impacted and the ones that are fat but are still in shape have more of a chance than just getting labeled a liability and forced to pay more.
Nick

P.S. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, I just woke up

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
So you feel that the minority of americans that live a reasonably healthy life and actually have sports-related injuries on a regular basis should be factored into the increased health costs of caring for overweight individuals?

Seems kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Though I do acknowledge that if we start encouraging people to exercise more there are going to be more sports-related injuries to deal with. But even simple activities like walking the dog more than a block make a huge difference in a person's health.

I was simply pointing out that it is not as simple as taxing fat people more heavily. Fat people do not necessarily cost more in health care than thin/fit people who keep hurting themselves.

I am much fitter than my brother, I have broken far more bones than him also. It is a complex issue, exercise beyond moderation can be injurious to your health, for example the average life expectancy for a tour-de-france participant is 58 years. You will always be comparing apples to oranges.

When you attempt to legislate for these things it quickly becomes a mess. I would prefer to see tax breaks on sports-related goods, and higher taxes on tobacco, fast food and alcohol (to name three examples).

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by drtbikrr
Here's the thing, I'm fat. I have tried every kind of fad diet and they all fail. Even though I'm fat I still think I'm in good shape (god bless my bike) I think that charging me more for health insurance would be unfair, instead why don't we have a little fitness test to calculate how much to pay. That way the people that are unfit will be the only ones that are impacted and the ones that are fat but are still in shape have more of a chance than just getting labeled a liability and forced to pay more.
Nick

P.S. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, I just woke up

You do have a good point...how would you determine the sliding scale of health costs from healthy to unhealthy?

For example: I'm pretty skinny for most folks. I lost a ton of weight out of college and am still working to get to where I feel I should be. However, even after all that weight loss and with an extremely low blood pressure (on average 120 or less over 70 or less), I have really high cholesterol. It poses a risk health-wise right?
But my doctor and I sat down together and went over my food choices. High Cholesterol runs in my family, as does diabetes and heart disease, as does really low-iron stores, and acid reflux. It's a weird combination, and my test results always come back skewed because it doesn't take much of a change to shift the balance for me. What was stranger was, the more weight I lost, the more apparent the other "issues" became. So we worked out what foods "to avoid" what foods did I "need more of" and how to "balance it out".
So...based on that...a few years ago I technically should have been one of those paying "more" for health insurance, even with an active lifestyle.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by sshappy
I was simply pointing out that it is not as simple as taxing fat people more heavily. Fat people do not necessarily cost more in health care than thin/fit people who keep hurting themselves.

I am much fitter than my brother, I have broken far more bones than him also. It is a complex issue, exercise beyond moderation can be injurious to your health, for example the average life expectancy for a tour-de-france participant is 58 years. You will always be comparing apples to oranges.

When you attempt to legislate for these things it quickly becomes a mess. I would prefer to see tax breaks on sports-related goods, and higher taxes on tobacco, fast food and alcohol (to name three examples).

Okay, I agree with that to some extent...but in the sense of comaring numbers. The article stated that approximately 2 in 3 Americans are over weight. Of that last 1/3 properly weighted people, how many of them are actually living healthy life styles? I'll bet not that many.

So we're talking in percentages....If 1/3 of America is obese, and another third is simply overweight, that's an awful lot more impacting our "health" system, then people who are visiting the doctor's clinic because they have an active lifestyle. So the costs to the pocket book are higher in relation.

Back to square one...better education for what's a healthy lifestyle? How to make that happen? Do we simply tax the "bad" foods more? I mean...higher costs in gas really aren't encouraging people to drive less or smarter, just whine more.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

A Few Comments

First of all regarding the Gov't's standards of overweight. I am 5 10, ~ 185lbs and have a 32" waist, yet my BMI puts me in the "Overweight" category. Granted I have a little gut, you cant see my rippling abs or anything, but it just goes to show that the gov't's standards are probably a little off kilter.

Kids and School... stop feeding them junk, at least give them some healthi"ER" options and remove the horrid CRAP. There is NO need to be giving any age kid, cookies or chocolate cake with their mystery meat lunch. Let them choose, apple, orange or some other fruit or they can eat the sugar at home.

The schools should also be smarter about offering Physical Education, there is no easy answer here so I will keep my 1/2 baked general thoughts to myself, but suffice it to say that a 45 minute - 1 hour "PE" class is not going to do much for anyone.

Health insurance... Hell ya I should get a break for being not obese, I get a break for being a non-smoker don't I... You know what make me take a full physical annually or semi-annually and rate me based on my weight, smoking habits and my cholestrol count/levels!

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by drtbikrr
Here's the thing, I'm fat. I have tried every kind of fad diet and they all fail. Even though I'm fat I still think I'm in good shape (god bless my bike) I think that charging me more for health insurance would be unfair, instead why don't we have a little fitness test to calculate how much to pay. That way the people that are unfit will be the only ones that are impacted and the ones that are fat but are still in shape have more of a chance than just getting labeled a liability and forced to pay more.
Nick

P.S. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, I just woke up

the flaw with that is that we're a society and some people have health issues that are NOT self-inflicted. Which is why I think taxing "unhealthy" items more is a better way to go... dump that money into insurance so it's cheaper for everyone, but still costs those who eat unhealthy more.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by LordOpie
the flaw with that is that we're a society and some people have health issues that are NOT self-inflicted. Which is why I think taxing "unhealthy" items more is a better way to go... dump that money into insurance so it's cheaper for everyone, but still costs those who eat unhealthy more.

I think that's a great idea....

But what to do about getting exercise in too? That's the other half of the battle. JUST cutting out the unhealthy crap doesn't mean a healthy lifestyle.

Fad diets, as were referenced earlier, will work 'somewhat' but I think the part where people get stuck is when the 'diet' becomes work. Pretty much the proven standard is cut the intake and up the output (i.e. exercise more).

We could make community exercise hour like we had in Japan and China. It was pretty much voluntary, but every morning most of the community got their butts up and stood in nice little rows with a polite instructor and got everyone stretching and moving and stuff. Nothing hardcore, but it gets your heartrate moving first thing in the morning, keeps your body limber even into old age.

 

[Spud]

Very serious political implications. Sugar producers are hitting the administration and senate to fight WHO studies and recommendations on reducing simple sugar in the diet. With obesity and type II diabetes coming in second place to smoking for adult deaths the financial considerations are huge.

The fundraising is up there with pharmaceutical companies and the lobbying is intense. The Administration's response to the WHO was practically verbatim from sugar producers’ position papers. It’s not a partisan issue, both parties have a sweet tooth for the sugar industry’s payola.
:angry:

 

[sshappy]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I think that's a great idea....

But what to do about getting exercise in too? That's the other half of the battle. JUST cutting out the unhealthy crap doesn't mean a healthy lifestyle.

Fad diets, as were referenced earlier, will work 'somewhat' but I think the part where people get stuck is when the 'diet' becomes work. Pretty much the proven standard is cut the intake and up the output (i.e. exercise more).

We could make community exercise hour like we had in Japan and China. It was pretty much voluntary, but every morning most of the community got their butts up and stood in nice little rows with a polite instructor and got everyone stretching and moving and stuff. Nothing hardcore, but it gets your heartrate moving first thing in the morning, keeps your body limber even into old age.

The thing is that exercise already carries wonderful bonuses for life but some people just don't like it. I would suggeet money is best spent improving access to exercise facilites and hope that will get more people using them. Maybe incentivize employers to provide gms etc?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by sshappy
The thing is that exercise already carries wonderful bonuses for life but some people just don't like it. I would suggeet money is best spent improving access to exercise facilites and hope that will get more people using them. Maybe incentivize employers to provide gms etc?

Well I do think employers should get some kind of tax break or cost of Health Insurance break if they provide facilities or activities for their employees to get fit and be healthier. Stock the snack rooms with healthy foods and not sugar.

Yeah yeah, we need caffeine to program right? But you don't need the simple sugars, so get rid of them...they actually make you crash mid-afternoon when they wear off.

But improving access to exercise facilities...most gyms want money, even the local community centers and the YMCA costs money to use their stuff. There should be more and better alternatives for excercise that are community driven. Like a morning stretch at the local parks. Stretching is extremely beneficial to your entire body, and will promote weight loss especially in those that lead a more inactive life style.

And...if the government is so concerned about the weight of it's citizens, then the government should do something about it's civil employees. Cops with beer guts do nothing to inspire me...and if I ever saw a firefighter show up clearly overweight and struggling, I think I'd be trying to help him out...not the other way around.

And people who say they don't like exercise...I think that's a load of bull honkey. What'd they do as little kids? Exercise shouldn't be work, but if you do it enough and often your body craves it.

I've found that commuting to work by bike has cut my desire for sweets, keeps my energy level up, increased my appetite for healthy foods, and I'm losing the last few pounds of winter that I disliked. And...it's fun! I wake up wanting to go pedal.

 

[Silver]

I'd hate to derail this topic by getting on my socialized medicine horse again...but I think one of the problems is that the people eating these high fat, high sodium, low nutrition foods can't afford to see a doctor on a regular basis.

It's like when I didn't have money to fix my car in college and limped it along. After a year or two of neglect, I ended up with a mess. Most of the people posting here have a doctor bitching to them to change something (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.)

Jr_Bullit, would you be watching your cholesterol if you didn't know what it was? Or would you go through life until the massive heart attack at 50?

What costs more? A physical and blood test each year, or open heart surgery that you end up paying for anyways?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Silver
I'd hate to derail this topic by getting on my socialized medicine horse again...but I think one of the problems is that the people eating these high fat, high sodium, low nutrition foods can't afford to see a doctor on a regular basis.

It's like when I didn't have money to fix my car in college and limped it along. After a year or two of neglect, I ended up with a mess. Most of the people posting here have a doctor bitching to them to change something (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.)

Jr_Bullit, would you be watching your cholesterol if you didn't know what it was? Or would you go through life until the massive heart attack at 50?

What costs more? A physical and blood test each year, or open heart surgery that you end up paying for anyways?

So wait...lemme get this straight...you think at least 1/3 of the US can't afford to go see a doctor? Go walk around your office a little and take a look at different sizes of tummy tums. Go to the grocery store and take a look at the clothes and style of shoes, and the cars different people drive that are visibly large enough to count in the 1/3 too obese section.

And, even though not everyone in the US is poor enough to qualify for welfare or unemployment, those who are, are not without medical insurance. They are foolish if they think they do not have access to some health care without income.

It may not be 100% socialized...but have no doubt that those who need it, can get to a doctor.

Oh - and about me, yes actually. I started losing weight out of college because I was embarrassed by my appearance. I have great healthcare, and in that I'm quite fortunate. But not knowing about my cholesterol levels to me are not a hindrance to a desire to be thin and fit. I found out because I was battling issues every step of the way up my exercise ladder to a better level of fitness. I hit my peak, so to speak, so I went to the doctor to get over it.

 

[Silver]

I'm not saying that they CAN'T get to a doctor. I'm saying that they won't. And they'll limp along, until diabetes or heart disease hits.

And you're right, a lot of these people drive a car they can't afford, have too many children, and buy shoes that they don't need. But, a little preemptive care would probably save some money in the long run.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Silver
I'm not saying that they CAN'T get to a doctor. I'm saying that they won't. And they'll limp along, until diabetes or heart disease hits.

And you're right, a lot of these people drive a car they can't afford, have too many children, and buy shoes that they don't need. But, a little preemptive care would probably save some money in the long run.

Okay - so let's say 30% of the US doesn't go to the doctor. Or if they do, they roll their eyes when the doc says their kids are too fat, they're unhealthy, etc etc....

What other solution can we pose?

Taxing the "bad foods"
Finding some form of community exercise
Making it expensive to be unhealthy
Better education of the masses
what else?
Maybe some better self-image campaigns. All these little kids that I see parading around with guts hanging over their pants have got to have horrible images of themselves....Considering the things you see in movies or magazines (not counting sitcoms because those are pandering more and more to the chubby american lifestyle).

Okay - Anorexics look in the mirror and always see themselves as ugly and fat.
Is there something where Obese children see themselves as hottie future Britney Spears look alikes?

 

[Silver]

Well, getting them under medical supervision would be a start.

After that? Mandatory PE in schools. No PE, no diploma. It doesn't have to be boot camp, but kids should be getting out for an hour a day.

Stop letting lobbysists (like the sugar people mentioned below) put input into dietary guidelines.

After that, I'm not sure how much you can do. I'm not a big fan of jacking up insurance premiums...that seems to be a game that will only benefit the insurance companies.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Silver
Well, getting them under medical supervision would be a start.

After that? Mandatory PE in schools. No PE, no diploma. It doesn't have to be boot camp, but kids should be getting out for an hour a day.

Stop letting lobbysists (like the sugar people mentioned below) put input into dietary guidelines.

After that, I'm not sure how much you can do. I'm not a big fan of jacking up insurance premiums...that seems to be a game that will only benefit the insurance companies.

Good point...we don't wanna give those bastids any more than they already take! How about discounts for those that fall into different health categories?

And last I checked, PE is still mandatory, though once you get to a certain grade level you can use other classes to "opt out" of gym class. Or if you're on an athletics team you can use that to "opt out".

D'you think if people (in an ideal world) were to start learning to take responsibility for their own bodies, we'd have a better/healthier community in general because people wouldn't be trying to shift the blame for their own failings to others?

 

[bomberz1qr20]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Well then there's the fact that healthy foods tend to cost far more than the unhealthy ones....

??

Please give an example. Healthy food is cheap, it's the marketing and packaging that jacks up the cost, in junk food and health food.

 

[Silver]

I keep reading newspaper stories about how PE is getting phased out. Parents complaining that it wasn't fair that little Bobby got a C+ to mangle his GPA (in gradeschool...)

People aren't going to take responsiblity for what they eat, because there is a faster and easier alternative. And even though I know better, I'm not immune. I've been working a ton lately, travelling a lot, and eating a lot of fast food...I finally cooked the last couple of days and I had forgotten how good (and cheap) it actually was.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by bomberz1qr20
??

Please give an example. Healthy food is cheap, it's the marketing and packaging that jacks up the cost, in junk food and health food.

Well...Rice is cheap

If I want organic, or low-fat meat it costs quite a bit more than the alternative versions.

1lb of apples - the cheapest I have seen is 1.69 per lb. That's...two apples? I can buy a pretty good sized bag of potato chips for the equivalent of four apples.

Compare popcorn, the heavy buttery movie tasting popcorn, compared to the light version. Yep, bout 20 cents difference.

Low-fat/lower carb bread that is made from actual grains and does not contain ingredients like corn syrup or pesticides often costs me $3+ per loaf. I can buy a pack of the cheap white wonder bread for $1 per loaf.

If I want a jar of peanut butter that does not contain added sugar, or added preservatives, I will end up paying more.

How about cereal? A box of cheerios is far more than a box of honeycomb...

Soup...Top Ramen...60 to 70 cents a package or less. Well...gosh, I could buy myself a can of progresso soup without the preservatives containing ingredients I recognize for slightly more than double that. And if I get the ones that don't come from major labels and are healthier still...well I can fork out more than $2 per container.

It adds up, penny by penny. The foods with actual food in them and aren't pumped up with filler ingredients, sugars, corn syrups, preservatives, tend to cost a lot more. Organic foods...oh yeah baby, forkin out quite a bit more than for non-organic that contain things like pesticides.

 

[Silver]

No reason to not bake your own bread. Store bought bread is expensive and nasty (put a loaf of Wonder Bread on the counter...it'll take about 3 times longer to get moldy than fresh baked bread will. That's just not right.)

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Silver
I keep reading newspaper stories about how PE is getting phased out. Parents complaining that it wasn't fair that little Bobby got a C+ to mangle his GPA (in gradeschool...)

People aren't going to take responsiblity for what they eat, because there is a faster and easier alternative. And even though I know better, I'm not immune. I've been working a ton lately, travelling a lot, and eating a lot of fast food...I finally cooked the last couple of days and I had forgotten how good (and cheap) it actually was.

I don't eat out hardly ever, so my cost comparison is never home cooked to fast food. It's different kinds of home cookin compared to each other.

It's not hard to make a healthy meal that'll last you days. Or a healthy meal that takes 2 minutes to make. More often then not my food is microwave cooked while I'm in the shower, scrubbing my home, doing laundry, or getting ready for work the next day.

I honestly do not comprehend people who cannot take responsibilty for their own actions. It's not even an argument I can have, because the justification for pointing fingers everywhere but at yourself is so strange. Especially when it comes to the state of your own body.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by Silver
No reason to not bake your own bread. Store bought bread is expensive and nasty (put a loaf of Wonder Bread on the counter...it'll take about 3 times longer to get moldy than fresh baked bread will. That's just not right.)

Okay, so let's make fresh bread. I have a bread maker...I can buy a premade mix - that's roughly $2 for the mix with everything but water for the cheap stuff.

If I wanna make it myself I can...I used to work at a bread factory. I 've got three hours to spend at home working with a loaf of bread. Don't you?

Not many people have the time for baking bread. But they should have the time to read the labels on the bread that is already pre-baked for them and available at the store.

There ARE healthy alternatives available however. They cost a wee bit more, and you have to read the label....but they're there. I think it's just that people don't know how to read a label, they don't know what's good or bad for them, and they don't know that recommended serving sizes are there for a reason!

 

[Just Lookin'...]

=> note to jr bullit<=

"Okay. I admit – I wasn’t making myself easily understandable. I was, in fact, blithering. That is because of the massive quantity of jack daniels I consumed last night."

=>public forum here<=

Right. Obesity. It’s a big problem because of many factors, two of which i'll address here:

One, we’re so technically advanced that it’s highly unlikely that anyone will have to work physically hard for a living. We have replaced the need for fitness with machinery. On top of it, we have thousands of regulations that prevent employees from exerting themselves in anyway in order to complete a task. In fact, OSHA will severely penalize the employer if he/she allows any employee to risk their pasty, weak ass on the job by trying to move a desk, a large chair, a potted plant, a box of product, a sack of flour, etc.

Government, in response to thousands of specious lawsuits, has regulated virtually all forms of physical effort out of the job description. We’re groomed to sit in a sedentary fashion at our desks while typing on keyboards and answering phones.

The few jobs that demand physicality – where it’s unavoidable – like fire fighting, and law enforcement, has had to dumb down it’s fitness requirement because it prevented unqualified persons from applying. I’m not going to hash out the prickly subject of women joining the fire department and not being required to carry an unconscious adult down two flights of stairs in a ‘fireman’s carry’ [they are allowed to grab the heels, one under each armpit, and drag – thus banging the head a bunch of times down the steps – you can look it up if you don’t believe me. I had to do the ‘f’n carry’ UP four ladders when I was a ship-borne fire fighter] – but the results that the fire fighter’s employment requirements now allow females to skip certain parts of the training without discrimination ALSO allow EVERYONE to pass the course without being required to ‘carry’ an unconscious adult anywhere at all. You can’t ‘reverse discriminate’ against males who are too spindly to carry a 125lb human down some smoky steps while allowing females to skip by.

The government is also being lobbied to demand special seating on aircraft that accommodates the morbidly obese. That would create ‘double-wide’ seats that cost the flier the same as a single seat. Which means, you’d be taxed for it - prices would rise across the board to balance the added costs. The reason little kids go half-fare or free isn’t because they don’t have any money – it’s because they weigh next to nothing and don’t take up a whole seat. It’s about fuel costs vs. mass. Therefore, 300lb people should be charged double. Or at least more. And if they take up two seats, they pay more for it.

Of course, I’d be pilloried for suggesting that.

Two: We don’t understand food. We think it’s calories. We think it’s cholesterol. We think it’s sugar or fats. We don’t think it’s sex and love and fear and hate and everything else. Why the hell do we eat when we’re not hungry? We do it every ****ing day. Why? If our body needs only 3200 calories (just a number I picked out of the air, but one for the argument) why do we want to eat 4800? Where in he11 does the human being need a pint of Ben and Jerry’s to survive? Why didn’t we all die out before refrigeration? What satanic beast conceived of a chocolate bar? Where did the hunter-gatherers evolve into candy eaters? Yet you can have a Twix anytime you want. As often as you want.

I’m not going to go into the million and a half things that we’ve invented in our ‘spare time’ to ingest. What we need to learn and understand is the effect food and the smell, taste and sensation of food has on us and it’s place in our daily existence.

Let’s face the facts: we don’t eat because we’re hungry. We eat because of social circumstances [we’re at a party and someone orders pizza; we go out to dinner with some friends and we order the full course meal] we eat because we’re taught to [three meals a day – according to who’s biology?] we eat because it’s so damn easy [McD’s et al on every street corner in the world].

We don’t even get hungry. It takes 3 days of water-only dieting before the average human being would actually be in the state of ‘hunger’ that can be measured by any form of scientific method.

We eat because we have developed repetitive appetites. Habits.

Once, food was a cultural and societal conjoined effort – everyone contributed, from the hunting and gathering to the preparation and the consuming. For the past few thousand years we’ve had less and less of that and for the last century we’ve seen the death of virtually all of it. Nothing has arisen to replace it. We know nothing about food except how much it costs, where to get it, how much to tip if it’s delivered to our table, and that certain foods are ‘too rich’. We don’t know why we eat it.

And what the hell is up with dinner being the biggest meal of the day? Scarf down the most calories and then become nearly comatose from the blood rush to the stomach? Sleep away while the body tries to figure out what to do with all those fresh calories? Like sock it away against winter in the rapidly expanding fat cells on our bellies, our hips, etc?

So, our lives become less active, and we eat more. Then some yabbo says something like ‘more proteins, less carbs’ and we’re saved. Or someone else says ‘raw foods’ and you’ll live for a hundred years.

We’re still sedentary and we’re still eating too much. We still don’t know what’s going on.
Something aboout the fad diets that kills me is that the shills selling it on TV all have personal trainers and work out at gyms, jog on the beach, etc. Then, for a stipend, they tell the world that they’re in shape because of what they eat [or don’t eat]. Tell you what – if you lived the same lifestyle as some of these ‘new fitness’ actors, you’d look just as good of they do, no matter what fad diet you are or are not on. TV and movie actors work out all the damn time. They have no choice – multimillion-dollar contracts depend on them being more beautiful than you are.

My point is this: we don’t and won’t live the same life that our forefathers lived. It’s impossible. We work more hours than ever before (except when we were building the freaking pyramids) so we have less time to engage in recreational sports, outdoor hobbies, etc and yet we exert less and less energy.

No school in North America and likely none in the rest of the world actively teaches young people about food; it’s preparation, composition, or value. What was once taught by ‘the village’ is now taught by McDonalds, Jack in the Box, Kentucky Fried Chicken et al.

How many of us learned to cook anything at home? And if we did, who among us learned more than a few recipes? How and why to select foods that were in season? Why we do or do not pickle some foods, jar some jams, can some ham?
We’re fat because we’re taught nothing useful about life, but tons of junk about how to be a useful cog in the machine. A machine that conserves energy.

while some of my 'data' is based on admittedly faulty memory, it's not far out of the ballpark. I hope some of my points got through.

 

[Spud]

Say Just Lookin, That sounds pretty interesting and insightful, but can you give me the microwavable version of what you just said?

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Okay, so let's make fresh bread. I have a bread maker...I can buy a premade mix - that's roughly $2 for the mix with everything but water for the cheap stuff.

If I wanna make it myself I can...I used to work at a bread factory. I 've got three hours to spend at home working with a loaf of bread. Don't you?

Not many people have the time for baking bread. But they should have the time to read the labels on the bread that is already pre-baked for them and available at the store.

There ARE healthy alternatives available however. They cost a wee bit more, and you have to read the label....but they're there. I think it's just that people don't know how to read a label, they don't know what's good or bad for them, and they don't know that recommended serving sizes are there for a reason!

I'll try to figure out what it costs me to make a loaf. I don't knead by hand anymore (I got a mixer for Christmas) so I'm looking at about 20 minutes of work, including cleanup. The rest of it is like doing laundry...wait time.

I'm sure it's under a buck. Half white flour, half whole wheat, salt, yeast, and honey. And it tastes like heaven.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Clicky:
It seems like many Americans will do anything to avoid diet and exercise.

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by Silver
No reason to not bake your own bread. Store bought bread is expensive and nasty (put a loaf of Wonder Bread on the counter...it'll take about 3 times longer to get moldy than fresh baked bread will. That's just not right.)

You seriously can not buy decent fresh bread in the Us

Even the small corner shops here sell freshly baked bread. The kind that only lasts a day. The local supermarket cooks bread in store daily. I don't think I have ever been anywhere that you could not buy decent freshly baked bread.