• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Obesity:


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#61 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 November 2007 - 06:00 PM

Wayside...your steps would probably work (and some people are trying to put versions of those thoughts into law), however, it wouldn't be long before the lynch-mob got to you.

#62 wayside

  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • -1

Posted 20 November 2007 - 07:21 PM

Wayside...your steps would probably work (and some people are trying to put versions of those thoughts into law), however, it wouldn't be long before the lynch-mob got to you.


Well, since I am king, I will just use my standing army to bloodily squelch the revolution. I'll feed the confiscated junk food to the army to keep them happy.

The things I (tongue-in-cheekily, for those who think I want to tell people what to do) suggested have zero chance of ever being implemented because it would cost big business too much money. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo can buy a lot of senators.

What is scarier (and far more likely to come to pass) is that if you are obese (or have any other "disease" as specified by the public health officials) you will be required to seek medical attention and will be essentially forced to take drugs to treat your obesity as a matter of public health policy. The medical police state is already here in MD, where parents are facing jail time and loss of their children if they don't vaccinate their kids, and kids are being forcibly vaccinated. It was narrowly averted in Texas where the governor, after much lobbying by the company that makes it, tried to force Gardisil (HPV) vaccination on all kids. He backed down in the ensuing uproar, but the trend is under way.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 10:54 PM.


#63 richardschueler

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 November 2007 - 11:52 AM

Interesting notes:
1. Go to any self help isle in any book store, and you'll find diet/healthy strategies vastly outnumber all other books in the isle. The "how" is covered, the "why" is more important to affect the public.

Choose the items you're deficient in which negatively affect society, and are willing to accept someone taking control over your life over.

(I DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE)
A. You live in a city that isn't the safest city in the world. YOU ARE KILLING YOURSELF. You could choose to live in a safe city. You drive? YOU ARE KILILNG YOURSELF. You would be infinitely safer if you didn't drive. You'd be infinitely safe if you PERMANENTLY WORE PROTECTIVE NFL HEADGEAR. Think of all the countless brain injuries that could have been prevented if everyone would take the SIMPLE step of straping on a helmet, and dieting! Seriously, what's easier dieting, or putting on a "hat" which you strap on your chin, and is worn by millionaires many weekends. It's good enough for the millionaires, isn't it good enough for you?


1. Laziness. You've not started a business. You've not tried to convert all those around you to their highest and best use. You don't have enough of your capital in the market at risk for the benefit of society. You didn't learn enough in school, or go long enough, and didn't use what you learned to it's highest and best use.

2. Obesity, you're killing yourself and making a bad example for others, will more quickly become a burden on yourself and others to the detriment of all those near you.

3. Smoking. Same reasons as obesty.

4. You don't know enough about politics to know that who you're votinig for or not voting for is causing the world pain. You don't know anyones positions on anything.

5. You're ignorant of other cultures, only speaking one language, and therefore when voting or not particpating, not able to represent the interests of your fellow man you're supposed to care about.

6. You belive in a religion but only the parts you pick and choose from, the easy parts, not the hard ones, and act in disaccord to what you'd do if full compliance were "free".

7. You saw a man beg for money once, and didn't give him any, I just read about a veteran who froze to death in the street, that could have been that man. How much did you give to your community this week? You gave to your community? What are you crazy? what about all the starving people in teh world that would give their legs to even be privledged enough to be in your community? You felt bad about those people who'd give anything to be in your community? What are you crazy, don't you know xyz fill in the blank has it worse? Wait a minute, you gave to xyz that had it worse!? That's not a known charity, all that time you spent figuring out who to give to could have been spent just helping the first cause that came along!!! You spend your time thinking about what to do with your money? You shouldnt' even have money! You should be donating your effort and not empowering the "man's" system. Wage slave.

8. Do you use electricity that's made from non reknewable fossil fuels, you're killing the earth! I hear it screaming. Do you eat vegatables? You know that vegtables are living things right? Murderer.

9. How many people have you given viruses by not carrying with you anti bacterial hand cleaner, using it often, and not shaking hands? How many of those people are old people who's immune systems were too weak to handle the infection you passed to them through perhaps 10 different other people to get to them, killing them. Don't you think you'd be better off wearing a mask like you see peopel wear on airplanes sometimes, a painters breathing mask. Murderer.

10. How many organisms are you starving right now of their right to exist? There are trillions of bacteria and other little loveable critters that would LOVE to be using the same molecules you're using, to apparently, ruin the earth, but they can't, because you're wasting them. Do yourself in, save a bug.

(I DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE)
I could really do this, as enjoyable as it is, for a very long time to come. I'm surprizsed proof by absurdity didn't work earlier.

You have something you care about. You want the world to be a better place, that is good for society, IF it results in net gain. Making people feel bad about themselves without change is not net gain. It's also a great way to alienate people, lose rapport, lose leverage, and make them care even less about what you're talking about.

Exercising your right to be fat, is very very simliar to exercising your right ot live where you want, dangerous or not, smoke and drink what you want, regardless of giant "THIS WILL KILL YOU!!!" labels, have sex and children with people tha statisticly will produce bad results, buy terrible products on infomercials....

A world where YOUR freedom dissapears because of someone elses value choice as to how much freedom/choice/enjoyment they were willing to sacrafice for longer/more secure life, is not one people choose to live in for long, whenever freer options are available.

If you want people to be healthier and live longer, AWESOME! ME TOO! Attract them in a way that will work, a way that respects their RIGHTS, a way they support. Any other way is doomed to failure.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 12:35 PM

You're still making excuses Richard.

We are discussing obesity. All the other problems/issues that you mentioned above have been discussed in other threads.

#65 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2007 - 03:28 PM

fat tax.....

Ugly if you ask me.

I don't think central guided restrictive measures are at place here. My opinion is that every individual has a right to decide what to do, the liberal approach also applies to obese people. On the other hand, obese people do increase medical cost, so bottom-line there will be the market mechanism that will have it's influence eventually. Foremost, the emphatic approach (education and influencing loved ones, family, friends, schoolmates the right way) would be the right course of action.

In Holland we have a christian-socialist government that thinks that Pavlov reactions like raising taxes and forcing central guided intervention could be used as a universal cure to every problem. Posted Image

Edit:

An example to my liking. Initiatives by society and market partners should be the norm, helped a bit by central guided government presure at most.

Edited by brainbox, 22 November 2007 - 06:06 PM.


#66 richardschueler

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 November 2007 - 06:47 PM

You're still making excuses Richard.

We are discussing obesity. All the other problems/issues that you mentioned above have been discussed in other threads.


How do you tell the difference between "making excuses", and being mindful of very serious reasons? Do you just make excuses e very day you don't put your face on a hot frying pan? Or do you have a serious reason not to do that.

Offending people is bad, saying you're going to manipulate them and remove their free choice is bad, then dismissing everything they say with a one liner, which obviously fits some common logical fallacy, but I'm not sure which one, is yet another step towards pissing off the people you want to help. Perhaps help isn't want you want to do. Perhaps manipulate to your own benefit is what you're interested in. If that's the case, I can see why so many are alienated.

#67 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,862 posts
  • 149
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2007 - 09:58 PM

You drive? YOU ARE KILILNG YOURSELF. You would be infinitely safer if you didn't drive


Not if you live by me... lol

Edited by Matt, 22 November 2007 - 09:59 PM.


#68 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 22 November 2007 - 10:46 PM

How do you tell the difference between "making excuses", and being mindful of very serious reasons?


In this situation it stands out to me because you using examples such as "what about other things' which moves the conversation away from obesity. Let flip the coin....me and you are talking about issues related to alcoholism. You say to me,

"the government should do something about the level of intoxication we see on the streets because that's a precursor to so many other things such as violence and drink driving and so on. At the end of the day the tax payer ends up suffering"

I say,

"That's the wrong approach. People should be allowed to get intoxicated on the streets. Everyone has their flaws. For example, obesity"

But we are not talking about obesity. We are talking about alcoholism. Now it would be a different story if the subject that we were talking about was "Issues that cost the tax payer money" but we weren't.

So to me that is either making excuses, avoiding the subject, just plan missing the point. I'm accusing you as making excuses richard because you have admitted that you're overweight and from my own experiance, I've seen this excuses making approach from many overweight people that have said that they would love to lose the weight but when you give them "how" and explain the "why" they make excuses. So, if this is truely not the case with you richard then I apologise.

Offending people is bad, saying you're going to manipulate them and remove their free choice is bad, then dismissing everything they say with a one liner, which obviously fits some common logical fallacy, but I'm not sure which one, is yet another step towards pissing off the people you want to help.


Re. offending people is bad.....in situations like this I'm not overly concerned about offending people so I don't care if it is bad or good. The important thing is the truth and if the truth offends you then that's something you going to have to deal with. Re. Manipulation and removing of free choice....how am I manipulating you or taking away your free choice richard? The way it currently stands is most countries you can only allow yourself to be maniipulated and give your free choice away. I haven't suggested that governments take away your free choice either.

Perhaps help isn't want you want to do. Perhaps manipulate to your own benefit is what you're interested in.


I will honestly tell you that that's certainly not the case. My goals is to minimise the suffering. The suffering caused by health related issues. Obesity is just one of these. My main focus area though is disuse and getting older people to exercise.

#69 richardschueler

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 November 2007 - 02:11 AM

Zooolander, you started this thread including top hits such as:
"Obese people should be admitted to hospital! Obesity is a disease. An illness that needs to be treated. I know that the mobidly obese are often admitted into clinics but what about the Obese. They are still on the road to killing themselves. "

"You are deluding yourself and putting an excessive strain on our fragile health care system."
"Perhaps we need to start coming down on these people "
"Get off your lazy arse"
"do your bit in the community by placing a little less stress on the health care system."

Came in about 1.5 hours after with:
" I am pissed/angry at the capable inactive obese population."

Then "Ajnast4r, I totally agree with everything that you said" which was: "...refined white sugar is quite immunosuppressive... and that counts as a poison in my book. if we outlawed white sugar today..."

I really like this one in pose#39: "Notice that I have only really referred to the obese as lazy and not stupid. "

I know a few obese people, who if you met them, would probably show you how fit an obese person can be when insulted to their face. Something about insulting people which makes them...what's the word I'm looking for...punchyouinthefacy?

You say stupid things. You insult people. You're lucky you're doing so on a board full of nice, kind people, becasue almost any other board out there the thread would be locked due to flaming, as this is obvious flame bait (if it weren't so sad that you're serious.)

Insulting people pisses them off, so much so actually that they will cut off their own nose to spite their face. Stop insulting people. Stop threatening to admit them to the hosipital (for what you characterize as a mental problem.)

You are the one with the mental problem. You are the one with a rule that states that people must be healthy, regardless of their choice to trade health for enjoyment (good bye tatoos, unprotected sex married or not, dangerous sports, driving..) Trading health for more and better tasting food is a RIGHT. You are the one that needs to go to a hospital. The logical progression of your intent could be construed as a danger to yourself and others, most likely be getting knocked out by large people in the species you insult.

The fact that you portray the good agenda of public health, as a mandatory war against choice does Direct DAMAGE to the cause you're trying to promote.

If you really want to make more healthy fit people, you should keep quiet with your extremeist, dangerous, inflamatory, insulting mouth running, until you've refined the idea in a way someone you may actually want to affect actually can swallow it.

You're the poster boy for who you don't want helping a casue that's hard to understand, because you instantly piss off all the moderates to the point where even if it was a good idea, they'll go against it just to get back at you for being an ass. I hope the cancer that is the way you present public health goals dies in this forum, where the public isn't before it does the only thing it can do...harm.

P.S. The ass rheeming you deserve for being so outlandishly insensitive and selfish, and inflamtory is quite larger than what you've received. You owe the board a big thanks for being civil.

#70 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 23 November 2007 - 05:06 AM

I take everything that you said on the chin richard if I have upset you. My intention was never to offend or upset you or anyone else. Hence, I apologise if what I have said has upset you or anyone else. I'm very open to being corrected about my ways however, there is no need to resort to a personal attack.

Putting the quotes together as you did above does not really paint an accurate picture of my views on the situation.

Re. that last few paragraphs....well richard you haven't been around here long enough or had enough dealings with me to be making such harsh judgements. You don't see the lists of PM's I get asking for my assistance and praising me the work that I have done here. I might seem like a c**t to you on the surface right now but I'm far from the person that you are trying to label me as. Perhaps we just got off on the right foot. Perhaps it's just a communication breakdown. Perhaps I should have been a little more diplomatic or PC with my approach? I will be the first to admit that I'm not very PC and don't really care much for PCness but I guess it has it's time and place. I initially took the hard line with the issue with the added emotion thrown in there as desperation to try and get some arses into gear.

Let's try and start this off again without getting personal or taking it personal.....I'll reword what I feel in a more diplomatic way

Take 2:

The soaring obesity rates are and will continue to place a great deal of stress on the public health care system. Importantly however, is the obese population that places themselves an substantial risk of multiple diseases such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, arthritis and so on setting themselves up for undue suffering in the last few decades of their life.

Most, I would say, do not fully understand the full extent of the damge that they are doing to themselves even though they know that being overweight or obese is not healthy. Some of the disease that result from obesity are a death sentence. It's a terrible state of affairs in my opinion. People are slowly killing themselves by making poor health choices. I fully understand that there are situations where people have become obese that are not related to choice but rather related to unfortunate life circumstances. This is just the small minority though as for the larger part, the choice to not exercise and to consume a diet in excess of their daily caloric requirements is literally killing good people.

So what can we do? How do we reach out to the large majority of the population who are putting their health at risk in an attempt to minimise what could be long painful road to the grave for the obese population. How?

#71 richardschueler

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 November 2007 - 07:50 AM

I paid an anothy robbins coach 5000 dollars and he "got" my father to lose 80 lbs, from 460 down to 380. I'd love it if he were 250. Wishing doesn't make a thing so. The strategies he used worked, and are generalized to work for everything else actually.

The best way to create more healthy, fit people is to get them to focus on fitness, and not dieting. In life, you get what you focus on. If you focus on dieting, you focus on what you can't eat, and you then want to eat it. If I say diet, people think cake and pain. If I say eat healthy, people think, carrots and broccoli.

Always using a positive frame of focus towards values, instead of away from values works much better.

Like all people caught in a negative pattern of behavior whether it be beating their wifes, or drinking too much, or over eating or making poor food selections, it's a pattern that meets their needs. One theory of understanding why people continue to do things they know are terrible for them is that all humans have 6 needs. They are Certainty, variety, significance, connection, growth and contribution. The first 4 consist of 2 sets of paradoxes, and the last 2 are not paradoxical. That is why no matter how you are raised or where you live in the world, whatever problems you personally feel you have, they are almost identical to the problems on the other side of the globe that other peopel who speak a different language, look and were raised different have.

It's also interesting to note that almost everyone laughs and cry's the same, because though we're different, our neurology is the almost the same.

So first you must understand that persons model of the world. How long is a long time to them? How much weight is too much? How much weight would be right? What is life to them? A journey? A joy? A strugle?
1. Once you understand AND appreciate their model of the world, you can get into rapport with them, and begin to lead their thinking in positive directions. No rapport, no influence, no results.

2. LEVERAGE. If they don't care, nothing will ever happen. Why is this important to you to lose this weight? If they're not that far along, questions like this. What kidn of relationships might you be missing out on in your life by making these poor decisions. What kidn of example are you setting for your children. What would you ancestors thing about this if they were alive righ tnow? Things THEY care about. right doesn't matter, logic doesn't matter here, getting them to a poitn where they really care matters, and I beelive this is the MOST important MOST effective step of the process.

2. Phrase the problem in solvable terms. If I wanted to lose 20 lbs this year, how could I do that and enjoy the process?

3. Future pace the results in their mind, imaine 6 months in teh future, 1 year in the future. How good will it feel when you can take off your shirt at the beach with pride? Get they pumped up!

4. Test ecology. Perhaps do this before future pacing, depends on the mood I guess. Does this new pattern you proposed (meal portioning, better selections, exercise in morning, finding peer group that expects exercise with them...) Does it meet their 6 human needs (IN THEIR MIND) at the same level or higher than the old behavior? If not modify and repeat the future pacing.

5. Interupt the old negative pattern. If someone is crying you use a pattern interrupt like, have you drank pizza though a straw? This is good for shaking them free of a disempowering state in teh short term, in the longer term you need to get them to START whatever it is they need to do. Go throw out all the junk food, go buy some running shoes, an action even if only ritual that cements the end of the old and the start of the new.

6. Empowering environment. Wherever possible, the less negative hits they have to take for their new improved lifestyle, the easier it is for them. If all they run into is rejection, riddicule, it makes the hill much harder to climb.

7. Set reachable goals and have 3rd party committment!!! a 3rd party must verify that you're reaching yoru goals, and you need to be accoutnable to them, because it's much much easier to let yourself down and fell ok about it, than to let your coach you're paying 5000 dollars to. You're financially and congruently committed far greater with a 3rd party's help. Ever notice that ALL the greats in sports and many other areas of life have coaches or mentors? There's a reason. It works.

It sounds like you work one on one with people so these kinds of one on one insights are ideal for helping people get results that are the longest lasting. It probably also gives insight into which of the components may be overlayed into a more general approach, through marketing.

I think that one on one coaching nis one of the only ways to get people to break thorugh the barrier that is the comfort of the familiar bad behavior, and comfortable with the alien and new behavior that is believed to have long term benefits. Getting people to actually care about the change is the hardest and most important part, once they are truly committie to why, you coudn't stop them. You could even try and sabotage their "how" and if you got the "why" good enough, you'll fail, and they'll get what you made them accutely aware they desired.

Other than the coaches I know work with these kinds of thigns, there are probably 5-10 really amazing, outstanding, personal weight loss coaches in the usa that KNOW how to get people to where they crave fitness and health. I would hunt those folks down and beg to learn from them, or donate to have someone go through the program and take notes in the hopes of understanding what the syntax and recipes are that go into making the transformational process work. I'd bet with a high degree of certainty that whatever systems out there that exist will includ much if not all of the 7 steps I've enumerated.

One should also read seth godin and malcom gladwell's material on the propegation of mainstream ideas into the public conciousness, as that consciouness will create the parallel execution of the same impulses that you're acting on now. I wish there were 1 million forums just like this one out there. We'd all benefit.

#72 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2007 - 10:35 AM

Empathy should be expressed in an empathic way.

If obese individuals (much like other individuals with unhealthy habits) do not know what the consequences are of this behaviour, how could a forceful approach initiated by external parties in a top-down setting be helpful? Education and peer empathy are the key issues here. History has also proven that this road is extremely difficult, information campaigns did not have sufficient effect in the past.

The peer to peer approach is a good way to go forward, combined with, or better, initiated by provision of information to strengthen the level of knowledge of obese people and their peers. And we all are peers in this context.

The question is indeed how to reach the population, the entire population.

Obesity has become a demographic issue (quantity) but the solution domain is psychology (quality).

Edited by brainbox, 23 November 2007 - 10:42 AM.


#73 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 23 November 2007 - 11:54 AM

I still think a campaign touting "thin people have better sex" would wake up part of the population. Of course, people who love a good burger more than good sex would be immune..

#74 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2007 - 04:08 PM

dont tell me im fat cos ill get mad and beat you up




everything you said in this post pissed me off...


that whole mindset of being accepting and quiet about peoples self destructive hedonistic behavior is exactly why it is so prevalent in our society today. if you are offended by the truth that is YOUR problem to deal with... sugar coating a hard to deal with truth to the point where it becomes effortless to swallow often results in the truth itself being masked, and the person is robbed of the benefits of fully & deeply understanding that truth.

dont get me wrong because i am not against compassion and empathy, but i am against hedonistic empowerment. not everything in life will or should be pleasurable/enjoyable. re-adjusting diet and exercise routines, for many obese people, is not enjoyable... the idea that a person should never do anything that is not enjoyable is the exact hedonistic mindset that got them to where they are in the first place.

not eating 10,000 calories a day is going to suck. getting your 500lb ass into the gym everyday is going to suck... but the long term benefits will NOT suck... and that, is life.


imo, saying to someone... listen dropping this 300lbs is gonna be a great pleasurable experience for you, dont worry about it! .. is just a straight up lie, and its better to be truthful and let them know... hey this is probably gonna suck, but you'll have my support and ill be by your side to help you through the entire process.

Edited by ajnast4r, 23 November 2007 - 04:28 PM.


#75 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2007 - 05:19 PM

the idea that a person should never do anything that is not enjoyable is the exact hedonistic mindset that got them to where they are in the first place.

Do you think we have an entire lost generation, or possibly even worse that that....?

#76 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 23 November 2007 - 05:39 PM

Obviously obesity is an important issue, but it doesn't do any good to hurl insults, call people lazy or stupid, or lose our tempers. Solutions are better than shouting.

Anyway, I wouldn't really have a problem with people pursuing pleasurable/hedonisitc activities (including eating lots of delicious food), if I didn't have to pay for the consequences. Unfortunately, there is a push for socialized healthcare all over the world, so now I will be (some of you already are) FORCED to pay for the indulgences and negative health consequences of other people. It is natural for 'healthy' people to not want to pay for the cancer treatment of the smoker, the liver transplant of an alchoholic, or the obesity/diabetes treatment of a prolific eater. If there is going to be socialized/national health care then a natural outgrowth will be restrictions and regulations on unhealthy activities. It is as simple as that. Anything could be banned. If spinach consumption was found to cause a slight increase in cancer rates (don't worry, it doesn't, this is just an example), some health zealot would beat the 'BAN SPINACH' drum.

The free market solution is to create foods that are cheap, taste great (probably sweet, salty, or greasy), and are filling but do not contain many calories (preferably they would contain essential nutrients instread of empty calories). It is a market ready to create the next billionaire among us...maybe a few dozen billionaires. Alternatively, a safe non-addictive drug that can modulate the food/hunger/pleasure receptors in in the brain would be worth a lot. Big pharma is already working on these things. I wish them luck.

#77 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2007 - 07:19 PM

The free market solution is to create foods that are cheap, taste great (probably sweet, salty, or greasy), and are filling but do not contain many calories (preferably they would contain essential nutrients instread of empty calories).


Uhmmm, Farmbill? [friendly-smiley]

It's top-down central guidance and control that makes us weak and dependant already. Some of the measures should be rolled-back instead of installing new insufficient counter, counter-counter, counter-counter-counter (ad infinitum) central control and guidance measures.

For the past 50 years, U.S. farm policy has been increasingly directed toward driving down the price of a few farm commodities,
including corn and soybeans. At the same time, prices for fruits and vegetables, grown with relatively little government support,
have steadily increased.
Low commodity prices have in turn deeply influenced private investment. The food industry invests in processes that can
provide the greatest economic return, and as such it has focused on cheap commodities rather than on more expensive fruits
and vegetables.
The problem with the extensive use of these cheap commodities in food products is that they fall into the very dietary
categories that have been linked to obesity: added sugars and fats. U.S. farm policies driving down the price of these
commodities make added sugars and fats some of the cheapest food substances to produce. High fructose corn syrup and
hydrogenated vegetable oils—products that did not even exist a few generations ago but now are hard to avoid—have
proliferated thanks to artificially cheap corn and soybeans.
Whether by intention or not, current farm policy has directed food industry investment into producing low-cost, processed
foods high in added fats and sugars. These foods are often more available and more affordable than fresher, healthier choices
and, not coincidentally, U.S. consumers are now eating many more added sweeteners and oils than is healthy. Our misguided
farm policy is making poor eating habits an economically sensible choice in the short term.
Public health is not the only loser in the current food system. Farmers, too, have been devastated by an agricultural system that
favors the production of low value bulk commodities over higher value food crops. U.S. consumers are increasingly reliant on
imports of high value produce crops, while our farmers struggle to remain viable producing low value grains and oilseeds. U.S.
farm policy works against food crop production systems that are better not only for public health, but also for farmers and rural
communities.


Edited by brainbox, 23 November 2007 - 07:26 PM.


#78 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 23 November 2007 - 07:25 PM

And a view on this taxing and subsidising lunacy from the entertainment industry.

King Corn.

#79 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 24 November 2007 - 09:44 AM

This is the sort of consequence that I am talkinng about

Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2007 Nov 18; [Epub ahead of print]java script:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu18023616);
Insulin signaling effects on memory and mood.
Reagan LP.Department of Pharmacology, Physiology and Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, 6439 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.

The escalating obesity/diabetes epidemic is an important health-care issue that has crucial socio-economic ramifications. The complications of diabetes/obesity phenotypes extend to the central nervous system (CNS), including the hippocampus, a brain region that is particularly vulnerable to hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. Deficits in hippocampal synaptic plasticity observed in diabetes ultimately have deleterious consequences upon cognitive function. For example, recent studies using brain imaging technologies have identified cerebral atrophy in diabetic patients, suggesting that the neuroanatomical changes observed in experimental models of diabetes may accurately reflect what is occurring in the clinical setting. Deficits in insulin receptor (IR) signaling and impairments in hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function also contribute to the neurological complications of diabetes phenotypes. The pathophysiological similarities between diabetes and stress-related mood disorders suggest that common mechanistic mediators may be involved in the etiology and progression of the neurological complications of these disorders. When combined with the accumulating evidence from pre-clinical models, these data support the hypothesis that a long-term consequence of diabetes/obesity phenotypes is accelerated brain aging that results in neuropsychological deficits and increased vulnerability to co-morbidities such as depressive illness.

PMID: 18023616 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


Days before I started this thread I was at an Exercise Muscle and Metabolsim conference. We had a few keynotes speakers that were not in agreeance about what came first, obesity or dysfunctional insulin signalling but they all agreed on one thing. Once you have problems with insulin signalling then prep yourself for the uphill battle

#80 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 24 November 2007 - 10:52 AM

Yep. Isn't Alzheimer sometimes referred to as diabetes type 3?

Anyway, one part from the The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy publication "Food without Thought: How U.S. Farm Policy Contributes to Obesity" linked above that I especially like:

Despite the fact that some powerful interests want
to keep the food system in its present state, there are
many opportunities for change. Some people have already
turned to other ways of raising and buying food.
Direct purchasing from farmers has increased dramatically
in recent years. Schools, hospitals and workplaces
have instituted their own policies aimed at bringing
fresh, local foods into their cafeterias. Food councils
and farm-to-school networks are springing up around
the country.

(1)
It's very important to start emphasizing that peer to per society networks are the key to short term improvement. At individual level by trying to influence people you know and, as stated above, by regional organisational structures to bypass the higher level political interventions.

(2)
Funding for this initiative will need to be found outside the governmental arena, using private initiatives. (This part of my opinion is not mentioned in the IATP publication, but is of huge importance IMO).

(3)
Last but not least we should make the right political choices to correct the paradoxical subsidiary lunacy on the long term.

#81 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 November 2007 - 05:52 AM

(3)
Last but not least we should make the right political choices to correct the paradoxical subsidiary lunacy on the long term.

I guess this rules out Democrats and Republicans... Brainbox, thanks for bringing up the insanity of US Farm policy. It is an anti-free market approach with absolutely horrible results. If we insist on making Welfare Queens out of farmers and ranchers, the least we could do is encourage the production of healthy foods. The real solution to the obesity epidemic is not locking up fat people, it's getting all the crap food off the market by farm policy stupidity reduction. When I was a little kid, the typical soft drink size was 9 or 10 oz. As the years passed, I watched that number grow to 12, then 16, now 20 and beyond. I can't even find a 12 oz cup in a fast food restaurant any more. This can be directly traced to our idiotic farm policy.

#82 resveratrol

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 19
  • Location:Austin, TX

Posted 25 November 2007 - 06:36 PM

I guess this rules out Democrats and Republicans...


The Democrats, yes, but not necessarily all the Republicans ...

#83 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 November 2007 - 06:06 AM

I guess this rules out Democrats and Republicans...


The Democrats, yes, but not necessarily all the Republicans ...

Huckabee? It's great that he's personally into health, but I don't see any evidence that he'd go after misguided farm subsidies. I thought for sure you were going to say Ron Paul. Actually, there are probably significant minorities of both Dems and Reps that would do the right thing, but they're the minority.

#84 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2007 - 12:59 PM

I'm interested in the background of this particular part of the farm bill. As far I'm aware, we do not have a similar construct in my country, but I'm still searching.

Could there have been a clean political reason for this subsidiary initiative back in the 1930's?

#85 richardschueler

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 November 2007 - 02:51 AM

Nice map of the progress of obesity across the usa over the years. http://www.brandweek...y-image-of.html

#86 zoolander

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:51 AM

Posted Image

Just about every conference that I have been to recently that talks about obesity and insulin resistance will show tghis picture.

SO....what do you think cause such an increase in the prevalence of obesity over the last 20 years?

#87 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 30 November 2007 - 12:57 PM

Just about every conference that I have been to recently that talks about obesity and insulin resistance will show tghis picture.


I always hear the 100% obesity by 2050 if the trend continues, but I've never agreed with that. Some people are genetically blessed to where they are just not going to become obese. And a lot of people have children before they become obese, so you couldn't say everyone is screwing their kids. Does anyone think that the situation is that bad?

SO....what do you think cause such an increase in the prevalence of obesity over the last 20 years?


It's the high fructose corn syrup. And the trans-fat. And aspartame. And fairy dust.

Okay, seriously, I would just go with simply a prolonged excess of energy from either diet or lack of movement.

#88 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:09 PM

The Second Expert Report on Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, release in November by the American Institute for Cancer Research--- just came out. It reviewed 7,000 studies from the past 5 years and looked at how cancers have changed, and their risk factors over the past two decades. They are trying to now emphasize more strongly the importance of overweight as a factor in cancer.

They started with half a million studies, nine research teams--each with 5-20 researchers from institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Bristol in England--after weeding out studies that were irrelevant or inadequate they came up with the 7,000 studies used to come up with their current advice, and explain how things have changed over the past 10 years.

They say that at any time in life it helps to lose weight if you are overweight, and they put percentages on your risk, at being a few pounds to 10% and more on your risk for cancers from breast, to prostate, to colon and some newly implicated with weight increase such as Esophageal and Pancreatic.

This is a link to the report: http://www.aicr.org/...ame=res_rc_home

The weight issue is close to home for me, with my mother. She is at risk of breast cancer since her mother had it, and in the Nurses's Health Study women who lost 22 pounds after menopause had a 57% lower risk of breast cancer. (she just went through menopause too... so I hope she can get the weight off, its pretty hard not to grab candy bars for snacks, for her at work though--she is on her feet 12 hours, at home she walks her standard poodle in the parks, she is quite active-I've always attributed this to her diet, and shift)

If there is more out reach to teach people that extra pounds are a risk, we may see culpability in the food industry here in the U.S., the U.K. and many countries in Europe have been doing far better at regulating obesity over the past decade, not that they have solved the problem but some of the things they've done we could implement and improve upon.

I'm for higher taxes on fried foods, and the more unhealthy candy bars such as those with hydrogenated oils. I support banning hydrogenated oils (along with many additives, dyes and preservatives that have been shown to cause problems). We are starting to see some of these things done, but have a long way to go.

Edited by Shannon, 30 November 2007 - 03:12 PM.


#89 luminous

  • Guest
  • 269 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Suburban DFW

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:44 PM

zoolander--that is an amazing graphic! It clearly shows that obesity rates are rising at an alarming rate. It also explains why I've gained 15 pounds since moving from Colorado to Texas. Maybe I ought to move back!

Supposedly, obesity rates have now leveled off in the United States, but I wonder if we've merely hit a temporary plateau.

http://health.usnews...g-us-adults.htm

#90 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 30 November 2007 - 04:00 PM

I'm for higher taxes on fried foods, and the more unhealthy candy bars such as those with hydrogenated oils. I support banning hydrogenated oils (along with many additives, dyes and preservatives that have been shown to cause problems). We are starting to see some of these things done, but have a long way to go.


But those things aren't necessarily causing obesity. People just eat too much.

Poor diet -> Obesity -> Negative Health Consequences

isn't necessarily the same as

Poor diet -> Negative Health Consequences

While there are ways that a poor diet from fast food would accelerate obesity faster than a poor diet from "healthy foods", you can't point the finger at individual food types.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users