Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

George Spiggott wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.

I never bought into this, it's a bit like the notion that one mustn't mock chavs because they're poor or working class. Obesity is caused by a lack of education about how to eat and a lack of legislation on what can be sold to eat.

All to quickly the cooking skills of our parents generation have been lost, the education system needs to put these skills back into society.

I agree.

I don't know what it is, the prevalence of fast food, the lack of education or the lack of availability of healthy foods the problem is that people are fat. If we focus on preventing illnesses such as these there will be fewer expenditures of healthcare resources in the future. It doesn't cost anything to tell a man to stop eating so damn much, but it definitely costs money to give him heart bypass surgery... three times. We need to let these people die like we do other people. We don't give drug addicts new organs, we don't give the elderly expensive/painful surgeries (most of the time) and we sure as hell don't give diabetics new kidneys.

Our main problem at this point is we have a growing generation of degenerate idiots who are uneducated in areas that are important to living a financially successful life. They don't know how to open checking accounts, how to get a decent line of credit, put on a condom, or eat food that won't kill you. They are having kids at 16 and 17 and pretending the world owes them something. I know it's probably trendy to blame the younger generations but we have a serious problem now. These people are teaching the next oncoming generation, they are teaching them to be complete feth ups.

George Spiggott wrote:
All to quickly the cooking skills of our parents generation have been lost, the education system needs to put these skills back into society.

The inverse is true, at least in America. Our parents (speaking as a 20-something) learned how to maximize the calorie count while minimizing the expense; hence fried chicken and poultine. However, once expense is no longer a factor quantity will tend to increase. Poultine is a brilliant food, but not when its eaten every day in large quantities.

To what degree and how do most U.S. schools teach kids to live? Home economics is about the closest I know of. It is a bit ridiculous to expect todays parent to be able to put together healthy meals each and every night as well as teaching their kids to not only listen over the mass of homework, and/or video games about simple things like knowing how to cook.

Out of all of the college students I know, I would say around 1:10 actually cook for themselves on a regular basis. Even though rice and beans is the same price if not cheaper and healthier than ramen noodles, most younger people just do not take the time to even think about their health.

These things some consider everyday tasks most consider a skill. Staying organized is also a huge problem for most young people, for whatever reason.

Fat people usually know that eating too much and not exercising enough is making them fat, they just don't want to make the short-term sacrifice for their long-term goals (or they don't desire to change at all). It's not a matter of education, so much as it is a matter of their motivation.

I'd say the biggest exception to the rule is people who get misinformed on the best way to lose weight after they've already put on a lot. Even that, though, is generally a matter of wishful thinking getting in the way of a real plan. (I can be thin in eight weeks with this new pill! That's easy!)

@ Dogma: My parents are pre baby-boomers. I wasn't familiar with poutine (chips and cheese with gravy, UK readers) so I Googled it, I put on a stone looking at the picture.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Fat people usually know that eating too much and not exercising enough is making them fat, they just don't want to make the short-term sacrifice for their long-term goals (or they don't desire to change at all). It's not a matter of education, so much as it is a matter of their motivation.

Yes, the over-simplification burns my eyes so deeply .

The fact that some people actually have an addiction to food (most obese people do on some level) seems to make absolutely no difference for all the chubby-haters here. I would not expect you to have any sympathy for someone addicted to drugs either, they must look like tiny little bugs to you, just waiting to be squished, eh?

WEAKMINDED FOOLS, YOU SHALL NO THE WRATH OF THE GYM SOON ENOUGH!!!

You should also beware, because when the food runs out, who do you think they are going to eat? .

What defines an "addiction to food"? Continuing to eat too much?

So they eat too much because they eat too much. That doesn't mean anything.

Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't, so they're not comparable. And I don't hate fat people, I'm not even trying to have them taxed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't...

I'm glad to see that you've researched this subject so well. With truly obese people, like those that can't get out of bed, there is often a feeder/fed relationship between people, the psychology is very complex.

Okay then, it is a disorder with consequences that CAN rival a drug addiction, as any other "pseudo?..." addiction can.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/problems/eat_disorder.html

Orkeo, you are either misinformed or you have not met anyone with another type of addiction. There are groups for nearly every type of addiction, and I hardly think you would be willing to go off crusading about how these people are just liars, and you have some grandiose point to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Talk to informed doctors and nutritionist about this for a while before you decide to label people as liars to themselves (which oddly enough is what constitutes an addiction, and you lack of support in this respect makes me hope you have no addicts that are close to you).

Wrexasaur wrote:
Yes, the over-simplification burns my eyes so deeply .

The fact that some people actually have an addiction to food (most obese people do on some level) seems to make absolutely no difference for all the chubby-haters here. I would not expect you to have any sympathy for someone addicted to drugs either, they must look like tiny little bugs to you, just waiting to be squished, eh?

WEAKMINDED FOOLS, YOU SHALL NO THE WRATH OF THE GYM SOON ENOUGH!!!

You should also beware, because when the food runs out, who do you think they are going to eat? .

Wait, what?

By the very act of defending fat people you are assuming that being fat is bad. If that's the case, then it only makes good sense to encourage fat people to lose weight. Encouragement which generally manifests itself as the discouragement of obesity.

Also, once you start considering food an addiction the entire notion of addiction loses its moral force.

Dogma wrote:Wait, what?

By the very act of defending fat people you are assuming that being fat is bad. If that's the case, then it only makes good sense to encourage fat people to lose weight. Encouragement which generally manifests itself as the discouragement of obesity.

Also, once you start considering food an addiction the entire notion of addiction loses its moral force.

How does defending someone who is overweight constitute them being bad? Encouraging someone to be healthy is a good thing BTW, I have nothing against that. Someone who is obese on the other hand, is going to need a lot more help than you just recommending they lay off of the whip cream.

I need you to explain the second part in detail, because I obviously lack your perspective on this situation.

Wrexasaur wrote:
How does defending someone who is overweight constitute them being bad? Encouraging someone to be healthy is a good thing BTW, I have nothing against that. Someone who is obese on the other hand, is going to need a lot more help than you just recommending they lay off of the whip cream.

You've perceived an attack, and countered with a defense. You didn't need to counter at all, you could have simply dismissed. The addition of a counter indicates that you perceive some merit in the attack itself.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I need you to explain the second part in detail, because I obviously lack your perspective on this situation.

If food can be an addiction, then breathing can also be an addiction. So can life itself. Once you start looking at addiction in such open terms you have no recourse but to consider any repetitive behavior as addictive. That's all well and good so long as you do not consider addiction to be of an intrinsically negative character. But seeing as addiction only exists conceptually in order to represent the negative; doing so seems counter-productive.

Dogma wrote:You've perceived an attack, and countered with a defense. You didn't need to counter at all, you could have simply dismissed. The addition of a counter indicates that you perceive some merit in the attack itself.

That is perceptive psychology at best Dogma, my defense can be as I see fit, for reasons I see necessary.

Dogma wrote:If food can be an addiction, then breathing can also be an addiction. So can life itself. Once you start looking at addiction in such open terms you have no recourse but to consider any repetitive behavior as addictive. That's all well and good so long as you do not consider addiction to be of an intrinsically negative character. But seeing as addiction only exists conceptually in order to represent the negative; doing so seems counter-productive.

The core of addiction lies in the person themselves, but it is not some easily achieved goal, like making toast. The fact that someone chooses to over-indulge in food has absolutely no merit to the fact that they have an addictive personality. I have seen friends go through nearly every addiction until they settled in one that was seen as acceptable, to some degree this would include food. The fact that they chose food/sex over drugs had absolutely no bearing on how much damage they did to themselves, it had more to do with how long it took for the damage to be noticeable and at a point where action could be taken.

Saying that only drug addicts have addictions, is basically saying that only drugs can harm you, and it is an old technique used by anti-drug crusaders. They take the human element out of it (which is the actual core of the issue) then they present the material that is used to cause the harm as the real problem. If the drugs were the problem, then we would have no problems because people would just understand that they are doing something wrong. On top of this, drug-treatment centers would be like vacation spots where you shake a long night of drinking off over Pina colada's in a hot-tub... welcome to hollywood I guess .

Wrexasaur wrote:Okay then, it is a disorder with consequences that CAN rival a drug addiction, as any other "pseudo?..." addiction can.

I suppose you tell asthmatics to stop overreacting.

Dogma wrote:Also, once you start considering food an addiction the entire notion of addiction loses its moral force.

I love the way you oversimplified that for the purpose of playing devils advocate.

George Spiggott wrote:I suppose you tell asthmatics to stop overreacting.

Please explain what you mean by this? I do not understand you.

Wrexasaur wrote:
That is perceptive psychology at best Dogma, my defense can be as I see fit, for reasons I see necessary.

You'd think so, but that really isn't the case. People act according to a relatively small set of discreet reasons, though they might not understand that fact in precedence. If you didn't feel the accusation of negativity was legitimate, you would not have mounted a defense. You would have dismissed, defused., or ignored. Remember, even something which might be taken with frivolity will only inspire a response if it is serious in some sense.

Wrexasaur wrote:
... the fact that they have an addictive personality.

Addictive personalities are a myth. Unless you want to claim that we all have addictive personalities due to our collective fondness for oxygen.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I have seen friends go through nearly every addiction until they settled in one that was seen as acceptable, to some degree this would include food. The fact that they chose food/sex over drugs had absolutely no bearing on how much damage they did to themselves, it had more to do with how long it took for the damage to be noticeable and at a point where action could be taken.

By living I am damaging myself, does that mean that I am addicted to life?

Wrexasaur wrote:
Saying that only drug addicts have addictions, is basically saying that only drugs can harm you, and it is an old technique used by anti-drug crusaders.

That's not what I'm saying, but you can feel free to believe otherwise.

Wrexasaur wrote:
They take the human element out of it (which is the actual core of the issue) then they present the material that is used to cause the harm as the real problem. If the drugs were the problem, then we would have no problems because people would just understand that they are doing something wrong. On top of this, drug-treatment centers would be like vacation spots where you shake a long night of drinking off over Pina colada's in a hot-tub... welcome to hollywood I guess .

Who ever said there was a problem?

Dogma wrote:Addictive personalities are a myth. Unless you want to claim that we all have addictive personalities due to our collective fondness for oxygen.

Explain to me (in detail) how this can even possibly be true. The rest of your comments are just quippy and rhetorical.

http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/addictive-personality.html

I will say that there are different types, and possibly even levels of addiction, but I cannot say why someone could be more inclined to be a certain type of addict, and I most definitely cannot say why they would vary so profusely in their levels of addiction.

@ Wrexasaur: Asthma is the body's defence mechanisms over reacting. I don't really think you do it.

George Spiggott wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't...

I'm glad to see that you've researched this subject so well. With truly obese people, like those that can't get out of bed, there is often a feeder/fed relationship between people, the psychology is very complex.

Cake doesn't pass through the blood-brain barrier. There's a widely recognized difference between physiological and psychological dependence.

I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).

Wrexasaur wrote:Okay then, it is a disorder with consequences that CAN rival a drug addiction, as any other "pseudo?..." addiction can.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/food_fitness/problems/eat_disorder.html

Orkeo, you are either misinformed or you have not met anyone with another type of addiction. There are groups for nearly every type of addiction, and I hardly think you would be willing to go off crusading about how these people are just liars, and you have some grandiose point to prove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Talk to informed doctors and nutritionist about this for a while before you decide to label people as liars to themselves (which oddly enough is what constitutes an addiction, and you lack of support in this respect makes me hope you have no addicts that are close to you).

Did you read either of your links?

The first one is on binge eating which is not a condition that most obese people have.

The second one outlines the difference between physiological and psychological dependencies that I've already mentioned. If you follow the link on eating disorders, it ends up with 2% of the population having trouble with binge eating. Around 25% of Americans are obese, and more are overweight. Binge eating is not the cause of much of it.

George Spiggott wrote:@ Wrexasaur: Asthma is the body's defence mechanisms over reacting. I don't really think you do it.

So, it was sarcasm not a personal attack? I am quite sure you are saying that I am over-reacting but I am not completely sure. Perhaps I have approached this discussion in the wrong way, but I did post quite a bit of information (the one with the garden picture) about how I have tried to participate in creating healthier communities. It is not about being a monk, just remaining aware of your health, and taking action to further it in beneficial ways.

Orkeo wrote:I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).

I think I misunderstood your posts then, because it sounded like you were generalizing quite a bit. I do think that most people with health-issues can find direct means to counter them, but it often isn't that simple. Little things do add up on the other hand, such as salads for lunch, and walking up the stairs vs. taking the elevator. Being lazy may or may not have anything to do with health problems, especially when most jobs are done from a chair now.

Orkeo wrote:The second one outlines the difference between physiological and psychological dependencies that I've already mentioned. If you follow the link on eating disorders, it ends up with 2% of the population having trouble with binge eating. Around 25% of Americans are obese, and more are overweight. Binge eating is not the cause of much of it.

No but binge eating is definitely a factor, as all of the other eating disorders and various addictions are. I do agree to some point that being addicted to cigarettes per se, can be a hell of a longer battle than eating healthy, especially with support. The fact remains that cigarettes are a product (as is alcohol, and various drugs) that can be taken away from an addict, so in some way it could be perceived as more manageable on the material level. This whole conversation got extremely complicated very fast, and I for one lost track of the original intent a few post back .

Well, I had originally posted concerning knowing choice as the opposite of ignorance. I didn't mean to bring "choice versus addiction" into the mix.

My apologies then Orkeo, I did not take it with a grain of salt, and my palate rejected the texture immediately .

Orkeosaurus wrote:Cake doesn't pass through the blood-brain barrier. There's a widely recognized difference between physiological and psychological dependence.

This is much more specific, earlier it was 'drugs', is it now 'drugs that cause physiological dependence', that's not helpful.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).

I mentioned education in my first post, perhaps we are in agreement.

This conversation is being muddied with addiction terminology (and worse) where it isn't needed, some people have a medical problem eating less, others just need to be told that 'chips and cheese with gravy' isn't the best use of your ingredients and that $$ (or ££) isn't the major factor in eating healthily.

@Wrex: Yes, sarcasm regarding your use of the phrase 'pseudo addiction', I hope what I've written above clarifies my position.

I would like to see a healthier U.S. and I think it is possible though various means, none of which would be completely required.

Education is by far the most effective way to inform people of options, but most of this education needs to be hand's on and in schools where the message will really mean something. The main point is to show people that it is realistic to live healthy, and they can do so with moderate effort. You do not need to be an Olympian to be healthy in other words.

Spiggott:

Since the drugs best known for their addictive qualities usually cause physical dependence, I thought it was a safe bet.

Besides, if a significant of what he's comparing isn't comparable than they're probably not comparable as a whole. Wrex didn't specify 'drugs that don't cause physiological dependence' either.

My stance on education is that most people who are overweight know enough about weight gain to lose weight, so I think we're actually in disagreement there. I think education on the subject is usually poor, and that probably contributes to it a little (especially with fad dieting and the like), but I think it's mostly a factor of people not wanting to be thin enough to sacrifice for it. I don't think most people eating a super-triple-cheeseburger meal at Wendy's don't realize it's unhealthy.

I think that most people may know that it is unhealthy, but on that same point I doubt they would complain much about paying the taxes on it for their "extra" part of the health-care system. Same goes for many smokers, and other vices, even motorcyclists would pay a tax (don't they do that on insurance already?) to enjoy themselves.

Education has a lot to do with knowledge of prevention, than it does statement of fact. Sure this burger is unhealthy, but so what? What else tastes this good, and is this easy to get anytime I want? Is there a way to eat this in a healthier way, or am I just evil for enjoying good, fatty food?

The thing is though, education isn't just passive.

I typed "how to cook a healthy burger" in my Google toolbar, and I've got three good results.

(Also, I don't know where the morality thing of eating too much comes in; there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life. Or at least there shouldn't be. It's more a matter of where to draw the line.)

Orkeo wrote:(Also, I don't know where the morality thing of eating too much comes in; there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life. Or at least there shouldn't be. It's more a matter of where to draw the line.)

I think this is the main issue, and one that needs to be addressed through the media. In the U.K. I am pretty sure they are a lot more progressive in this sense, especially in a world media ridden by "perfect" people that manage to do a great job of making people feel apathetic about their existences.

Orkeosaurus wrote: there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life.

Could you expand on this a bit. I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say and don't want to misunderstand or misinterpret.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Explain to me (in detail) how this can even possibly be true.

http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com/addictive-personality.html

I will say that there are different types, and possibly even levels of addiction, but I cannot say why someone could be more inclined to be a certain type of addict, and I most definitely cannot say why they would vary so profusely in their levels of addiction.

The link you're posted does a pretty good job without my help. But, for the sake of clarity, it works like this:
There are varying types of addiction, not a single, overriding addictive personality.

Wrexasaur wrote:
No but binge eating is definitely a factor, as all of the other eating disorders and various addictions are.

No, they aren't. They are factors which relate the creation of a statistic, but have no relevance to one another such that treating binge eating can be considered significant to the larger problem of obesity. Unless you are coming at the matter from a perspective of obese=eating disorder, in which case you are simply begging the question.