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.

 Random Dude wrote:


Exactly. It's socially unacceptable to point out someone's bad health even if it will save their life. Then there's the "real people" nonsense saying normal people are overweight or curvy. We shouldn't ridicule people for being unhealthy, but we should find some constructive way to point it out.

The real people stuff drives me insane.

There's a huge difference from being a 160 lb size 4 and a 160 lb size 14. Look at Serena Williams in this year's body issue. I guarantee you she weighs between 160-180, but she's clearly very fit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
It doesn't matter if the programs exist if there's no societal consequences for having the poor health.

It does take quite a while to trickle into the numbers, especially something which can take as long to develop as diabetes. You also have to note that parents of obese kids can hardly be preparing good meals and are so not likely to be taking on board lessons aimed at their children.

Much like with other areas of education, if it is not taken on and reinforced at home, there is not much chance of it sinking in.

You're right. The biggest problem is how sugar laden our diets are in the US. Nearly any processed food in the US has artificial sweeteners in it. Hell, generic white bread does.... And that ignores the obscene amount of Soda consumed by the US.

It's important to remember that people aren't very rational to begin with. Most of our choices are made in intuitive mental shorthand. We're creatures adapted largely to surviving on the African savannah, not figuring out which thing in the checkout is healthiest for us to eat in our modern lives.

If you actually, sincerely want to make a change in this area, you have to remember that and respect that, and start taking a look at what causes people to make the choices they do. Off the top of my head, a few things to look at could be serving sizes, the way nutritional information is displayed.

If you want to talk about economic incentives, how about looking at the incentives of huge companies to take advantage of how people's (quite irrational, which is the basis of marketing) brains work to make them make unhealthy decisions to those corporations' benefit? For example, there was that thread recently about the huge soft drink servings in the US.

The conversation shouldn't start from a point of "these fat people are MORALLY LACKING and must be PUNISHED until they learn to STOP BEING FAT!" It's just nonsense. Look at how people's brains and bodies work and how that causes them to make unhealthy decisions. People are awful at making rational health decisions. We're just not made for it, and addressing the problem needs to take that into account.

 cincydooley wrote:
There's a huge difference from being a 160 lb size 4 and a 160 lb size 14. Look at Serena Williams in this year's body issue. I guarantee you she weighs between 160-180, but she's clearly very fit.

I think American sizes and UK sizes are different. Here a 12-14 is "average" (as in a woman who has a normal frame and a BMI within the normal range will be somewhere between a 8-10 and 14-16 in dress size).

Once you start heading over size 16 then you are definitely into clinically overweight territory (again, for someone of an otherwise normal frame).

But dress size is a bit like BMI - pretty useless for anyone who is slightly outside of the norm. Not to mention dress sizes vary hugely from store to store and designer to designer (/generic sweatshop to generic sweatshop).

You're right. The biggest problem is how sugar laden our diets are in the US. Nearly any processed food in the US has artificial sweeteners in it. Hell, generic white bread does.... And that ignores the obscene amount of Soda consumed by the US.

Yes, added sweeteners and other substances should be heavily regulated.

So....absolve people of even more accountability?

That doesn't seem like the right solution to me.....

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
There's a huge difference from being a 160 lb size 4 and a 160 lb size 14. Look at Serena Williams in this year's body issue. I guarantee you she weighs between 160-180, but she's clearly very fit.

I think American sizes and UK sizes are different. Here a 12-14 is "average" (as in a woman who has a normal frame and a BMI within the normal range will be somewhere between a 8-10 and 14-16 in dress size).

Once you start heading over size 16 then you are definitely into clinically overweight territory (again, for someone of an otherwise normal frame).

But dress size is a bit like BMI - pretty useless for anyone who is slightly outside of the norm. Not to mention dress sizes vary hugely from store to store and designer to designer (/generic sweatshop to generic sweatshop).

And the UK I think has a different system to the rest of the EU.

 SilverMK2 wrote:


Yes, added sweeteners and other substances should be heavily regulated.

See, I don't agree with this. People should regulate what they put in their bodies themselves.... I don't think it should be the onus of the government to do so for us.

 cincydooley wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:


Yes, added sweeteners and other substances should be heavily regulated.

See, I don't agree with this. People should regulate what they put in their bodies themselves.... I don't think it should be the onus of the government to do so for us.

Though clearly that doesn't work... so there should therefore be more work done in looking at things that do work. Kind of like abstinence only sexual education, you can tell people what to not put in where but people are still going to do it anyway... you need to have alternatives to this in place to make any kind of difference. Preferably of a kind where "the public" don't actually have to expend any effort to do anything different - those are generally the most successful methods.

 Random Dude wrote:

Exactly. It's socially unacceptable to point out someone's bad health even if it will save their life. Then there's the "real people" nonsense saying normal people are overweight or curvy. We shouldn't ridicule people for being unhealthy, but we should find some constructive way to point it out.

Frankly, no, you shouldn't. That's between that person and their doctor. I don't care how unhealthy someone else's habits are, unless they are directly forcing them on you, they are none of your damn business.

Do I think everyone should eat better? Yes. I started my own garden so I could have fresh produce.
Do I think everyone should exercise? Yes, I'm putting a gym together in my basement because I don't have time to drive to a gym.
Do I think everyone should be better educated on nutrition? Yes, there's a stupidly large amount of ignorance when it comes to food, what to look for, and how to prepare it.

Do I think it's my place to walk up to fat people and say "Hey, you're fat, you should get skinny?". No. I'm not their doctor, and they probably already know they're overweight.
Do I think it's my place to "shame" these people? Hell no. That makes someone, frankly, an extremely disgusting person.

None of that even begins to address the obesity issues in the US, where you have such a variance between urban overweight (who tend to live in food deserts) and rural overweight (who tend to eat unhealthy foods). Between poor overweight (who tend to eat prepackaged, processed foods), and middle class overweight (who tend to eat somewhat healthy, but who have extremely sedintary lives). The first place it should begin, as with almost all things, is education. Basic nutrition is something that is barely touched on in US health classes; hell, for years the US suggested people should be eating 6-11 servings of bread a day. Even now, the new version has grains as the being the largest part of a diet when most consensus is that vegetables should be the largest part.

 cincydooley wrote:
So....absolve people of even more accountability?

That doesn't seem like the right solution to me.....

That's because your entire stance on this issue is based on your belief that people need to be rational and if they aren't then it's a moral failing and need to be punished rather than any desire to solve the problem of obesity. It's a pretty good demonstration of humans not being rational in itself, really.

It's not an issue of morality. It's not an issue of accountability, either, except insofar as you're proposing that making people suffer even more than they already do (and we know obesity can lead to terrible consequences for people, which is why this thread exists in the first place).

It's an issue of understanding how people's minds and bodies work and:

a) the fact that exploiting the foibles of those is big business, and
b) by understanding them we can help people make better decisions without doing stuff like saying "okay, soft drink is now illegal." For example, if we can provide quality nutritional information and help ensure people aren't incentivised to make unhealthy decisions (for example, by making gigantic servings of soft drink really cheap compared to smaller ones so that they buy more even if they don't actually want more) then we can make people healthier.

How much more "quality nutritional information" do you want? Everything sold in the US is required to have it on the packaging.

Maybe the real issue here is literacy! If only people could read the labels!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Kind of like abstinence only sexual education, you can tell people what to not put in where but people are still going to do it anyway... you need to have alternatives to this in place to make any kind of difference. Preferably of a kind where "the public" don't actually have to expend any effort to do anything different - those are generally the most successful methods.

I'm not sure this is a great analogy. To make it analogous, you'd have to regulate sex, right?

I just don't know how much easier we can make it to get the information. It's all there on the packaging. The government has free nutrition programs set up for the high risk, lower income demographics.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, as it were.

But that doesn't mean you should regulate the water for everyone else.

 cincydooley wrote:
How much more "quality nutritional information" do you want? Everything sold in the US is required to have it on the packaging.

Maybe the real issue here is literacy! If only people could read the labels!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Kind of like abstinence only sexual education, you can tell people what to not put in where but people are still going to do it anyway... you need to have alternatives to this in place to make any kind of difference. Preferably of a kind where "the public" don't actually have to expend any effort to do anything different - those are generally the most successful methods.

I'm not sure this is a great analogy. To make it analogous, you'd have to regulate sex, right?

I just don't know how much easier we can make it to get the information. It's all there on the packaging. The government has free nutrition programs set up for the high risk, lower income demographics.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, as it were.

But that doesn't mean you should regulate the water for everyone else.

The point was you don't keep going with something that doesn't work, you change it to something that does. If that means regulating what food producers can or cannot put in their products in terms of making them healthy, that seems reasonable.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
How much more "quality nutritional information" do you want? Everything sold in the US is required to have it on the packaging.

Maybe the real issue here is literacy! If only people could read the labels!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Kind of like abstinence only sexual education, you can tell people what to not put in where but people are still going to do it anyway... you need to have alternatives to this in place to make any kind of difference. Preferably of a kind where "the public" don't actually have to expend any effort to do anything different - those are generally the most successful methods.

I'm not sure this is a great analogy. To make it analogous, you'd have to regulate sex, right?

I just don't know how much easier we can make it to get the information. It's all there on the packaging. The government has free nutrition programs set up for the high risk, lower income demographics.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, as it were.

But that doesn't mean you should regulate the water for everyone else.

The point was you don't keep going with something that doesn't work, you change it to something that does. If that means regulating what food producers can or cannot put in their products in terms of making them healthy, that seems reasonable.

Here's a thought, in the US do you have any kind of law that makes food producers clearly show content levels in food?

Here in the UK all manufactured food (so not plain packaged vegetables, fruit etc. but anything which comes ready made such as, say, coleslaw) has to have, on the front of the packet, a little section which tells you its energy, salt, fat etc. content along with the percentage of recommended daily intake for an adult that that constitutes. Each of these are also colour coded, so green is good, amber is OK and red is bad (high fat content or whatever).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Here in the UK all manufactured food (so not plain packaged vegetables, fruit etc. but anything which comes ready made such as, say, coleslaw) has to have, on the front of the packet, a little section which tells you its energy, salt, fat etc. content along with the percentage of recommended daily intake for an adult that that constitutes. Each of these are also colour coded, so green is good, amber is OK and red is bad (high fat content or whatever).

We do, minus the color coding... Ours has to show "full" nutrition content. So, how many grams of protein per serving, how much fat/saturated fat, carbs, vitamins, etc.

The U.S. does have laws regarding food labels. The problem is that people ignore the labels.

Nah. In the US food makers just say that a gallon jug of coffematte has six calories a serving and then in very tiny letters informs everyone that a jug of coffematte has 64 servings XD

Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Tell me about it. I eat waaaaaay too much icecream @_@

 Random Dude wrote:
Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Or how "small" a 6 oz. steak or piece of chicken/ pork, etc. is?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Or how "small" a 6 oz. steak or piece of chicken/ pork, etc. is?

You can feel free to eat over a 6 oz. chicken breast. Boneless, skinless, grilled- very healthy.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Or how "small" a 6 oz. steak or piece of chicken/ pork, etc. is?

You can feel free to eat over a 6 oz. chicken breast. Boneless, skinless, grilled- very healthy.

And tasteless.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Or how "small" a 6 oz. steak or piece of chicken/ pork, etc. is?

You can feel free to eat over a 6 oz. chicken breast. Boneless, skinless, grilled- very healthy.

And tasteless.

Cut it up and put it on a salad with some low fat dressing?

Then deep fry that salad. Everything is better deep fried.

 LordofHats wrote:
Then deep fry that salad. Everything is better deep fried.

Then a deep fried mars bar for dessert

 Soladrin wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Also, people never follow serving size suggestions. Do you know anyone who eats just 1/2 cup of ice cream at a time?

Or how "small" a 6 oz. steak or piece of chicken/ pork, etc. is?

You can feel free to eat over a 6 oz. chicken breast. Boneless, skinless, grilled- very healthy.

And tasteless.

How do you make chicken tasteless by grilling it? I've never had that problem.

People forget that some fats are healthy. Make a marinade with olive oil and Italian seasoning for the chicken. It tastes very good.

 Random Dude wrote:
People forget that some fats are healthy. Make a marinade with olive oil and Italian seasoning for the chicken. It tastes very good.

Indeed, the fats that naturally occur in fish like Salmon are extremely good for you (in moderation of course).... There are also some animals that are naturally fat free, such as Shrimp (they literally have no fat)

On a side note, could some of you take a look at the Tau list I posted? I could really use some help.

 Random Dude wrote:
People forget that some fats are healthy. Make a marinade with olive oil and Italian seasoning for the chicken. It tastes very good.

mmmm avocado

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
People forget that some fats are healthy. Make a marinade with olive oil and Italian seasoning for the chicken. It tastes very good.

Indeed, the fats that naturally occur in fish like Salmon are extremely good for you (in moderation of course).... There are also some animals that are naturally fat free, such as Shrimp (they literally have no fat)

Think rabbits have zero fat

 Random Dude wrote:
The U.S. does have laws regarding food labels. The problem is that people ignore the labels.

yup,

a proper analogy would be like this:


the government regulates sex, people with herpes have tatoos by their naughty bits saying that these naughty bits contain herpes.

people have sex with them anyways, because feth the long term consequences because they want immediate gratification, they dont use a condom to mitigate it, and then complain not enough is being done to help them not get herpes.





Seriously, people need to take some responsability for their own actions, its not rocket science to figure out how to eat healthy, people just have no willpower to forgo that bag of crisps for some veggies/fruit/healthy food instead.