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.

It does begin and end with personal choice. All addictions do and until someone makes a personal choice to change behavior ie realises there is a problem, nothing is going to change. You can have all the programs you want but until someone realises there is a problem thosde programs don't matter.

Things like those hilarious fat scooters in the picture above are just agents of the status quo for fat people.
Telling people that big is beautiful and the ridiculous "i'm happy with my body"statement from obese people are also agents of the status quo. Being obese is not healthy, being obese with all it's limitations ( like under-wiping) is something that no one should be happy with. If someone is happy being obese then why are they still over eating?

 sebster wrote:
But there is vast number of people who believe that obesity begins and ends with personal choice, and all we should do is blame the fat person and do nothing about food and information in society.

I think one of the saddest things is that a lot of nutritional information that has been thrown around for the last 30 years was based on the Seven Countries Study. Which had a lot of problems and made a lot of claims that aren't corroborated by modern studies. The fallout of that was the notion that eating fat makes you fat, which has now been largely debunked. In fact it seems now that eating fat might actually help you stay thin by suppressing insulin production.

So these foods that were supposed to be 'healthy' ended up being decidedly unhealthy. Removing fat ruined the flavour, so they pumped them full of sugar, and then when all this sugar was eaten there was no fat with it to help suppress appetite and insulin production. So people were hungrier and gaining more weight than ever before.

I think maybe I was fortunate that I grew up with my grandparents, who were appalled by the idea that people would drink skimmed milk (In their day it was just a waste product from cream that was given to animals). I've never eaten 'lite' anything, or forbade myself fatty foods, and I've always been very healthy. While the most vulnerable people, people who were struggling with their weight, and young girls who were self conscious about their figure ended up turning to these 'low fat' foods to be better, but what they got was actually toxic.

So I think a lot of these overweight people have actually been trying to better themselves, but it's difficult when there is so much misinformation circulating.

 Bullockist wrote:
It does begin and end with personal choice.

You keep saying this, and I keep explaining how simplistic a view it is. I'll try again, and this time I'll use a lot of expletives, maybe that might get us the breakthrough we need.

While the individual's personal choice is relevant, claiming it is the only factor is fething ridiculous. For a simple fething example, consider that almost all diets don't fething work. And then consider a lap band, which works most of the time.

It's the same fething people failing on diets, but succeeding with lap band surgery. Nothing's fething changed but the method used to address the condition. The will of those people didn't fething change one fething bit. And now, because a better method has been used the future medical costs to society are lower.

Do you get it now?

 Jihadin wrote:

patients weighing up to half a tonne.

Thought you all were slim and trim from trying to survive there...human bait?

Some of us (myself included) eat too many bat-burgers.

What is food like in Australia? I mean do you typically get big portions when you eat out? Are the lots of meat portions available?

I often get frustrated in the UK by the size of portions, it feels like they're being so stingy when a large steak is only 10oz :( In south Africa I got an 18oz steak (I was so happy) and that wasn't even the biggest.

We don't have US portions, I think we are closer to you brits.

A standard steak is 200-250g. A large one might be 350g.

We don't tend to have "supersize" options at fast food - because the large size is often enough.

This doesn't stop people from having multiple smaller sets and diet soda though.

 Bullockist wrote:

Things like those hilarious fat scooters in the picture above are just agents of the status quo for fat people.

Thing is, those really aren't "fat scooters" they're supposed to be for people with some form of walking disability, such as they need a cane or walker, or some form of device in order to be mobile. But in a society that is as heavily litigious as the US, most or all of the stores that have them cannot, or will not stop some fatty from using them.


Also, at some point we "allow" obesity to be a disability on its own and so the huge people get to, often times, park closest to the store when really they should park as far away from it as possible, just so they can get some kind of exercise.

A single serving of steak is only supposed to be 8oz. Start eating ACTUAL RECOMMENDED portion sizes for two weeks and you'll no longer think there is any skimping on portion size.

 cincydooley wrote:
A single serving of steak is only supposed to be 8oz. Start eating ACTUAL RECOMMENDED portion sizes for two weeks and you'll no longer think there is any skimping on portion size.

2-4oz.

USDA gives 5-6oz for 2 servings. AHA gives 2-3oz for a single serving. Max recommended for meat is 4oz.

[insert comment about people talking about personal responsibility and "it isn't hard to know this stuff" getting the serving size wrong]

 chromedog wrote:


We don't tend to have "supersize" options at fast food - because the large size is often enough.
.

I have yet to see this Mythical SuperSize. There is small, medium and large. And the size of the meal doesnt change, only the drink.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I have yet to see this Mythical SuperSize. There is small, medium and large. And the size of the meal doesnt change, only the drink.

Fries generally change sizes too. The supersize term went away after the movie of the same name came out, but it WAS a thing back when I was in high school. I want to say it was McDonald's thought abomination, but I'm not sure.

Semi off-topic: Has anyone here watched the movie Branded?

 cincydooley wrote:
A single serving of steak is only supposed to be 8oz. Start eating ACTUAL RECOMMENDED portion sizes for two weeks and you'll no longer think there is any skimping on portion size.

Meh, that might suit some people, but if anything I would like to gain weight. Eating enough to make that happen actually requires quite a lot of dedication, and I end up feeling hungry a lot. I was completely in my element when I visited America! I bought a foot long sandwich that had like 6 chicken breasts in it. The only downside was a lot of the food seemed to be more processed, especially things like cheese (which apparently you only have in liquid form?). I wish I could get those kind of portions here more frequently though.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
A single serving of steak is only supposed to be 8oz. Start eating ACTUAL RECOMMENDED portion sizes for two weeks and you'll no longer think there is any skimping on portion size.

2-4oz.

USDA gives 5-6oz for 2 servings. AHA gives 2-3oz for a single serving. Max recommended for meat is 4oz.

[insert comment about people talking about personal responsibility and "it isn't hard to know this stuff" getting the serving size wrong]

I stand corrected. The 8oz is the high end of the "recommended" daily.

But then again I don't typically use the USDAs recommendations because they also recommend far too much dairy and grains. But then again we do eat a fairly Paleolithic diet at our home.

Good news is it that is affects in no way, shape, or form the ability to read a food label and avoid gak you can't pronounce.

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

I have yet to see this Mythical SuperSize. There is small, medium and large. And the size of the meal doesnt change, only the drink.

Fries generally change sizes too. The supersize term went away after the movie of the same name came out, but it WAS a thing back when I was in high school. I want to say it was McDonald's thought abomination, but I'm not sure.

Same here.... Yeah, McD's had "Super Size", Burger King had "King Size" and I honestly don't remember the other brands' special, extra big size names, but many of them had one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:


But then again I don't typically use the USDAs recommendations because they also recommend far too much dairy and grains. But then again we do eat a fairly Paleolithic diet at our home.

Same here... I've found the "difficulty" in trying to go as close to full Paleo as possible, is getting the wife on board

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 chromedog wrote:


We don't tend to have "supersize" options at fast food - because the large size is often enough.
.

I have yet to see this Mythical SuperSize. There is small, medium and large. And the size of the meal doesnt change, only the drink.

A medium McDeathmeal in the US is equivalent to a large over here.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 chromedog wrote:


We don't tend to have "supersize" options at fast food - because the large size is often enough.
.

I have yet to see this Mythical SuperSize. There is small, medium and large. And the size of the meal doesnt change, only the drink.

A medium McDeathmeal in the US is equivalent to a large over here.

Also, the "meal" does change sizes, because the cup that the fries/side go in gets bigger.

 the shrouded lord wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

patients weighing up to half a tonne.

Thought you all were slim and trim from trying to survive there...human bait?

Some of us (myself included) eat too many bat-burgers.

Is that slang? Or, you really can get bat-burgers???* What about kangaroo-burgers?**

*importantly... how does it taste?

**ditto!

No bat meat sadly whembly. We do get Sugar Glider meat though, in a couple of forms. Not burgers, but there are kebab (the stick kind not the wrap) sort of things and I guess 'nuggets' (best term for it I suppose). This is a full grown sugar glider. Usually need 3-4 to make up the meat side of a meal



And roo meat isn't bad. The steaks can turn some people off, as can the snags. But then there are other people out there who don't like regular steak, so who knows. You can also get crocodile and camel in just the regular supermarket, without having to go too far afield.

 sebster wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
It does begin and end with personal choice.

You keep saying this, and I keep explaining how simplistic a view it is. I'll try again, and this time I'll use a lot of expletives, maybe that might get us the breakthrough we need.

While the individual's personal choice is relevant, claiming it is the only factor is fething ridiculous. For a simple fething example, consider that almost all diets don't fething work. And then consider a lap band, which works most of the time.

It's the same fething people failing on diets, but succeeding with lap band surgery. Nothing's fething changed but the method used to address the condition. The will of those people didn't fething change one fething bit. And now, because a better method has been used the future medical costs to society are lower.

Do you get it now?

Sebster with swearing! ;o

A lap band is merely a physically enforced diet. A guy I know has one and it is bizarre to see the amount of food he can eat. What I am trying to say is society can spend all the money it wants on programs and suchlike but until the individual can realise they have a problem all that money spent does not matter.
People will fail on diets , i've failed giving up smoking 6 times , but i still realise I have to give up and will be trying again soon. At the end of the day it IS the individuals willpower that matters , other things can assist them but do not have the ultimate say in the chance of success.
If a society is 60% overweight then over time overweight becomes normal and therefore acceptable.
The whole 'fat hating 'thing is overblown, personally as I am a smoker I find it humorous that somehow shaming a fat person is somehow worse than shaming a smoker. Both are preventable conditions.

 Bullockist wrote:
I am a smoker I find it humorous that somehow shaming a fat person is somehow worse than shaming a smoker. Both are preventable conditions.

Heh, I agree they are analogous, but I think there is a difference between: "You are doing something repulsive", and "You are physically repulsive". Smoking (being a doing something) is also quite easy to not do, when it doesn't suit you. I have a friend who is 27, and she still hasn't told her parents that she smokes, and she lives with them. Fat people don't have that luxury. They have to be fat all the time, even when they'd rather not be (which is probably all the time).

If I was going to compare them more fairly: Eating is to being fat as smoking is to lung disease. Lung disease is pretty gross, no one wants to be next to someone on a train or bus who keeps coughing up loads of crap. And while it might be self inflicted, you wouldn't say that someone with lung disease doesn't need help, or deserves to be shamed.

Food is a pretty unique addiction because sobriety is just something that is impossible to achieve.

You can eat without being addicted, just as you can smoke without being addicted, or take pain medication without being addicted. But the ultimate cure for alcoholism and drug addiction is sobriety. If you are an alcoholic you cannot "drink in moderation". Drinking what you are addicted to will lead to relapse. Same with drugs.

But people who are addicted to food can never quit eating, ever. Every single day, every single meal, they have to consume the very thing that they are addicted to. The conventional treatment for addiction, just quit, is not an option for food addiction.

That is what makes food addiction such a difficult disease to treat.

Now, not every obese person is addicted to food. But it is something to keep in mind.

That is the thing. Think about the joke "If I cant see my Wang, Im sewing my mouth shut" it is funny because he would die.
Everyone eats, so those who eat and dont get fat, even those who eat tons of stuff don't exercise and stay skinny, see it as a failing of those who do become big as a control failing, when in reality it is more then that.
A smoker who quit would never say to someone "Just stop smoking, it is easy"
Again, food companies share the blame.

 d-usa wrote:
But people who are addicted to food can never quit eating, ever. Every single day, every single meal, they have to consume the very thing that they are addicted to. The conventional treatment for addiction, just quit, is not an option for food addiction.

'Food' is quite a broad term though. There are foods I love and foods you couldn't pay me to eat. I imagine most people with a food addiction are actually addicted to a specific component of food, namely sugar. It would certainly be possible to cut refined sugar out of your diet, and you could probably also cut a lot of carbohydrates that get metabolized into sugars too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is the thing. Think about the joke "If I cant see my Wang, Im sewing my mouth shut" it is funny because he would die.

I believe an obese man did actually manage to not eat for over a year under medical supervision.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

A smoker who quit would never say to someone "Just stop smoking, it is easy"
.

it happens.I've heard it about 5 times so far.

 Smacks wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
But people who are addicted to food can never quit eating, ever. Every single day, every single meal, they have to consume the very thing that they are addicted to. The conventional treatment for addiction, just quit, is not an option for food addiction.

'Food' is quite a broad term though. There are foods I love and foods you couldn't pay me to eat. I imagine most people with a food addiction are actually addicted to a specific component of food, namely sugar. It would certainly be possible to cut refined sugar out of your diet, and you could probably also cut a lot of carbohydrates that get metabolized into sugars too.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That is the thing. Think about the joke "If I cant see my Wang, Im sewing my mouth shut" it is funny because he would die.

I believe an obese man did actually manage to not eat for over a year under medical supervision.

Being addicted to sugar is definitely something that happens, and companies also add additives to reinforce that effect.

But there are also people who are addicted to the physical act of eating. That is the hard thing to treat.

 Bullockist wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

A smoker who quit would never say to someone "Just stop smoking, it is easy"
.

it happens.I've heard it about 5 times so far.

Make that 6, I tried to quit smoking for years and it was impossible. Then I tried quitting using an ecig,for when I got the urge. That worked well, it was fairly easy. Have been clean almost 5 years now.

Isnt the term "Mouth Hungry?"
I feel that sometimes, I chew on my work badge when I do.

I find it funny so many people are quick to blame the individual. Yes, a good amount of blame falls on the individual to eat better, but by that same right we should demand better health options of the people who make our food. The corn I ate ten, fifteen years ago is not the same corn being sold today. GMOs and additives are all too commonplace in most food.

Also, to everyone who says health information is out there and so easy to get a hold of: yes, now a days it is. But most people grow up eating what their parents and rarely change their eating habits. Part of the responsibility comes from the parents to show their kids how to eat healthy.

In short: yes, people are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise, but eating crappy food and exercising won't make it better. We need to solve not only the personal responsibility to eat healthier, but make food actually be healthy. I cannot remember the last time I had an apple that that tasted like what it was supposed to. And the name "heirloom tomatoes" should terrify you, if you truly understand what it means. Working at a grocery store, especially in the produce section, is terrifying

 Bullockist wrote:
A lap band is merely a physically enforced diet. A guy I know has one and it is bizarre to see the amount of food he can eat. What I am trying to say is society can spend all the money it wants on programs and suchlike but until the individual can realise they have a problem all that money spent does not matter.

Once again - yes the individual matters and no-one is saying otherwise. But to say the individual matters and then ignore all the other factors is nonsense, because other factors matter as well. So if we can make losing weight a bit easier through some other means, then it stands to reason that some people who might have lacked just enough will and commitment to keep the weight off will now manage it.

Yeah?

If a society is 60% overweight then over time overweight becomes normal and therefore acceptable.

It has nothing to do with normal and everything to do with health.

The whole 'fat hating 'thing is overblown, personally as I am a smoker I find it humorous that somehow shaming a fat person is somehow worse than shaming a smoker. Both are preventable conditions.

I think the better point is that shaming a smoker is an equally crap thing to do. Basically we shouldn't be shaming anyone for their own lives. We've all got a bad habit, something that we know is bad for us but gives us just a temporary fix - whether its junk food or smoking or Twlight books or any other kind of crap, and it's both hypocritical and kind of obnoxious to pick out someone else's bad habit and make it out as if they're bad people because of their one bad habit.