Warning: Your ass is too big!

The idea that the solution to obesity problems is to merely harangue fat-asses is short-sighted and lazy. There are very real reasons that we have an obesity crisis, and yelling at fatties is not going to solve that problem.

There is an obsession with making fat people feel responsible for their fatness. Are they? Sure. However, there are also biological reasons that certain people are fatter than others. There are biological reasons that certain people feel hunger differently than others.

The cultural focus shouldn't be on this mystical sense of "will power" being a creation of the mind; a simple choice like choosing wheat bread instead of white. It is good to have that idea for yourself on a personal level, but it simply does not translate to the world of public policy.

It is like people want to throw decades of scientific progress in understanding the human body out the window to satisfy aesthetic demands.

The Nanny State strikes again.

Agreed. There are so many reasons we're fat-asses or think we are. An idea like this is ridiculous.

Since I exercise regularly and keep in shape- it is hard for me to look at a fat person and feel like it's not their fault as they chow down and then go watch the view.

All people need to do is fukn exercise and watch what they eat. By far- the fattest people I've met are also the ones who practice neither of those behaviors. Throw in the fact that people drive everywhere and the most activity they see is walking to the fridge for the fifth time during prime time, what other physical outcome is possible? You see all these fad diets- and it all rests on eating. Exercise is never a component.

You want see obesity- go to Vegas. I've seen some of the craziest fat configurations on people's frames there. <shudder>

While your first statement is hilarious, I have to disagree with you. People's metabolisms vary widely, as do their tendencies to store fat. In addition, our modern lifestyles make it very difficult not to be sendentary or darn close to it. You can criticize people for not exercising, but the reason they need to do that may be they spend two hours in the car every day getting to work, and another 8 hours behind a desk. When they get hom there are kids and responsibilities and what not. Often they're exhausted from work or what not. Now I agree, exercise would help. But it doesn't always work out that way.

Now let's look at nature. If you look at my brother and I, you'd swear we had different parents. He's thin and I'm fairly heavy. I wouldn't say he can eat anything he wants, but it's close to it. I have to struggle to lose weight. I've done it before, but it takes a lot of exercise and careful monitoring of the diet. Even then, I get to a point where the weight just doesn't go down. I way about 260 pounds now...and I've been as low as 205. At 210 pounds I look like a stick. At 230 I look pretty normal, yet according to the weight tables I'm techically obese. Moreover, my diet, while rich in carbs, is not terrible. I eat little for breakfast and have a reasonable lunh most days. I sometimes eat a little more at dinner. I'm not a huge fan of snacking, especially during the week. In other words, there are plenty of people that eat like I do and are a lot thinner. It's just my body type. In addition, I now have a bad back, which prevents me from walking for exercise or jogging, which I used to do. All I can do is a ride a bike, and in this weather that's not so appealing.

I'm just saying it's not that cut and dried. Some people can watch what they eat and exercise and still not really lose much weight. Add to that our lifestyles and the over abundance of food in Western countries and it's not hard to see why we're all lardos.

I hear ya, SDW- it's partly our culture- shit, there's fast food EVERYWHERE. People buy food and eat the equivalent of four servings in a handful of bites.

I live in Marin county- and honestly- it is weird to see an obese person here. Everyone is very active in the outdoors (year round because of a mild winter), and fast food restaurants are pretty rare- the exception being the town San Rafael.

But the caveat to that is that most people in Marin are well to do. I think there is a huge correlation to wealth and weight- probably for a myriad of reasons. Being able to afford better quality food, having an infrastructure to incorporate exercise into daily activities- such as Marin where bike paths will get you all the way to Sonoma or to SF, time to exercise, psychological factors, education, etc etc.

I do see people who could be fat, but are just so active they can't be obese- just be large.

I think there is a big difference in someone who is naturally large and someone who is obese. I am trying to make that distinction.

Several years ago I reached a peak weight of 260. 1 1/2 years after that I got down to 190. I'm back up to 215 now because my back went out on my severely a year ago and frankly although I'm not happy about it I have just lost so much of the willpower through repetitive injury that I find it nearly impossible now to stay on a strict diet and exercise schedule.

pile of delusional crock. There is a simple equation that what you put in must equal what goes out, and you stay the same. if you eat more than you burn up you get bigger, and if you eat less than you expend you lose weight.

The tooth fairy doesn't inject your ass with fat, when you're lying asleep in bed. It just aint true.

There were no fat people in Auschwitz

I've been on both sides of this, and learned that there's something a lot of fit people don't realize.

I exercised and watched my diet diligently for a period of around seven years, during which I was very trim and toned. I hadn't been enormously fat before that, and I'm not now, but I weigh a good bit more than I need to now, and definitely could stand to be in much better physical shape.

But I HATED exercising. Every fucking minute of it. It's very hard to do something you dislike five or more times a week for seven years. As soon as I lost part of my free time, when I suddenly no longer could work from home most of the time and had to commute to work, my exercise regimen fell apart.

Practically the only pleasure I ever took from exercise was the relief I felt when I finished a work out. Every once in a while I felt a tingle of goodness while exercising, but it was a pretty tiny reward for the overall unpleasantness and boredom and time taken away from other things I'd much rather have been doing.

I know I should get back into exercising for my own good, and I may even do so after I've recovered from a bit of surgery I have coming up soon -- starting now would be stupid when pretty soon I won't be allowed to do anything strenuous at all for a period of six weeks.

I'm fairly convinced that the majority of exercise devotees don't feel at all like I felt about exercise. I don't discount that there's always some need for discipline for almost anyone who does well at keeping fit, but I think the majority of those people who really stick with it simply enjoy it far more than I did or could. Further, they don't truly understand anyone else not enjoying it. They'll offer oh-so-helpful advice like "just find yourself something that's fun!", and never even consider that for some people there isn't any form or exercise that's fun -- at least a form that's really a proper, total workout that you can do all year round in any weather (without being the kind of adrenaline addict it takes to, say, go jogging or running come snow, rain, sleet, or 95% humidity on a hot summer day).

I enjoyed the results of the exercise such as being toned and trim, and feeling better in a physical sense during the times between exercise -- but I loathed the process. Seven years is a whole lot of loathing to push yourself through. And what's really weird -- because often exercise is recommended for people who suffer from depression -- I suffered from clinical depression while I was exercising, bad enough that I committed myself once for a couple of weeks. As I look back over that period of time, I had the worst depressions when I was working out the hardest, the first bad bout of it when I was forced to complete a phys ed requirement to finish up my degree. I've begun to wonder if I don't have screwy body chemistry that makes exercise have a negative effect on my mood.

The exercise fanatics of the world need to understand that there are plenty of us out there for whom exercise is drudgery at best, nothing but a pure burden of obligation to good health. It's not a diversion, it's not a hobby, it's not an entertainment. We don't all get adrenaline highs, we don't all enjoy "feeling the burn", we don't all love playing team sports.

well, there are only 2 choices, exercise or eat less. If exercise isn't your thing....

or you could go to cosmetic surgery - i've seen someone have about 2 stone of butt and stomach removed on tv...pleasant

or maybe try a course of coenzyme A
http://www.answers.com/topic/coenzyme-a
http://www.electronichealing.co.uk/p...s/coenzyme.htm

I am no exercise fanatic, and if you are a gym rat- then of course it becomes monotonous.

Me? I mountain bike because it's fun for me, I also play soccer because it's a great time. When I am watching a DVD I do sit ups on one of those blow up yoga balls. I have a pull up bar in the door way of my bedroom that I hit when I wake up. There are literally hundreds of activities you can do besides lay on a couch with dorito crumbs all over your shirt.

You have to make it fun to stick with it. Eat fruits and veggies instead of potato chips.


And really, if you're active enough, you can pretty much eat anything and your body will burn through it.

But the fact remains- if you gain weight because you hate exercising, then the blame lies with you for becoming obese. loathing physical activity is not an acceptable reason to be obese (not saying you are).

I realize it's easier for some people than others. But most times it's outright sedentary lifestyle coupled with a junk ridden diet.

I've met a few people who straight eat everything in sight, will eat off other's plates... hey, your body is going to reflect that.

For me being tone and in shape is the only way i'd ever want to exist. I'd consider myself weak in every way if I wasn't.

Isn't the real issue here whether the government (of any nation) needs to step in and tell people that buy certain product (or class of products) that they need to get help?

The debate can rage on and on about self control, diet, exercise, metabolism. But in the end...does the government need to be brought into this matter by mandating a certain kind of warning/instruction on the product?

What's next...people that buy expensive cars getting warnings that perhaps they need to see a counselor about their relationship with money, greed and materialism?

People that watch TV get warnings/instructions that they might want to see someone about how much TV they watch.

Obesity is an unfortunate situation and I hope that I never suffer from it, and that people who do are able to seek and find help (IF THEY WANT TO). But the government doesn't really need to harangue (thanks groverat) people about something they almost certainly already know about.

That's the equation for idiots.

The food you burn is a direct function of your metabolism, which is a direct function of what you eat.

In other words, changing your diet causes your body to compensate in wild, unintuitive ways.

I have a friend who's pretty fat. She literally eats toast for breakfast and a bowl of soup for dinner. That's it. She's starving herself, and her body is hoarding fat to compensate.

The problem is that people have no concept of nutrition, and in an attempt to lose weight, people often eat worse.

Acceptable?

Loathing physical activity seems like a perfect reason people are obese.

You are moving from logic to social aesthetics and your rage is taking you there.

If it's effective then I say it's *good policy*

You anti-government types have a knee-jerk reaction to anything the goverment does, regardless of the merits of the policy.

Stop doing that.

These are great suggestions here:

But why must the government be the babysitter on every matter having to do with our lives, health, bodies, etc. That's just nuts. If I want to eat trans-fats at a restaurant in NYC...I should be able to. If I want to drive without a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet I should be able to.

Let people be. This is the progressive, technocrat form of being the nosy neighbor from Bewitched. Let people live their lives.

These people know they are obese. They don't really need a reminder. The governmental involvement here is likely to be not effective in any meaningful way and quite likely offensive in some ways. It would be pointless.

Or perhaps I should say:

You pro-government types have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that is bad for people, regardless of the intrusion into people's personal liberty.

Stop doing that.

*That's* what I'm talking about.

There you go.

Policy arguments.

More like this!

You seem to be (I could be wrong here) operating from the position that it is incumbent upon those that generally don't think that government needs to step into every area of people's lives to prove that a proposed government intervention is wrong/bad/worthless/etc. ... but it is not incumbent on those that generally think "there oughta be a law" and that the government's role is to "fix things" to prove why they should be stepping in in the first place.

Why would I think *policymakers* shouldn't

1) evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed or existing policy or
2) weigh sometimes competing rationales?

That's the kind of grown up outlook people on all sides of the debate should approach problems with, not "government shouldn't be doing this because any intervention is bad regardless of any other reason...."

You really only have one choice... exercise. Attempting to reduce weight through reduction of calorie intake alone is a terrible plan that almost always fails.

Exercise is not very important for the calories you burn doing the exercise itself. The real benefit of exercise is that it builds muscle mass, and muscle mass, even when sitting idle, burns up a lot of calories. You're raising your resting metabolism. Ironically, what you do by exercising is make your body less efficient. You become sort of like a sports car, more powerful, but more wasteful of fuel (calories) at the same time.

By the way, while I'd certainly like to be more trim and tone, my last blood test showed that I have only a 40% chance of heart disease compared to other men my age, so I'm either doing something right, or not doing something so wrong that my basic physiology isn't able to cope with it pretty well.

Wow. I'm going to find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Chris on something here.

The "competing rationale" is using the force of law to force someone to meet an obligation that isn't reasonably their obligation. If I make a pair of pants, and you want to buy that pair of pants, that's between you and me. The only place the government should get involved is if I'm trying to cheat you and sell you inferior or dangerous goods.

I rather doubt the efficacy of a "if you're buying these pants, you're too fucking fat" sticker anyway. But even if I take it as a given such stickers would improve public health, such warnings should be voluntary, not mandatory. We have (or are supposed to have) free speech -- that's good enough a mechanism to get the word out.

It is about presuppositions I guess.

If your presupposition is that government is good and is not only able to but obligated to fix things, then you will assume that the burden of proof of NOT doing a certain gov't policy is on the opposition.

If your presupposition is that government is bad and its actions generally infringe upon people's freedom, then you will assume that the burden of proof DOING a certain gov't policy is on the supporters.

I fall into the latter category. Perhaps you fall into the former.

***zips over to weather.com to check temperatures in hell***

Nope...all is normal there.

Sure-- that's a great analysis, shetline.

And I liked Chris's policy arguments against the idea, too.

lol- rage?

i don't care if someone wants to be a fat ass and eat themselves into poor mobility and health.

I am just laying it out as it is.

:shrug:

I wondered how long I could let that one pass,

well done you won today's prize.

As for your friend. I simply wont believe it, that effect only lasts for so long.

I think his point may be that there are precious few people who can make it long enough to reach that point and loose a significant amount of weight. When your body thinks it's starving, it takes great pains to save it's energy stores as best it can.

I may not be correct on this point, because it's been a long time since I read anything on this subject (perhaps someone with better knowledge can agree with or refute me), but when someone is in a state of starvation, I think you'll actually loose a certain degree of muscle tissue before your body primarily goes for the fat stores (I think it goes back to the fact the muscle, even just sitting there, uses a relatively large amount of energy and it behooves the body to reduce this commitment).

As shetline said, loosing weight without a regimen of exercise is extremely extremely difficult.

How about a warning sticker on large pants that reads: WARNING! IF THESE PANTS ARE FAR TOO LARGE FOR YOU BODY SIZE AND YOU CONSIDER IT A FASHION STATEMENT TO WEAR THEM DOWN TO YOUR KNEES WITH YOUR WHOLE ASS HANGING OUT YOU ARE IN DANGER OF BECOMING A MORON.

You folks are all taking this too seriously. This was just some guy making a silly suggestion. How many times do we hear someone say "nuke Iran!" or some other such silly nonsense?

A few points:

There's a reason people have gotten so much fatter in the last 25 years, and it's not because their metabolism has changed, or their genetics have changed, or that they've gotten lazier or now have less willpower. It's partially because of an increasingly sedentary life but, more importantly, it's the increased availability of cheap unhealthy food.

And the reason we are inundated with shitty food is that we have a culture that worships at the shrine of the almighty corporation: If they're making money, they have no other responsibilities. If we instead expected of them the responsibility of good citizenship, they might not feel quite so unconstrained to do whatever they want to make a buck for themselves, treat their employees like chattel, and fill our culture with noxious goods.

This is why people turn to government. People feel like corporations are damaging our societies, and so they turn to government to stop them. How about this: We won't need government to be our nanny if our citizens, including our corporate bosses, start taking some personal responsibility for their actions.

on the other hand- that law that was just put on the books in NYC banning trans fat is welcomed. It's a harmful substance that has been used to mislead the public in the past into thinking they were eating a fat free product. Laws like that are far more useful then jumbo jeans with a proclamation of one's size.

the article also mentions putting in bike lanes so people can safely commute. That is a great idea- make it useful and attractive for people to exercise. Put incentives- like writing bicycle purchases off as tax deductible. Laws like that are useful- laws banning junk food commercials before 9PM and labeling clothes with a large size with a health warning is useless. You think a lady buying a size 46 dress has any illusions as to her state of being?

MacRR:


"Acceptable". You are attempting to translate your own personal aesthetics to larger moral and policy questions, which you do because of the way fat people make you feel when you look at them. Your mocking characterizations and generalization reveal what kind of feeling that is, as well.



BRussell:


But that does not work because of the sociological dynamics of large groups. You can either choose to learn the lesson of history and scientific study of human behavior, or you can shake your tiny fist at the oncoming train and pretend that your moral outrage will stop it before it turns you into soup.

We need less outrage. We need more common sense.

Furthermore, why should corporations have the right to prey on the weaknesses of the citizenry? Why do corporations deserve any rights at all? Why shouldn't they be regulated as heavily as we need to maintain our health and happiness?

Let me see if I have this right...

Someone sells a product. Another person buys it voluntarily. The seller is the one responsible for the use, misuse or abuse of the product sold?

Is that right?

You talk about "corporate responsibilities"...but the reality is about individual responsibilities. McDonald's, et al exists (to the dismay of many) because...well people freely choose to eat there. No one is forcing anyone else to eat "cheap unhealthy food" in this equation. That is a personal choice. We are not lemmings and drones mindlessly doing whatever McDonald's tells us to do. People are free to choose. Some back bad choices (even when they know better). Some make good choices.


How about this...

We don't need government to be our nanny some people just think that we do.

Wrong. It is a perfect example of the government being a day late and a dollar short...or leading by looking in the rear-view mirror. Trans fats are already on their way out. Customers have spoken and food providers are responding. You cannot walk down the grocery isles without seeing half the products with a little "No Trans Fats" badge on them. But even more important...what right does anyone have to tell me I cannot eat trans fats if I want to?


Isn't being/staying healthy enough of an incentive for people? Do we need to bribe them too (for their own good)?!?! Crazy talk. Why should I have to pay extra taxes to bribe someone (with tax deductions, etc.) to do the things that they are not motivated to do on their own?

If a company is actually misrepresenting its products, and exposing the public to health risks because of that, I'm all for government stepping in to do something about it.

I'm also in agreement, at least to some extent, that we should demand more from corporations. I'm all for getting rid of the notion of "corporate personhood" in the law. For one thing, it's all too clear that the corporations get too many of the benefits of being treated as a "person" without having the same risks and responsibilities. Further, incorporation is a bargain struck between a business entity and the public at large where the public agrees to take on much, if not all, of the burden of debt (by being subjected to losses from a corporation's unpaid debts) if the corporation fails. We should demand more in exchange for what we provide from our side of that bargain.

But I think enforcing nannyhood on our corporations for a public unwilling to control its appetites is going too far. If the public doesn't want what's being sold, they shouldn't buy it. Given the freedom to make bad choices, plenty of people will do so, but I'd rather deal with the consequences of that than a government that steps in and says, "Now, now! We can't trust you to take good care of yourselves, so we're going to decide what's right to keep you safe!"

All I really want government to do (apart some very tangential issues that are beside the point here) is to protect me from other people's bad impulses, not, once I'm an adult, my own. Making sure I'm not a victim of other people's bad choices, criminal behavior, and even their well-intentioned but unwanted interventions on my behalf makes sense. Even though I know we'd be better off in some ways by not doing some of things we choose to do to ourselves, I'd rather leave it to social persuasion and cultural movements, even if less than entirely effective, to try to improve such situations.

What are the "weaknesses" that you speak of? If we are talking about free, honest and voluntary exchanges, how exactly is that predatory?

What has caused the huge rise in obesity in the past several decades, Chris? Can you answer that as honestly as possible? Even if you did believe in evolution ( ), I doubt you'd believe that we have changed biologically in that time span. In my view, the only plausible explanation is that incentives have changed. When incentives change, behavior changes; it's the fundamental rule of economics. And those incentive changes have largely been brought about by "morally neutral" corporations who don't care, and aren't expected to care, whether their effect is negative or positive.

If you disagree with that, let's hear it. I have not at all endorsed the idea that the government has to step in and regulate. I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that some people do stupid things and no one else has to stop them. But first I am interested in whether we're even on the same page as to the cause of the problem.

[edit] I'm not trying to be coy or rhetorical by asking that. I just wonder if you agree with me that 1) corporations have a large degree of control over our society's incentives, 2) that they are largely given free reign and are not expected to do anything responsible except make money, and 3) that the incentives they create can dramatically effect us for good or ill. If you do accept that, what do you think will happen in the long run? Do you believe our perceptions of the incentives will change for the good, e.g., people will see what's bad for them and change accordingly? Or do you take a kind of Darwinist approach, that only the dumb ones will get fat? Or do you just not care what happens? Or do you disagree that corporations have any influence on us?

My hypothesis is increased consumption of fat and decrease in physical activity.


More precisely, when the cost of X goes down, people will generally consume more of X and vice versa. To a limit (marginal utility and cost and all that).


I don't disagree that cheaper and less healthy food has become more abundant if that is what you are asking.


OK. Cool.


We might be.

I say that the cause is to do with people not considering the total (monetary, non-monetary, direct and indirect) costs of eating "cheap unhealthy foods" (as well as getting less exercise) and therefore making poor choices about diet and exercise.


No I don't. I think corporations primarily respond to customer demand.


Yes. That is the responsbility a corporation has to its investors.


If, as individuals, we choose to let them, yes. But again...the reason some place like McD's sells a gajillion burgers a year is because people want to buy them. As soon as people want to buy a gajillion salads a year, that's what they will sell.


In the long run people will see the ill-effects of eating high fat and sugar foods and getting no exercise and choose (if it is important to them) to change their buy, eating and exercising habits.


I think we see it happening already. Not for everyone mind you. But for many indeed.


I take the approach that people should be free to choose to eat what they wish. I take the approach that no one has the right to force another to eat (or not eat) some particular thing. I take the approach that we will (and do) have people (outside of government) that are concerned enough about these issues research them and to inform all of us about them.


Of course I care. But I don't consider it my right to tell people what to do.


Influence? Probably. But really only to the extent that we choose to be influenced.

Control? Not so much.

Bottom line? People are not generally forced into the choices they are making. They are choosing them freely.

Those that are greatly concerned about those choices are free to use their freedom of expression to inform and educate all of us about the risks and then we can all make better informed choices (if we want to). I am also free to actively educate and inform myself (and family and friends). But I am not free to force anyone (well...I guess I can make my kids eat their veggies before their ice cream ) to do anything about it.

This is a very good example of attempting to solve a problem that operates at a moral/philosophical/mucho personal level, with a political solution. They're trying this in Iraq at the moment -- it won't work.

People don't learn from experience, they learn in terms of belief.

shetline:


Misrepresenting their products is exactly what fast/junk food companies do. It is the entirety of their marketing strategy.


Again, we get back to ignoring reality to satisfy anger against fat people for being so ugly. You say "unwilling to control its appetites" as if it is a simple matter of choice; paper or plastic.

It is possible to acknowledge a verifiable social weakness to resist certain things without abdicating all notions of personal responsibility. I would contend that we must understand as much as we can about why we do what we do before we can even begin to achieve true personal responsibility.

Do we want results or do we want to be satiated by our own moral outrage? What is it about a fat body that makes us turn off our minds?


Chris Cuilla:


- The addictive nature of many modern "junk" foods that trigger neurological reactions.
- The specific, targeted marketing towards unprotected groups like children.
- The free use, by food makers, of horribly unhealthy additives and ingredients in the food they produce.

Those are just a few.