More Than Half of Humans On Track To Be Overweight or Obese By 2035, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 282
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: More than half of the world's population will be overweight or obese by 2035 unless governments take decisive action to curb the growing epidemic of excess weight, a report has warned. About 2.6 billion people globally -- 38% of the world population -- are already overweight or obese. But on current trends that is expected to rise to more than 4 billion people (51%) in 12 years' time, according to research by the World Obesity Federation.
Without widespread use of tactics such as taxes and limits on the promotion of unhealthy food, the number of people who are clinically obese will increase from one in seven today to one in four by 2035. If that happens, almost 2 billion people worldwide would be living with obesity. Those with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 are judged to be overweight, while people whose BMI is at least 30 are deemed to be obese. Evidence shows that obesity increases someone's risk of cancer, heart disease and other diseases.
Obesity among children and young people is on course to increase faster than among adults. By 2035 it is expected to be at least double the rate seen in 2020, according to the federation's latest annual World Obesity Atlas report. It is expected to rise by 100% among boys under 18, leaving 208 million affected, but go up even more sharply -- by 125% -- among girls the same age, which would see 175 million of them affected. [...] The federation's report also highlights that many of the world's poorest countries are facing the sharpest increases in obesity yet are the least well prepared to confront the disease. Nine of the 10 countries set to experience the biggest rises in coming years are low- or middle-income nations in Africa and Asia. "The global cost of obesity is also due to rocket, from $1.96 trillion in 2019 to $4.32 trillion by 2035, which would be the equivalent of 3% of global GDP -- a sum comparable to the economic damage wrought by Covid-19 -- the federation estimates," adds the report.
Without widespread use of tactics such as taxes and limits on the promotion of unhealthy food, the number of people who are clinically obese will increase from one in seven today to one in four by 2035. If that happens, almost 2 billion people worldwide would be living with obesity. Those with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 are judged to be overweight, while people whose BMI is at least 30 are deemed to be obese. Evidence shows that obesity increases someone's risk of cancer, heart disease and other diseases.
Obesity among children and young people is on course to increase faster than among adults. By 2035 it is expected to be at least double the rate seen in 2020, according to the federation's latest annual World Obesity Atlas report. It is expected to rise by 100% among boys under 18, leaving 208 million affected, but go up even more sharply -- by 125% -- among girls the same age, which would see 175 million of them affected. [...] The federation's report also highlights that many of the world's poorest countries are facing the sharpest increases in obesity yet are the least well prepared to confront the disease. Nine of the 10 countries set to experience the biggest rises in coming years are low- or middle-income nations in Africa and Asia. "The global cost of obesity is also due to rocket, from $1.96 trillion in 2019 to $4.32 trillion by 2035, which would be the equivalent of 3% of global GDP -- a sum comparable to the economic damage wrought by Covid-19 -- the federation estimates," adds the report.
And the other half.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The other half will be suffering malnutrition.
Winning! (Score:2)
That means we are all well ahead of the curve.
Leading since day one.
--
The early bird gets the worm. The early worm... gets eaten. - Norman Ralph Augustine
Time to do more research + more than recklessness (Score:5, Insightful)
We have some really fundamental misunderstandings about nutrition and human metabolism. How come so many people can eat one way and be slender while so many others balloon up and get really fat? Once you get to half the global population and it hits Asia, it's not about lazy sedentary Americans alone.
Our obesity epidemic is a more complex multi-variable equation than most realize. It's about laziness, lifestyle, lack, poor willpower, HFCS, no exercise...but so much more. There are hormone levels, signaling hormones, body differences that lead to a lifestyle for one person being healthy, but another being fat. Simply telling the fat to stop being fat won't cut it.
We need more research into how our metabolism works to tackle this. We need to figure out why some can eat healthy, exercise a ton, and be chubby...whereas others can be twice as reckless, twice as sedentary, and slender. The high failure rate of diets is another odd data factor. Why is it so much harder to lose and keep off weight than get in shape, quit highly addictive narcotics, smoking, or drinking? To me, it says we really need to treat obesity like a health problem. We need to diagnose what is causing it on case by case and craft strategies based on the actual person and their physiology, like we do to treat cancer or heart disease. Right now, all we do is shame fat people and tell them to eat a little less and exercise a little more...they do...and it rarely works...instead of just saying "welp, I guess you didn't do it enough, you must suck at life, fatty" the medical community really should do some actual research to see if the person is a reckless slob or their centuries of diet advice are bullshit and counterproductive in that instance.
As a lifelong dieter, that's what I found out until I discovered intermittent fasting...something that doctors 20 years ago were telling you NOT to do....because they are ignorant and thought fat people were just slobs. I'm 30lbs leaner with a 32" waist now...but the advice of the medical establishment has been counterproductive. Beyond research, the medical establishment needs to treat obesity. If you're fat today and you don't want to be, you have to do all your own research. The doctors can't help...beyond telling you to eat more fiber and drink more water. They're completely fucking clueless. There are medication options, detailed diet options, therapy options for treating underlying psychological issues, fitness strategies...and your GP is not an expert in those. TMK, major hospital networks don't have a clinic devoted to treating obesity and they should. People really need to take this seriously and treat it like a medical issue, not a personal character issue.
In contrast, I hurt my knee working out. An orthopedist took x-rays, examined me, quickly diagnosed the issues, and gave individualized physical therapy exercise recommendations to fix the issue...and it's fully fixed. It was an impressive success on my Dr's part. Why don't we take a similar approach towards obesity with actual specialists and experts? How much cheaper would it be if we fixed this when the fat person is in their 30s than treating diabetes, heart disease, and joint breakdown in their 60s?
Re: (Score:2)
The doctors can't help...beyond telling you to eat more fiber and drink more water.
Most doctors are not dieticians. If you went to a dietician, your weight problem would be cleared up. If you also have mental problems contributing to your weight problems, then you're going to need a really good dietician.
Re: (Score:3)
Not making fun, but I think this notion of "requires more research" "multi-variable equation" is not really accurate, nor particularly helpful. Sure there is some tiny slice of the population that can get away with eating a ton and being skinny (but likely not healthy. Similarly there is a small slice that have legitimate glandular/hormone things. But for the overwhelming majority of folks its simply diet. Too many (mostly empty) calories. Full stop.
Anecdote: There was a TV show on PBS, "Colonial Hous
Re: (Score:2)
Our obesity epidemic is a more complex multi-variable equation than most realize. It's about laziness, lifestyle, lack, poor willpower, HFCS, no exercise...but so much more. There are hormone levels, signaling hormones, body differences that lead to a lifestyle for one person being healthy, but another being fat. Simply telling the fat to stop being fat won't cut it.
You forgot fructose-induced villi growth and the higher absorption of glucose that results from it, changes in gut bacteria from overuse of antibiotics in people and food animals, adenoviruses (at least one of which is directly linked to obesity in humans and another is linked to obesity in chickens), etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I get that it's fun to make fun of the overweight....one of the last groups you can make fun of and not be a social pariah now that you can't tell jokes about ethnic minorities or people's sexuality like your parents and grandparents could.
There's an important difference: You don't choose your ethnicity or sexuality and you can't change it if you don't like it. But nobody is born fat and you absolutely can lose weight.(*)
(*) lots of people claim they can't and it's a health issue but for 99 out of 100 that's total bullshit. As George Carlin put it: Maybe try 11 pizzas a day instead of 12 ?
Re: (Score:3)
Or just cheat nature and get your stomach stapled.
Re: (Score:3)
But nobody is born fat
Actually a growing percentage of babies ARE now being born fat & overweight, which was extremely rare even 20 years ago. Some come out so overweight that they are born with fatty liver syndrome. For comparison that's something alcoholics get, albeit after a decade or two, of daily alcohol abuse.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why are so many families fat...including ones with radically different lifestyles?
Genes. Having genes that make your body better at storing fat doesn't mean you're ill. Of course it's a perfect storm when combined with fast food, snacks and sweet drinks.
You're welcome to feel contempt for them,
I don't. I'm just saying that yes, losing weight is hard for some people under some circumstances. So is getting a degree, finding a good partner, raising kids - basically anything worth doing in life isn't easy.
Re: (Score:2)
As a lifelong dieter,
Ah.
There's now tons of studies that prove show that diets don't work. What works is more excercise and getting used to being hungry (most of humanity was hungry most of the time for 100,000 years and we made it, so relax). Intermittent fasting is essentially that - it teaches you to accept hunger as normal and to control the urge to "eat it away". Good choice.
Re: (Score:3)
You wanna know the actual reason for obesity? It's easy. Food is in our area not only available and affordable, we also have an industry that made it their business to make it tasty so we'd want to eat (and thus buy) more of it. And tasty to our body means 50% carbs, 30% fat. And that's what our foods are. The other 20% should be protein, but since that's fairly expensive it has been changed to filler substances more often than not.
And that's it. That is our food. Try it. Go into a supermarket, find somethi
Re: (Score:3)
Low quality, high calorie food is cheap. Healthier food is more expensive, often both to buy and in terms of how long it takes to prepare.
I had this conversation with someone recently. Food in Japan is much better than the UK. He asked why, when you can buy the same ingredients here. Aside from the dishes being different, the main things seem to be that good food is cheap. Even if you don't have the time or skill to produce it yourself, you can buy healthy prepared meals for not a lot of money.
The other big
Re: (Score:3)
Enormously, but doing so is politically toxic. Interventions are expensive and complicated, and ask awkward questions about agency, responsibility and society. Good luck to anyone wanting to make those kinds of nuanced arguments in this day and age.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck to anyone wanting to make those kinds of nuanced arguments in this day and age.
You just took a nuanced argument and reduced it to the prevailing wisdom which is clearly wrong, which was in turn the point of the preceding comment. You wouldn't know a nuanced argument if you read one.
Re: (Score:3)
You make some good points. However, you cannot and should not completely excuse individual behavior.
The last time I visited the US, I noticed a couple of things: First, portions were huge. If I ordered an appetizer and a main at a restaurant, I had enough food for two, and sometimes three normal meals. I rarely finished all the food, but my hosts certainly did. If someone grilled a steak, it was twice the size of what I would grill at home. Etc.
Second, low activity levels. For one meal, we needed to sto
Need more drugs like Ozempic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are long term issues to tackle for sure but they will also take a long time to move the machine, especially as there is a lot of cultural and political pushback against the measures neede for change in how we sell, produce and market food, how cities are designed, car centric culture.
There are a lot of promising pharmaceutical treatments for obesity coming soon. They have their drawbacks, side effects, concerns they will have to used for life, costs, the ethical nature of how parhma companies are goi
Re: (Score:3)
We need less processed foods, more exercise, and less sodas and alcohol.
There's no calories in diet soda. The problem is that a diet bacon cheeseburger isn't a thing.
Also, the ostensibly "healthy" alcoholic drinks are kind of funny if you ask me. I tried a White Claw once and the stuff tasted like drinking some carbonated water that at one point may have been in the same room with a strawberry, while you're gluing PVC pipes. I don't know why people actually pay money for that stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead they have this excessive fascination with energy drinks. It's not really better... ok, at least it's better than alcohol, but that's not saying much.
Yea, it's more complex than it appears (Score:4, Insightful)
The usefulness of BMI is really coming into more and more question. It has always been known to be a blunt instrument and now its predictive power is being more and more called into question versus looking at the person as a whole. So, this crisis may be more related to overusing BMI as a widespread measure of overall health versus a more complex, personalized view.
Certainly, issues around food processing and food deserts needs to be addressed. Yes, there is an aspect of personal accountability here, but foundations completely overemphasize the "effective habits" aspect of the problem and ignore people's overall mental health. People are overworked and under threat of losing housing and other basic needs.
You can't expect people to spend extra hours in a week to shop and cook better food if just getting takeout or a microwaved dinner gives them just an hour more to rest in a day, rest that keeps them from falling over the edge.
You wonder why people would buy a soda when we can't ensure the safety of tap water in this country anymore? Seriously?
All that stress will make them store energy in fat. This isn't about willpower. We are wired to trade long term needs for short term survival. However, now, the stress never leaves. The lean times of less food never come. We never get a break to relax and reset, to work out that excess energy. The real fix is a four-day work week and a real, effective safety net.
And, again, BMI is an overly blunt predictor of actual health. The flaws in BMI are being more noticeable all the time. In additional, the normal levels for things like A1C and other labs were moved significantly, which means that a lot of people that weren't type-2 diabetics suddenly were. The problem is that we don't (and won't) know if this was an overcorrection and we put too many people on a new class of medications when it didn't actually help their overall health outcomes at all. It may actually do nothing to reduce cardiac events or other related chronic health problems. Sad, when we know that reducing long term stress levels *does* work to do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
For a point in time, BMI is not a great representation. As you get older though that BMI catches up with you and you see the outcomes that one would expect.
Re: (Score:2)
The usefulness of BMI is really coming into more and more question.
That is true, but you don't need a BMI to look around and see that people in general have become fat. In my childhood, that was much more rare, now it's lots of people. The BMI only puts that into numbers.
However, now, the stress never leaves. The lean times of less food never come.
This. Too much of our system is based on making people stressed.
Re: (Score:2)
The usefulness of BMI is really coming into more and more question.
I think you are using it wrong. It is properly used for measuring and comparing population health. Because you cannot measure everyone in detail.
For individuals, it is just a rough guide. My BMI is a bit high, but I only need to look in the mirror to see the excess visceral fat.
There is no denying the belly bulge. Sixty years ago, it was not considered normal, and it shows in health data that it ain't good.
The problem is stress (Score:2)
As a rule you'll find that the obesity rates drop as incomes increase. With nearly 60% of Americans, heck 68% with some surveys, living paycheck to paycheck it's not really a surprise. And also doesn't help the
Success Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Throughout the history of mankind, hunger was the normal condition of the majority of the population. If half of mankind is overweight, it is a huge indicator of success. Yes, obesity will kill you. But famine will kill you faster and with much more suffering.
Yes, we do need to deal with this problem. But this is not a sign of failure.
Re: (Score:2)
childhood obesity is a new type of malnutrition that must be dealt with, even if it throws a wrench (or wooden shoe) into the machinery of capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? We have an overpopulation anyway, why try to keep people from dying prematurely?
Re: (Score:2)
> If half of mankind is overweight, it is a huge indicator of success
You must be joking. Being "well off' and not being hungry does not mean you have to be sick, and yes...no matter what "the progressives" might say, being obese means being dangerously ill, as I was too at one point.
3 years ago I was borderline obese at 220lbs, and 5'9, and had all kinds of issue at the age of 35. Finally ended up in the doctors office, and he said do something about this or you'll be dead in 10 years. Literally. I had h
Re: (Score:2)
I frankly don't get why someone would enjoy something like that. We have the technology, we can rebuild the body to retain fewer nutrients.
So basically... (Score:2)
Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's the logical conclusion if you have a system that is hardwired to ensure the retention and storage of as much energy as possible and the near unlimited availability of that energy. Data grows to fill any storage space available, and humans grow to eat any food available.
The elephant in the room (Score:4, Insightful)
Unhealthy foods just plain taste better, blame our biology. If humans were meant to not become overbloated fatasses, a kale salad with a sprinkle of lite dressing would taste better than that extra cheese bacon triple lardburger with loaded fries (and some extra ranch dressing on the side, for dipping). Mmm, bacon.
Re: (Score:2)
Unhealthy foods just plain taste better, blame our biology. If humans were meant to not become overbloated fatasses,
We are not. Biology just never had to adjust to constant availability of high-calorie food. In natural environment, that's very rare, which is exactly why it is so enticing - you have to go for it when it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
We are. The definition of "tasty" is something that offers 50% carbohydrates, 30% fat and 20% protein. If that is available, it is what we will reach for (unless our more sane higher brain functions tell us that we'll regret that later). Our food industry found out that it's quite possible to replace those expensive 20% protein with much cheaper substitutes, though, so what's left is the 50% carbs, 30% fat and 20% chemistry formula we now find in our supermarkets.
We're hardwired to WANT that. Yes, it's rare
Re: (Score:2)
If humans were meant to not become overbloated fatasses, a kale salad with a sprinkle of lite dressing would taste better than that extra cheese bacon triple lardburger with loaded fries
Kale? ugh. There is another way: PORTION CONTROL. Don't eat a serving like an American restaurant has. I'm losing weight on a diet with bacon and cheese. A croissant with one piece of bacon, and some nice brie maybe. Some red wine. The French are not fat.
Normal food works, but cutting the carbs a bit, and just keep the serving sensible. Count calories for a while, until you learn what a healthy serve looks like.
Diabetes drugs helping people lose weight (Score:3)
There's a drug called semaglutide that appears to be effective for curbing appetite and making people feel full. You have to inject it once per week, but it appears to be effective.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/heal... [msn.com]
https://www.forbes.com/health/... [forbes.com]
Action wanted. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great, now you have obese people who don't just have liver, gall and heart problems, they also have shot joints and torn ligaments from trying to exercise without having the first clue how to do it without killing themselves even faster...
This is making me depressed. (Score:2)
Maybe I’ll have a donut.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a chocolate shake to wash it down, those new low-fat donuts are way too dry otherwise.
First step... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every one of your ancestors ate fat at every opportunity for a million years. Your body knows exactly what to do with fat. Processed sugar was introduced to the human diet only 300 years ago, and the idea of mainlining pre-dissolved sugar bombs in the form of soda as anything except a treat probably is less than 60 years old.
Your body's reaction to these sugar bombs is... not healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Recognize that fat is not the devil, processed sugar is.
NOTHING is the devil, except quantity. People have been eating high-carb diets for thousands of years without getting fat.
OK, sugar is worse than white bread/rice, but not *that* much different. I think you oversimplify.
Its not as simple as cutting sugar. I know, I tried.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just the tip of the sugar cube. The problem isn't just processed sugar, it's processed food altogether.
Overprocessed, easily digestible food where fiber doesn't even have observer status anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
The more food is messed with the worse it gets...
We've been eating natural occurring sugars in the form of fruits for millions of years too.
It was government drives to "reduce fat" that resulted in so much sugar being added to foods in the first place.
Now they want to "reduce sugar", so they will inevitably replace it with something else. So far every time they'd tried to replace a "bad" ingredient, the replacement has been worse. A lot of these new formulations haven't been tried and tested, who knows what
Imagine an alien coming to earth (Score:2)
Who have no concept of "good looks". Wouldn't they assume that the average is the norm? They'd probably say that over half the humans look fine, but some really malnourished.
Re: Time to grade on a curve (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:5, Informative)
If half are "overweight" then why isn't the baseline adjusted?
Because the baseline isn't built on the average weight of people, it's based on weight to health outcomes. Being obese leads to poor health outcomes later in life. We change the baseline when being obese doesn't lead to the various health issues it causes in humans.
Why are we sticking so steadfastly to old weights, measurements, and antiquated ideas of health?
I don't believe the difference between NOT having Type 2 and having it is based on antiquated viewpoints of health. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people still believe Type 2 diabetes is still a bad thing. People who are obese have much higher outcomes that lead to diabetes, NAFLD, heart disease, etc than those who are not obese. I haven't met anyone who thinks those things are positives. So I'll grant you that perhaps you are SO PROGRESSIVE that liver failure is a favorable outcome for you, but most people don't ascribe to that idea.
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:5, Informative)
Being overweight leads to poor health outcomes later if you keep that weight on. Being obese tends to lead to very poor health outcomes in the current and later. Morbid obesity kills even in early teens. It's highly lethal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If half are "overweight" then why isn't the baseline adjusted?
Because the baseline isn't built on the average weight of people, it's based on weight to health outcomes.
Nope.
People are getting taller and "BMI" doesn't work for taller people, it tends to class them as obese. BMI math produces a curve that only fits humans when they're sorta average height.
What needs redefining is "BMI".
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. It's a coincidence that hypertension, diabetes, and diverticulitis are on the rise. Move along, nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
If half are "overweight" then why isn't the baseline adjusted?
Because the baseline isn't built on the average weight of people, it's based on weight to health outcomes.
Nope.
People are getting taller and "BMI" doesn't work for taller people, it tends to class them as obese. BMI math produces a curve that only fits humans when they're sorta average height.
What needs redefining is "BMI".
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The relevant quote is:
The BMI overestimates roughly 10% for a large (or tall) frame and underestimates roughly 10% for a smaller frame (short stature). In other words, people with small frames would be carrying more fat than optimal, but their BMI indicates that they are normal. Conversely, large framed (or tall) individuals may be quite healthy, with a fairly low body fat percentage, but be classified as overweight by BMI.
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:4, Informative)
While you're right about the definition causing problems there's 2 reasons why it's irrelevent:
a) 10% is fucking insignificant on the scale. Most people's BMI result varies by more than 10% over the course of any given season. ... let me check ... 180... 85... 23... 180.5... 23.1... divide the result ... 0.4%
b) The premise is stupid. We're getting taller... ever so slightly at a glacial pace. BMI wasn't created in the medieval period. The current definition was made in the mid 70s, and humans have barely changed half a centimetre in that time and therefore there's zero reason to redefine BMI as that creates an error of
Human height changes have had a 0.fuckall% impact on the result.
Solutions to make them fix it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All the obese people should simply identify as healthy, with no risk of diabetes, heart attack or other obesity related health issues.
Problem solved.
Oh and you're obviously a fat shiner and should be cancelled. So, nyah!
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because "fat fuck" status isn't just subjective, but also has medical implications. If you're in this category, put the fucking fork down and get your ass on a treadmill and a weight lifting regimen. My god, has the basic education system entirely abandoned PhysEd?
Re: (Score:2)
P.E. is a good thing to do / teach, but as the saying goes "You can't out work a bad diet." What the education system has done is it has abandoned teaching proper nutrition and feeding balanced meals in schools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can. Second law of thermodynamics is a thing. As long as you force your body to burn more energy than you take in, you will lose weight.
Recommended watching: strongmen showing off their diets. They chug 5-6 large hot meals a day that are very high in calories. Because that's what they need as baseline to maintain their physique with their workout regimens.
Re: (Score:2)
Research suggests it doesn't work that way. If you exercise your body saves energy in other ways. There's a guy who's studied indigenous people who run half a marathon every day and they don't burn any more calories than couch potatoes. You might be able to exceed your body's ability to compensate, but that probably wouldn't be very good for you, nor would just about anyone do it.
Exercise is an appetite suppressant, however.
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:4, Informative)
I have no idea what "research" you're referencing that suggests that second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to a human body.
As someone that operates in the real world, rather than world of religious faith, I strand strongly in favor of second law of thermodynamics being real and applying to humans just as much as anything else in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has actually ran marathons and half-marathons, I will say that you definitely burn a fuck-load more calories doing the running that sitting on the couch. Regular long distance runners have very high daily caloric requirements compared to couch potatoes. It's just plain physics. What sort of black magic suggests this isn't true? I mean, really. Law of thermodynamics and etc, but wtf-m8-r-u-retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what "research" you're referencing that suggests that second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to a human body.
Haven't you seen The Matrix? The robots would have no power if humans didn't violate the laws of thermodynamics!
Next you'll be telling me that wasn't a real documentary and Neo didn't actually save us all from cybernetic enslavement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You jest, but people who wrote plot for the Matrix were in the modern esoteric cult that claims that body is merely a prison for the mind, and that just believing things can change reality.
This is the same cult that spawned beliefs into things like "fat acceptance" and "infinite genders". They all operate on the same principle that human mind can change reality by simply believing things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
P.E. includes diet education. At least it did in my day. If it does not include this anymore, then what the hell good is it?
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:4, Interesting)
indeed, but the education system has never specifically dealt with nutrition, it just mirrored the cultural trends. this is a problem when those trends have become compulsion, overeating and overabundance of crap food, that's a self-reinforcing loop. the education system should start to teach proper nutrition but this will be an uphill fight, against those very potent current trends. also, cue in people immediately outraged because of trespass of nutritional liberty.
this is fucked up because it doesn't even function as a selection variable because these fuckers still live long enough to procreate. it's just that humanity rots as a species. imagination is the limit!
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad state of the world that half the population is of inferior character to you, right? If only they weren't so weak-willed that they couldn't see the superiority of your approach to life.
"My god, has the basic education system entirely abandoned PhysEd?"
It has apparently failed you.
Re: (Score:2)
"My god, has the basic education system entirely abandoned PhysEd?"
It has apparently failed you.
What exactly are you trying to get at here? Either your English is poor, or you're making inaccurate assumptions about my personal fitness. Are you a sock puppet? Are you drunk? Are you both?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are you trying to get at here?
I think what he was getting at was the line you didn't quote.
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:4, Informative)
General concept:
Diet is for weight reduction.
Exercise is for health.
You can't lose a significant amount of weight by exercising without a diet change, too.
Better if you do both but changing diet is critical for weight loss and works faster with less effort than exercise.
Re:Time to grade on a curve (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But the medical industry will do it anyway. Fewer diabetes diagnoses means fewer insurance claims. Can't have standards that identify half the population as sick, even though they are. Diabetes standards are already corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
We have redefined intelligent we can redefine healthy. If we can handle a population that gets dumber and dumber, we can also handle one that dies earlier and earlier. With a hint of luck, we might avoid Idiocracy that way if their death rates outmatch their breeding rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because in some place, half of the people cut off both of their legs, doesn't change that people are bipedal creatures that walk upright.
Just because in some places, people are getting fat doesn't change underlying biology either. You're still going to very likely die of heart disease or circulatory disease if you're morbidly obese, because measurements still measure objective facts about your body. And "ideas of health" when it comes to things like healthy weight are there for a reason. Your heart can
Re: (Score:2)
"antiquated ideas of health"
LOL how are the new ideas different?
"why isn't the baseline adjusted?"
Maybe because that would make the problem even worse? What you really mean is why isn't the baseline adjusted to make the problem go away. The answer to that is that it is, just not as corruptly as might suit you.
Re: (Score:2)
Redefining something making the problem worse hasn't stopped us this far, whether it was environment standards or teaching goals, why should it stop us now?
Re: (Score:2)
Literally any health issue is made worse simply by being overweight.
The health issues don't go away just because the average has shifted.
Gyms (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BMI was never meant to be used on individuals. The man who created the concept knew that there were too many damned variables for the BMI to be an effective predictor of an individual's healthy weight.
Instead, the BMI is designed to be used against populations, and if you'll forgive the phrase, the larger the better. All of those variables start cancelling out.
So instead of saying "That person has a BMI of 30, and is obese", it's "that group of people in this area have an average BMI of 30, and are ob
Re: Gyms (Score:2)
This is totally false. Not everyone âoegoing to the gymâ is obese using the BMI scale. In fact, most people going to the gym are NOT obese on the BMI scale. There are a few outliers, but if you are at a BMI of 30, and you are going to the gym, you are probably just lifting 3 sets of 10 reps, eating way too much damn food and not doing enough cardio.
Obese people who go to the gym regularly are not somehow healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, my scale only goes to 300, but my shadow weighs 30 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxing is an interesting idea
I think it's a great idea. Good luck on it. I think I've argued this till I was red in the face.
Another option is to increase peoples healthcare premiums based on the terrible lifestyles they live
I'm less agreeing with you on this. Healthcare is shitty as it is in the United States and ultimately it'll just drive more people to just not have insurance. Especially the folk who would be willing to dig in their heels on this. And while you'll get a hit for what you were after, there will be folks with no insurance, fat as fuck, looking for treatment for a flu that's gotten out of hand or suffering a bad
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of obesity is not weak character and those that are not obese are not morally superior to those that are. They aren't superior in any way, only healthier. And only apparently healthier at that, many people of normal weight are diabetic or pre-diabetic.
Punishing victims is not an answer, it's an a-hole move and it's proposed by people here all the time. It's proposed because those people think they're superior to fat people. They're just dumber and younger.
To fix this problem you need to know
Re: (Score:2)
My mother, who fought like hell to lose weight, and failed for two decades, discovered her thyroid was-- unstable. Not high, not low, but but would cycle back and forth, to the point where her body couldn't regulate it. They only recognized the problem when her heart started giving out due to the swings in thyroid levels.
Once they started treating her thyroid problems, she lost 40 pounds in 6 months. Her mother had the same problem, and her sister probably died from it. All signs are that I may have the
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a great idea. Good luck on it. I think I've argued this till I was red in the face.
I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken. Eating healthy is expensive enough already. It's the cheap food that's loaded with fillers of carbohydrates, sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial everything, antibiotics, preservatives, flavor enhancers, etc..
If you're poor, you're eating garbage, because that's all you can afford.
Eating healthy, low carb meals with fresh produce is not cheap, either in terms of economy, or time. Coming home from work, I can spend an hour cooking a decent, healthy meal-- or I
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but got to call bullshit on this one.
It is not hard, nor is it $$$ to eat properly.
I've been cooking and eating the same way largely since I was a poor, broke college student.
First, gather the weekly circulars for the local grocery stores. They all usually come out on the same day and these days....they are available on
Re: (Score:2)
"Healthcare is shitty as it is in the United States "
Now just a damned minute. Healthcare in the USA is absolutely fantastic. What sucks is getting it to everyone, because it is hideously expensive. If you have good insurance, you can get seen by a doctor pretty damned quick, which is what makes US healthcare superior, not that the doctors are using special techniques not available in other countries, or are more knowledgeable. its just that healthcare in other countries involve waiting far longer fo
Re: (Score:3)
But I've come to realize that the biggest causes of "overweight" is lack of exercise and excessive calorie intake
"Overweight" is really just calorie intake. Lack of exercise leads to lack of physical fitness, but if you were on 800 calories for six months you would lose weight.
Now I'm not suggesting that for most overweight people that would be incredibly difficult, but the fact remains that lower calories is "all" it takes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Another option is to increase peoples healthcare premiums"
What you actually want to do is to pay the fat people so they have access to doctors and other health system tools that help them not do the wrong thing. (Well, by pay them, I really mean pay for single payer healthcare so access is granted to all.)
One very American thing is to just imagine individuals pay for their own mistakes and that nobody else does. In reality people work/live/love/etc together, and people who are unhealthy are a drain on us a
Re: (Score:2)
In reality people work/live/love/etc together, and people who are unhealthy are a drain on us all.
Only in countries with single-payer healthcare. Here in the USA, the for-profit companies are going to maximize profits no matter what. So, if everybody who has health insurance magically got in shape, the insurance companies would use the resulting extra profit to do stock buybacks or spend it on hookers and blow.
Besides, there really is nothing more American than respecting an individual's right to make poor decisions for themselves. Also this. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely! People are getting fat all over the world because American conservatives ... oh never mind. So ridiculous on its face.
Re: (Score:2)
"...increase peoples healthcare premiums based on the terrible lifestyles they live..."
Ah yes, another conclusion where the problem is that people aren't as good as you. Maybe we can just gas them.
Single payer healthcare would be a far more effective solution than punitive insurance premiums. The government is complicit in the epidemic. Make them ultimately accountable for the costs and subsidizing terrible diets, and recommending them, will change. People do not want to be obese, regardless of the igno
Re: (Score:2)
I actually find this story pretty scary compared to the usual scare-tactic headlines. Reason being is that once you cross that simple majority threshold the cycle will accelerate. Will anyone who is obese vote for taxes or other measures to reduce obesity? Not likely. Even cigarette smokers maxed out at something like 40% of the population. So when regulations and taxation were need to curtail, smokers were in a minority. And even still that was a long, hard lift to enact measures to reduce smoking
Th
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with taxation is that it may go the wrong way. One of the reason that we have such an obese population is that fat and sugar are cheap, that would be correct, but it also means that this is how we can keep the poor fed. If you look around the population and check who's fat, you'll notice a very strong correlation between obesity and poverty. Often, the fatty, sugary crap is the only thing these people can afford.
If you use that tax to support healthier alternatives and turn that problem upside d
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I have to go with the FL gov and any other representative that got on board the "leave my gas stove alone" train.
I LOVE to cook.
And from many years, even in pro kitchens in the past...IMHO, gas stovetop is the absolute best way to cook.
I'm not afraid of any supposed effects from it....I don't suffer asthma, etc.
So, the govt needs to stay the fuck out of my kitchen.
Perhaps treat it like a medical issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is simply that the chances of the government solving this problem are slim-to-none. It's in our hands. Easy for some and much harder for others, but the solution is there if you fight hard enough for it and nothing that the government can do will change that or make it any easier.
Not to mention the myriad of additional ways that they will have control over people's actions, if we go down this road.
The gov doesn't need to control your diet, but they can regulate what can be sold for the sake of dieting. They can fund actual medical specialists to address obesity and treat it like a medical issue and not a personal character issue. How about this?...
A fat person walks into a specialist's office and says...I'm fat...I don't want to be. If do that to my PCP, he'll give some bullshit advice like drink more water or eat more fiber and then give up. He's not fat...he's an underweight young Korean American man who will listen to me one moment and in the next hour talk to a patient recovering from cancer then someone with another threatening illness. What if there were medical specialists whose full time job is figuring out why you're fat and how to best make you less fat?
I had an experience with an orthopedist for knee pain that was stellarly successful. I walked in, explained the pain, he ordered x-rays, examined me for 5 min, diagnosed the problem, and gave me physical therapy exercises to fix it. It was wonderful, my knee pain is gone and I know how to ensure it stays gone. Why? He's a specialist. He knows that he's doing and the science behind it is well established. What if there was a similar specialist team in every major hospital?
For many, the answer is eat less calories...for others, they may be hypothyroid and need treatment...some may respond well to medication. However, your PCP is no expert in dieting. He doesn't know which plans have higher success rates than others. He doesn't know and probably doesn't care why you're fat. There's a lot we don't know about metabolism...A LOT. There are a lot of underlying health concerns we don't know how to diagnose and people are left to guess for themselves...hence all these stupid diets out there. There aren't even qualified experts to help navigate the many diet options.
The gov could also help with data collection and fundamental research. Which diet plans work for whom? What supplements help vs just cost money? How much money would we save if we taught 30yo fat folk to lose weight?...vs waiting for the diabetes and heart disease in their 60s?
Finally you said "the solution is there if you fight hard enough for it" which is a common attitude and is fundamentally not wrong on a technical level...but quite short-sighted. If something "could" work, but rarely does...doesn't that suggest we should get a better understanding of why and what could work better? Theoretically anyone can do their taxes if they fight hard enough for it, but shouldn't we be working for tax reform and tax code simplification? Isn't it worth a bit of thought and effort to increase the chance of success when so much is on the line?...even if you find the people who fail to be lacking in character? I am of the view that obesity, like poverty, homelessness, and various other problems are my problem too...even if they don't impact my directly. I still get secondary effects from all of those issues and if they were successfully addressed, my life would improve.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen such a comment since Klerck