Regardless, getting angry isn’t the answer, said [Dr. Reed] Tuckson, who cautions against demonizing heavy people.
“Not only is getting angry mean-spirited and antithetical to the kind of society we want to live in, but it’s also counterproductive,” Tuckson said. “We need to convert our concern into positive action and find ways to support individuals to make better choices.”
He believes that reducing the incidence of obesity and its related health costs will require changes on four levels:
* Individuals need to be more accountable for their choices — and that includes what they put in their bodies.
* Families must be responsible for what they feed their children, with parents acting as role models for healthful diet and exercise habits and schools providing proper choices.
* Community institutions, including the workplace, must take a more active role in what foods are served and offer a healthy culture, wellness programs and financial incentives to encourage more healthful behaviors.
* Better research is needed so we can know what works and doesn’t. “Healthcare decisions are made by individuals but in the context of families and the community,” Tuckson said. “That context has to change.”
Odd. Not one of them said the medical community has to change and, from what I’ve seen, that’s a big part of the problem. Many doctors will treat patients for their obesity-related maladies — from diabetes to joint problems — without having a serious discussion with them about their weight problem. I have a few friends who are obese and I’ve broached the subject with them (delicately). They defend themselves by saying their doctor is treating their health problems and told them nothing about diet and exercise. One of them even had a doc write her a prescription for an electric scooter!
I’m a normal weight and my rheumatologist gave me a stern lecture years ago about how it’s imperative that I stay a normal weight despite having to take prednisone at times. OK, I agree — but why aren’t they addressing those who DO have weight problems? I asked my internist that question and she looked sheepish. She said it’s a very difficult conversation to have and many people become irate and won’t go back to their doctors.
I’d imagine it is difficult. But more difficult than writing a prescription for a scooter for a 48-year-old woman who is so big she can’t walk and not doing anything to address the obesity?
The simple answer, quite bluntly, is that overweight people are to blame for consuming more Calories than they burn off in daily activity.
The question behind the question is Why?
My technical background is in soil chemistry and the bio-availability of consumed nutrients. Four legs, not two, but I suspect the overall picture is quite similar. Let’s take a couple of examples.
The average magnesium content of lettuce in 1914 was 112 mg per 100 grams. By 1948 it was down to 31 mg, and is currently under 10 mg. For cabbage, it was 66 mg, 29 mg, and 15 mg. Iron, manganese, copper, zinc, phosphorus and calcium all display depressingly similar trends.
The introduction of chemical fertilizers is often (incorrectly) blamed for this trend, which has been well established since long before any sort of widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers. But what happened after WWI that might have affected crop nutrient levels?
How about the automobile? All through the 1920s horses went to the glue factory in droves, and as a result there was no longer a supply of horse manure to be applied on surrounding vegetable farms. Mineral levels in produce collapsed.
Obesity? As long as basic energy needs are met, mammalian and avian bodies hunger for [i]nutrients[/i], in particular minerals. People eat more and more in a futile attempt to procure the minerals that haven’t been there for almost a century since Ole Dobbin disappeared as the most common form of transportation.
Until we address the phenomenon of mineral-starved fat people we shall get precisely nowhere. I personally have produced (consistently) a wide range of produce with mineral levels greatly exceeding that prevailing a century ago. Unfortunately, as long as our federal government persists in its misguided and politically-driven subsidy of corn, fat, and the resultant processed foods, the prospects for improvement are grim.
One vignette to illustrate the magnitude of the problem: I have repeatedly encountered youngish parents purchasing some sort of “orange freeze” product for their children, often by the case. The standard product consists of 100 grams of water, some high-fructose corn syrup, artificial color and artificial flavor. Cost: 69 cents each. Mineral content: zero.
Those same parents walk right past luscious navel oranges containing at least 100 grams of real fruit, loads of Vitamin C, and reasonable levels of minerals. Cost: 50 cents.
I am technically capable of solving the agronomic problem. The cultural problem is another story. Until we solve the second, it matters not what we do in regard to the first.
I blame the Cookie Monster.
Although it is not healthy, I think some people used tobacco in the past to control their weight and that is part of the phenomenon.
I don’t think it’s that difficult to figure out. It’s a simple matter of price being adjusted to create sufficient demand to purchase total supply.
In this country we produce food (and “food products”) which greatly exceed the optimal caloric intake of the whole population. Companies continue to find ways to process foods to use this surplus. Cranberries are a perfect example. A little-used fairly bitter fruit which was primarily only consumed once a year during Thanksgiving is now the basis for a wide range of year-round products — thanks to the addition of cheap sugar via corn. Even at my mom’s assisted living facility they have a little “nutrition station” where you can get either apple, orange, or (highly sugared, of course) cranberry juice.
So there are 300 million Americans and you’ve got (300 million) x (let’s say 3,000) calories of food being produced daily. So everybody’s got to consume around 3,000 calories daily for all the product to be sold and the companies to make money. Therefore — basic economics, nothing mysterious — producers are going to lower prices and use advertising and other techniques to make their products as attractive as possible. And we know that, in all cultures, the addition of salt, sugar, and fat, makes foods more desirable. So you’ve now got a ton of very salty very sugary very fat food being sold at an incredibly low price.
In the “old days” food was expensive and was one of the major expenses of life. Hence we refer to the major income earner in a family as the “breadwinner” or we say “he’s working to feed his family, to put bread on the table” etc. etc. But in fact, its a MINOR (and increasingly) so expense of life now. JUST since 1970 the percent of average income consumed by food fell from 14% to less than 10%. The stuff is cheap, its ubiquitous, it’s advertised relentlessly, it’s extremely high in calories — and we all have a strong physiological craving for it. It does not take a genius to figure out where this leads.
And the government pyramid is also to blame – high in carbs and low in fats and protein. Simple carbs are addictive – sugar and white flour; the more we eat, the more we want. And excess of them turns to fat quicker than anything with more fiber or that requires more digestion. Low fat diets only leave us hungry, so we eat more carbs, when a little more fat would fill us up so we don’t eat so much. Also, exercise – TV in every house – government even delayed the digital conversion date to ensure everyone could continue to watch TV. How many hours a day is enough? PE no longer in schools. Work is too many hours, so no one exercises after or before. Emotional loneliness and pain – we salve ourselves with easy tasty (bad for us) food. Our whole life-style is the problem – not just eating more calories than we use up (though that is the obvious immediate problem).
“Individuals need to be more accountable for their choices…”
Accountable to who?
“Families must be responsible for what they feed their children…”
Responsible to who?
“Healthcare decisions are made by individuals but in the context of families and the community,” Tuckson said. “That context has to change.”
How is the context of families and commuities where decisions are made to be changed?
BTW, people that are [i]over[/i] the “ideal weight” live longer than those that are at “ideal weight”. So, who is defining the ideal? Why do some people want heavy set people to live short lives? Who died and made them boss?
Literally, for decades now, study after study from around the world comes to this conclusion, yet there is persistent (willful) disregard to the established fact that people above the “ideal weight” live years longer than those that are at the alleged ideal. If you are going to lose 2-7 years of your lifespan by being at the supposed ideal…what does that say about how healthy the “ideal weight” is? Is it ideal simply because it fits the visual image that some call healthy…despite costing folks years of their lives? Seriously, why should heavy people be made to feel guilty for a characteristic that adds years to their lives?
Furthermore, does anyone really want the “food police” bursting into their kitchens? Do you really want to use the coercive power of government taxation to attempt to force people to lose weight…only to cause them to lose years off their lifespans? What is the point of that exercise? Doesn’t the government have enough control over our lives without this sort of thing?
[b]Study: Overweight People Live Longer[/b]
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20090625/study-overweight-people-live-longer
[b]’Overweight’ people live longer than those of ‘ideal’ weight[/b]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/24/overweight_live_longer/
[b] Elderly Overweight People Live Longer Lives : dBTechno[/b]
http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2010/01/29/elderly-overweight-people-live-longer-lives/
[b]Stay fat and live longer – survey casts doubt on dieting – Times[/b]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article537571.ece
[b]Why those fat thighs may help you live longer | Reuters[/b]
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B4H920100112
[b]Fat people live longer! – Health & Fitness – Life – The Times of India[/b]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/health-fitness/Fat-people-live-longer-/articleshow/4676090.cms
BTW, are those advocating that over “ideal weight” “Individuals need to be more accountable for their choices” taking this same tack with men having sex with men? The MSM STD rate is appalling!
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHHSTP/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
[blockquote]An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.94 The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.95 http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#17 [/blockquote]
Are these folks going to advocate for increased taxation of the MSM sub-group, higher insurance rates, or changing the “context” of their decisions about sexual practices?
What about single people in general? They don’t live as long as married people. Should they pay higher insurance premiums?
[b]Married People Live Longer – ABC News[/b]
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2298049
What about people that don’t have pets? They don’t live as long as people with pets. Should they be coerced to start owning a pet? Should their insurance premiums be higher?
[b]People with pets healthier and live longer – The China Post[/b]
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/other/2009/03/17/200502/People-with.htm
What about people that don’t go to Church? They don’t live as long as those that do. Should they be coerced into going to Church? Should they pay higher insurance premiums?
[b]Churchgoing correlated to longevity – Washington Times[/b]
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/03/20060403-103809-9183r/
So, is this health concern for over “ideal weight” people specific to them or are the shorter lifespans of the groups I just mentioned also generating the same level of concern? In other words…is this just bias against people that don’t [i]look[/i] like they are healthy?