As adult obesity balloons in the United States, being overweight has become less of a health hazard and more of a lifestyle choice, the author of a new book argues.
“Obesity is a natural extension of an advancing economy. As you become a First World economy and you get all these labor-saving devices and low-cost, easily accessible foods, people are going to eat more and exercise less,” health economist Eric Finkelstein told AFP.
In “The Fattening of America”, published this month, Finkelstein says that adult obesity more than doubled in the United States between 1960 and 2004, rising from 13 percent to around 33 percent.
Globally, only Saudi Arabia fares worse than the United States in terms of the percentage of adults with a severe weight problem — 35 percent of people in the oil-rich desert kingdom are classified as obese, the book says, citing data from the World Health Organization and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
It’s my life, not my lifestyle!
They keep narrowing the definition of obesity. Now if you have any flesh on your bones you are considered at the very least overweight. It is amusing that in a culture that endorses the most gross and obscene private sexual behavior can not tolerate anyone eating more than what is needed to keep the body functioning. The new Puritans are as hidebound as the old ones.
The juxtaposition of these two articles (this one and the one above) is striking.
Gluttony! It’s not just a lifestyle choice, it’s number 2 on the centuries old list of seven deadly sins.
Anthropology 101:
1) In a society where food is scarce, obesitiy will be seen as the ideal. We can see this in hunter-gatherer tribes who have left behind their ‘idols’ of fertility gods and goddesses — fat, well endowed images.
2) in a society where food is plentiful, thin will be in. We can see this in societies like Greece, where the gods and goddesses were sleek, athletic, THIN images.
Translate to the modern: During the depression, when food was almost a luxury, look at the women portrayed in the movies. They are plump, full figured women, such as Mae West. When society moved out of the depression, we saw movie stars slimming down, from Mae West to Marily Monroe and Sophia Loren.
It’s no different today. We have plenty of food, and so the socital ideal is overly thin. But this is the first time that the ideal is being legislated for all people!
Jim Elliott <>< (not at the ideal weight, by the way)
While I agree with much of what commenters have posted above, I feel compelled to note a couple of things:
(1) Lifestyle “choices” such as this have direct harmful effect on our health. Even being “somewhat” overweight without being obese will raise blood pressure, increase risk for cardiovascular or cerbrovasuclar health issues (heart attack and stroke, respectively), greatly increase risk for diabetes, and many other health effects.
(2) Our body is to be treated as God’s temple. What do you want God’s dwelling place to be like and look like? Our bodies are gifts from God; why would anyone who understands this want to abuse that gift?
“Being overweight has become less of a health hazard and more of a lifestyle choice”
As we know from other topics featured on T19, something becomes a “lifestyle choice” if enough people do it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“They keep narrowing the definition of obesity”
Not really. And current definitions of “overweight” are much more forgiving than the old “ideal weight” tables.
Shockingly, I agree with Irenaeus. The current weight tables are extremely kind and “generous” . . .
We’re abusing our bodies when we become obese, just as much as if we smoke a pack a day, in violation of scripture’s principles regarding the treatment of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
And yes, I certainly believe that gluttony is a “lifestyle choice”.
Unlike Irenaeus [I assume], I don’t believe that the government should pay for the consequences of our “lifestyle choices” and that includes many “natural” and early consequences of gluttony — diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, and so so much more.
At the risk of bursting some bubbles, I need to point out that the majority of morbidly obese people don’t eat much more than those of normal weight. As both a surgeon who cares for a lot of people with the consequences of obesity, and a person who, in order to maintain anything close to my ideal body weight (I still run a BMI of 23-25, 25 counting as overweight) must only consume about 1500 kcal/day, I can tell you that it’s not all related to gluttony. That being said, with a great deal more self restraint than the average person might be willing or able to exercise, people can have some control over their weight. It is, however, instructive to point out that bariatric surgery is the only medical intervention which has shown a statistically significant sustained weight loss in morbidly obese patients.
Obesity is a complex problem, with both physical and emotional dimensions, and hardly qualifies universally as a “lifestyle choice.” Some people are demonstrably born with a physical tendency to overweight, while others aren’t. As far as “gluttony” is concerned, it’s simply ridiculous to pidgeonhole people with this. While some people are overindulgent, not all people who struggle with weight issues eat fast food while lying down watching television. For some, weight issues are a frustrating, often heart-breaking, life-long struggle. Overweight people also face a lot of subtle discrimination, including lesser wages, higher prices for clothing, and the low esteem of others who automatically label them as gluttonous, lazy, stupid, etc. Add to that the physical frustrations that go with being overweight, and it would seem that most people would choose not to be overweight, “as a lifestyle choice.” But losing weight, and keeping it off permanently, are very difficult. If it were so simple as some of you make it out to be, we’d be a nation of anorectics.
RE: “But losing weight, and keeping it off permanently, are very difficult. If it were so simple as some of you make it out to be . . . ”
Hadn’t noticed anyone implying above that it’s simple to keep to a healthy weight.
Indeed I expect it’s much harder in these days of easy access to food and almost zero need for physical movement in work or travel, along with the constant barrage of “eat now” messages from the media and friends.
. . . Kind of like how hard it is to remain sexually pure if one is unmarried or gay.
Hard and certainly not “simple” — but necessary.
Doctors always think that they are so smart. My doctor says that even though I may think that I have some predispositions to obesity, that the root cause of weight gain is that I eat more calories than I burn off during the day. He warns me against modeling that behavior for my children.
When I lived in South Florida, our family physician was grossly overweight. A friend who also went to him, said that she’d asked him for a quick weight loss pill or to recommend one of the commercial ones. She said he looked at her, shook his head and said, “Betty, if those things worked, do you think I’d look like [i]this[/i]?”
As always, what is missing in many of these kinds of discussions, certainly those in the secular press but also elsewhere, is the Pauline appreciation of the bound will (e.g. in Romans 7). The two classic postures in every such debate are repeated: one side denies the existence of sin (the weight tables are wrong, the extra pounds have no relation to me overeating) and the other (in this case thinner) side Pharasaically condemns the sinners for failing to “just say no” to gluttony — why can’t they exercise their glorious Pelagian free will — why are they CHOOSING this?
The most poignant sentence in the whole article to my mind was
It’s the closest the article gets to a touching compassionate appreciation of the human problem of sin, which never gets “fixed” in this life, even for Christians. (See Article IX of the Thirty Nine Articles!)
Thank God that Christ Jesus is the Friend of Sinners, who’s love is showered especially upon the unrighteous, those unable to keep the law. Thank God for the comfortable words repeated in the old Anglican liturgies.
“. . . Kind of like how hard it is to remain sexually pure if one is unmarried or gay.
Hard and certainly not “simpleâ€â€”but necessary. ”
Glad to know the fact that my ability to exercise being limited by a disability is the same as if I decided to go out and rut with whatever stud muffing caught my eye. As others have pointed out it is not always true that overweight people are stalking the all you can eat buffetts and running amok in the Little Debbie factory. Oh and case you are worried that my 40 or so pounds of excess weight are eating up the public health dollar. I do not have high blood pressure ( it is higher than the norm for me because of medication I have to take) I do not have heart problems. I do not have diabetes or other obesity related illnesses. So you can put down the calorie tracker and dismiss the nice man hired to beat me should I ingest more the dailly allotment of calories for my sex, height and body type.
RE: “Glad to know the fact that my ability to exercise being limited by a disability is the same as if I decided to go out and rut with whatever stud muffing caught my eye.”
As I said no such thing, Paula, I can only assume that you simply made up something simply in order to have the pleasure of arguing against the thing which you made up.
I find it interesting that some [but not all] of those on this thread who recognize their own issues with indulgence in one area of the treatment of our bodies have no desire to have comparisons made with those who have issues in another area of the treatment of our bodies [sexual practice].
And yes — the wrongful desire to have sex with the same gender is rather similar to the wrongful desire to consume more calories than one burns off in a day. It’s very very very difficult to exercise discipline over one’s sexual desires for some, just as it is very very very difficult to exercise discipline over one’s food desires for others.
For the record, as I stated clearly above, I am utterly opposed to the government enforcing food discipline on its citizens. I think that we should be allowed to sin in that area, just as I believe that we should be allowed to sin in the area of sexual relations. I also do not think that the government should engage in societal blessing of either behavior.
And also for the record — I am certainly not at my ideal weight. I just want to acknowledge as sinful any time that I err in the consumption of food, just as I will acknowledge as sinful any time that I err in the consumption of other bodies through sexual relations outside of marriage. Both are sin.
I tend to fall in the former area.
Sarah,
What about gluttons in leadership positions in the church. I’ve seen the issue come up in the Southern Baptist church? The church seems to turn a blind eye toward this dangerous, deadly sin amongst it’s leadership ranks.
Sarah, You just caught me at a very bad time and I did overreact. For that I apologize. But I took your statement to mean you equated lack of sexual discipline with lack of diet discipline. I understand that all sins against the body of which gluttony is one, is a form of corruption. Since it takes what God has given us for our good and turns it into something base and profane. Both involve pleasing our senses and if we do not appreciate the gift God has given us we are too likely to fall into selfish indulgence.
I do not agree with your statement that the two are very similar. Yes as I said both involve a corruption of the good things God has given us. However, the wrong use of sex is a much more serious matter. Since it involves not only a corruption of a good but actually profanes what is sacred. I don’t know if you have a sacramental view of marriage but I would guess you understand it to be a great mystery reflecting Christ and His Church.
Food ( outside of consecrated bread and wine) as far as I am aware does not have any sacramental connotation. We do not consider it to be a reflection of a greater mystery. We do not demand that it be consumed only within certain relationships. We do not break with God’s law if we eat one type of food instead of another.
It is simply one of the many good things God created for our benefit. No more no less. Not to be abused and not to be idolized. But the simple eating of food is not a sin. Even when we overindulge from time to time. The sin is more in our attitude towards the food. When food becomes so important to us that we grow greedy, secretive and wasteful about it. Then we have gluttony and that is a sin. A skinny person may very well be a glutton.
With sex it does not matter if you believe the sex you are having is evidence of a loving committed relationship. That it expresses the mutual affection and regard you have for each other. If it is outside of marriage it is a sin. You don’t even have to overindulge. I don’t remember the Bible verse but St Paul says that when a man joins his body with that of a prostitute they become part of each other ( I am parphrasing so forgive me if I wobble here) he does not say if you do it 10 times or 20. No just one time is enough to make yourself a harlot.
So yeah I have a hard time equating gluttony and promiscuity in anything but a narrow way.
Sarah. I meant to say “I do not agree with your statement that the two are rather similar.” I also am not sure if rather means closer than not in similarity or somewhat similar.
“I am not overweight. The word `glory’ in Hebrew is kabod which
according to HALOT literally means `heaviness.’ The Bible also says
that we are to reflect God’s glory. Therefore, I am just doing what
the Bible says.”