wading into the fat debate
Human societies around the world have a number of health problems. In 2015, one of our most pressing difficulties is maintaining our bodies at a size where they can function efficiently. Why is this happening? What is a sensible response? And does it really matter?
Why is this happening?
In simple terms, we’re eating too much of illogical yet desirable types of food, and we’re not moving in the ways that best benefit our structure.
Our free markets have found profitable ways to encourage us to eat more than we need, and to develop nutritionally insignificant foods that we crave. It’s easy to suggest we simply exercise self-control and common sense, but more difficult in the real world to follow such basic advice. We’re animals above all, and social animals at that. Our urge to eat is strong and can override other factors, and our joy in sharing food with others makes us successful pack animals.
Our living areas are designed to make places accessible by the default modes of transport – cars, buses, trains. This is progress. But we need to factor in how to get the daily minimum movement that our bodies require. I’ve never lived in a place that I can’t navigate on foot or by bike, and my minimum walk to work has always been half an hour – but most people have to use other forms of transport and don’t have a walking or biking option within their day. This is where the sometimes costly modern gym membership attempts to enter people’s lives, making exercise a luxury you pay for and work at, rather than a natural part of life itself.
What is a sensible response?
A sensible response is to encourage our governments to take wider action to help us make our lives as healthy as possible: sugar tax, basic food education in schools, clearly labelled foods, easily accessible walk and cycle ways. There needs to be more shaming of brands who market clearly unsuitable items for human consumption like the Costa Christmas drink that contains four times the daily advised limit of sugar – in one drink!
Does it really matter?
The UK is spending an estimated £47 billion a year on obesity related issues. Money alone is not just the issue, quality of life is obviously seriously affected. The USA needs to be especially alert to this issue, given that a huge market has been created around illogical treatments for obesity.
But most importantly of all, what matters within all this are the individuals. We can acknowledge there is a global problem that needs to be tackled, but the tendency to isolate or judge individuals based on their weight is simply illogical.
Beyond simple eating and basic exercise that may be superficially viewed as ‘choice’, there are myriad other factors that influence people’s weight. If you were breastfed in the first six months of your life, you are less likely to be obese in later life. If your mother or your grandmother faced food shortages at some point in their lives, you are more likely to be obese. Even so-called diet foods may be doing more to harm people than help them.
We can only just begin to understand and measure the effects that genetics, epigenetics and environment all have on our bodies. We need to stop obsessing about the weight of individuals and start positive, educational change to make a generally more healthy and informed society.
Small portions (of whatever you like) throughout the day, and have a dog (or better, dogs) to take for walks and runs.
LikeLike
It depends what you think a small portion is, and what you think ‘food’ is. Only eat stuff that came straight out the ground is another good idea, then you can eat as much as you’re body will allow you, and you’re unlikely to put on any excess weight. Dogs are definitely a help, anything that makes moving outside part of your daily routine.
LikeLike
It’s the eeevil capitalist who makes me eat like a pig.
And I need the saintly government to protect me from the eeevil the capitalist.
Who’s going to protect me from the saintly government?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you SOM. I hoped someone would say that.
I elect people to oversee and administer the details in life. They’re like my servants, if you will. I don’t have time to scrutinise every piece of research that potentially can make life better, but I know there are experts in a department for every major topic that affects my life, who have the time to do so, and make recommendations based on this.
It’s up to them, these public servants, to issue guidance based on these facts to ensure that society can run smoothly, with minimal disruption and inconvenience. Health costs relating to overconsumption of nonsense foodstuffs are an inconvenience that public servants should be prioritising.
I cannot help you with your paranoia, but if there’s anything about your food agency that makes you think they’re lying to you and Starbucks should be allowed to put arsenic or deadly levels of sugar in their drinks, you should consider becoming a politician to reclaim your freedom to be poisoned, or ignorantly made obese.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
You don’t elect anybody.
The majority is who elects.
And a majority who controls the minority is called the “tyranny of the majority.”
Tyranny is oppression which is immoral.
What is best is for you to mind your own business, stay skinny, and let the fatties eat to their hearts’ content.
LikeLike
That’s not a very Christian attitude SOM. If you’re loving your neighbour as yourself, you want them to have access to information that helps them understand real danger to their health and well-being. If you’re loving your neighbour, surely you want to keep manmade poison from the table of their children.
So if Starbucks did start adding, for example, low levels of arsenic to their drinks, would you expect your government to intervene with some legislation to protect people, or should we all mind our own business and let the customers drink to their hearts’ content? Imagine if the ‘tyranny of the majority’, in the form of elected representatives who help run our societies, actually had some benefits!
LikeLike
Violet,
Outsourcing our Christian duty of charity to the government is anything but Christian. It’s just pure lazy and wicked.
There is no comparison between a just, constitutionally limited government busting Star Bucks for poisoning its customers and all-powerful, tyrannical government managing everyone’s diet.
Additionally, my attitude toward government is totally Biblical.
1 Samuel 8 describes in stunning clarity the difference between your fantasy of government, and the reality of the cruel, blood sucking tyranny that your kind of government really is:
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1sa008.htm
But the Founding Fathers boiled it all down to one sentence which can be found in the Declaration of Independence:
“He (the King) has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people, and eat out their substance.
That’s your kind of government, Violet.
It takes more sucker blind religious faith to believe the way you do about government than it does to believe in Saint Mary’s perpetual virginity.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I’ve got it a lot better that you fear-mongering, gun-toting, healthcare-deprived US citizens. My life’s kind of peachy, and with the utter flexibility to pick up and start new anywhere I feel like it. You people are trapped in security pits – once you start your over-working job with no holidays, you’re in a state of fear you’ll lose it. Till you can retire, and then you need a gun to keep the government away from your porch. It must be a frightening existence. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
On this one occasion, I think I can understand the distrust SilenceOfMind is representing here. If I got it right, he is from the US, and their form of democracy is quite archaic, in the sense, that it is actually the “evil capitalist” who controlls the politics. They do not seem to have alternatives, other than to vote for people who are already owned by the various corporations. Such governments are really not interrested in protecting the people from marketting schemes by the very same corporations, that have funded these politicians.
The US citizens live in a setting wich inevitably leads their government not even interrested in interfering in even the strongest mind manipulation, that marketting often is. We are constantly sold “freedom” in the guise of automobiles and motorbikes. Those may provide a limited freedom, but from what? A limit to our mobility when society has not provided us cheaper, more social and less environmentally hazardous means of tarnsport. We are sold “nutrients”, “taste” and “time” in the guise of fast food. The hamburger meal for example plays tricks on our evolution, as it seems to us as if providing us with grease, sugar and salt. These things we grave, because they are not the most frequent nutrients in nature. We also appriciate the time saved by eating such, because the capitalist expects each and every one of us to provide our time to make his bank account grow and grow with exess of zeros to fill in for his emotional need of success.
The only interrested party, that has any political power in the US seems to be the insurance companies, that are infact not so much interrested to help the individual citizen, rather to minimize the harms for wich they have to pay any money while retaining people dependant on them. They do not represent any sort of democratic means for the people to influence their government… Such situation is bound to lead to some amount of paranoia against their government. Add insult to injury, the US is one of the mighty empires of the planet at the moment. Such empires have a lot of secret agencies and obscure laws that do not stand for human rights, instead they are designed to support the interrests of the corporations whose representatives their politicians in effect are, both abroad and internally. Within an empire it is difficult to see what happens outside and all citizens of all nations are also taught from early on that their country is the best by fiat of them having born into them, much like their cultures, and religions are the best by fiat of them having been born into those… What would be an objective method to evaluate such comparrisons, that would overstate the preassumed attitudes of superiority of the identity of the most ignorant and self-righteous individuals? The more intelligent we are, the better we are at reasoning why what we have pre-assumed is true, regardless of the evidence…
There is actually a very good example of how a government influenced by the scientific community can interfere to the benefit of the people in this issue, from Finland. It was called the “Pohjois-Karjala projekti”. It happened decades ago, but it was crucial in decreasing early deaths and overt obesity. The government funded a series of information “commercials” to counter the over use of salt and fat. At that point aroudn 1972 onwards here in Finland there were not many international corporations at work and we only had two government run TV channels, so the government information got the attention of the consumers and there was a strong raise in the health and decrease early deaths of the citizens all the way up to the 1997.
Is it not the job of the government to protect the interrest of the citizen? Is it not the job of the capitalist to make as much money disregarding any ethical issues in obtaining more money for the benefit of the shareholders? There are plenty of examples of more, or less democratic governments protecting the rights of the citizens. What sort of examples do we have of the capitalist to act in order to advance the rights and wellbeing of the citizens? Some individuals (like the famous atheist Bill Gates) handing out charity to their personal interrest issues?
Yes, we do have also plenty of examples of governments acting against the best interrest of the citizens, any people, or even humanity in general and often in those cases to benefit the interrests of the capitalist, or some other rich minority. But there seems to be a strong correlation between good government and functional democracy and high rates of education of the voters. Could there also be a causation? I think it is not far fetched…
LikeLike
I don’t throw out food. I think what I want to eat over the next few days, and buy for it. I buy lots of fruit because I like fruit.
I have lots of books I have not read, and it seems to me that I like to think of myself as the kind of person who would like to read that, but am not. Some people are like that with food.
Some people comfort eat. As an addiction, blogging is probably better, though you did say once “I smell and am very tired”. How will you cure us of our addictions and delusions?
LikeLike
One at a time. 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe instead of bombs, food and lifestyle habits will kill us and check the world population.
I think some of the diets people adopt are impossible to follow. They make the situation even worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree Ruth a sugar tax might well be needed. The big problem is that we are eating more energy than we need, it has to go somewhere. Sugar is high in energy but not in protein.
I am a big fan of lentils a real wonder food that actually tastes good. Lentil burgers have been a revelation to me.
LikeLike
Peter I know I like Ruth, but I didn’t talk about sugar tax 🙂 not that I disagree
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry i was caught out by the VW Reply button.
LikeLike
I didn’t get into diets in the post, it was long enough. All short term dietary changes to lose weight are a complete waste of time – I can’t understand why it’s such an industry. Eating food that is meant for humans and incorporating some form of exercise into our lives – that’s all people need to know in terms of diets. Everything else is wishful thinking so we can go back to the Pringles and deep fried dead animal.
LikeLike
Getting people to eat right and exercise is the real challenge.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not sure I buy into the government needing to “police” what we eat(i.e. a sugar tax). Adults do need to be more educated about the choices they make as regards food, though, so the requirement that even fast food establishments list nutritional information I’m fine with. I think if more people knew what they were actually consuming they might make different choices. Not every time, mind. Some might choose to indulge every so often instead of mindlessly on a daily basis. I do know a few people who are addicted to food and their chemistry has tricked them into thinking the pleasure they derive in the momentary indulgence is greater than any other feeling on earth. That’s up to the individual to deal with, of course with support from others, as with any addiction.
I drive to work. It’s twelve miles from where I live. I specifically picked a neighborhood conducive to walks and jogs.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure I buy into the government needing to “police” what we eat”
But they already do. What do you think the FDA is? Agencies like that protect us from poisons, and the over-consumption of sugar is essentially a poison. People can shove a bag of sugar in their home baking if they want, but why should it be legal to sell drinks that can exceed the normal daily maximum for human bodies by four times? I personally don’t want to walk around with a chart for comparison on every item of food I buy. When something is so ridiculously bad for human health, it should come with a warning at least.
The problem with sugar is that the levels have become so ridiculous in pre-prepared food that people have lost sight of what is ‘normal’, what is beyond useful and into seriously harmful for our bodies. And the same goes for so many of the over-processed foods we’ve become accustomed to eating. We have an over-abundance of foods in many societies today and we’ve completely lost track of how humans should eat, in relation to what our bodies can sensibly handle. I think we’re too far down the track to wind down without overarching intervention. Their are too many children growing up eating nothing but nonsense, and parents who seriously don’t know any better.
LikeLike
Violet,
The FDA polices what is produced and presented to the public.
That is exactly not the same as the FDA policing what we voluntarily purchase and consume.
LikeLike
China began to notice obesity in children within a few years of MacDonalds and Kentucky opening restaurants/takeaways in that country.
I imagine a similar scenario is prevalent in most countries.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely Ark! It’s far too easy to pick up a hamburger & fries or Kentucky-fried chicken for the family dinner.
And then people wonder why we have an obesity problem … SMH
LikeLike
I eat neither .so ….
But this isn’t to say obesity will not occur sans ether of these two ”foodstuffs”, I am merely pointing out a statistic.
Personally, if I was going to eat ”junk food” I would choose Fish n’ Chips.
At least one is relativity certain the fish is not ‘road kill’. 😉
LikeLike
That’s one of those fancy fallacy logic things. Fast food restaurants in China are part of a wider change in eating habits and more access to food in general. They came as a result of the change and aren’t the underlying cause, although clearly they contribute in all countries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lack of exercise, computers/computer games. All contributing factors.
LikeLike
Here, for sure. I’ve seen it in the time I’ve been here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Social Determinants of Health”, is what it’s called. There is a growing body of research and public health literature on the subject. The problem will become more prominent in the next few years as the morbidity and mortality statistics catch up to the burgeoning pathology. Dr. Otis Brawley has done quite a bit of work on the subject.
The fixes will be expensive (infrastructure reconfiguration) and uncomfortable (regulatory interference in the food industry), but will eventually be less costly than taking care of the casualties – unless, of course, the libertarians suddenly find the courage of their convictions and are willing to let uncle Jimmy simply die of his diabetes when he develops it.
I am not holding my breath on the last account, as the libertarians have consistently proven themselves to be a pack of sniveling little weaklings, especially when it comes to healthcare.
LikeLike
I just don’t understand where this fear of regulation comes from. I dislike bureaucracy and all things political, but I know that policy changes and regulation in areas like food are based on recommendations from experts, based on facts. Sure, things go wrong occasionally, high profile drug messes and whatever, but when it comes to what humans should be eating, and what we are eating now, it’s fairly obvious where the problems lie. What regulation could come into place that could curb our freedom in a damaging way? Pay extra for food that will give your kid diabetes? Ooooh, government interfering in my life!
LikeLike
Well, you have touched on two of the concerns. First, nutrition is far from a hard science. We can easily say when you are doing it wrong, but not so easily say when you are doing it right. You are looking at a lot of prohibitions, without much positive guidance, and some of the prohibitions will turn out to be ineffective.
Second, it would likely take a global lifestyle change to impact current trends. The regulatory interventions would have to be dramatic and there would be some false starts. People don’t like either big changes or failures.
I think public health workers have a lot of work to do. They should start by being honest about how painful a course correction would be.
LikeLike