Obesity Catch-All

OG_slinger wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Exactly. And I would argue #2 probably has a much stronger influence over a majority of people's actions than most people probably realize.

Doubly so because research is coming to light that shows that "willpower" is a finite resource and that the mere act of making a decision drains that reserve.

That might not have mattered much in the day when you could have any color of Model T you wanted just as long as it was black, but it certainly matters today when businesses introduce some 20,000 new products a month.

Hey OG, I'm curious about this - does this mean everyone has a certain level of willpower and it doesn't matter if you test it every day? Or do you get mentally stronger and adapt if you test your willpower regularly?

Sorry to skim but I have a crapload of things to read already : s

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

And though I have continually agreed that we, as a society, need to do more (including all of the things you mentioned plus reintroducing physical education into public school curricula and school nutrition programs that are not farmed out to for profit providers that kick money back), I still insist that the responsibility of the individual is to exert his/her choice as effectively as he/she can -- not to point at the environment or circumstance as the reason for failure.

I live in under very similar circumstances to the folks around me and, trust me, the reason I am in shape is not because I won some kind of genetic lottery.

OK, let me change tacks.

Do you think poor people are poor primarily because they are lazy and make bad decisions or they are poor primarily because of societal factors?

There is a point where environment and circumstances overwhelms anything personal responsibility can do. Yes, there are exceptions, there are the Horatio Alger stories. But those don't change the overall statistics that if you are born poor, you're very likely to remain poor because the deck has been stacked against you.

I'm not focusing on environmental factors to provide an excuse for people being fat like you seem to think I am. I'm focusing on environmental factors because those are the things that need to be addressed through public policy if we as a society want to mitigate the costs of obesity and even reduce the levels of obesity. Saying that people should try harder or have more self discipline isn't a real solution.

I think there are a number of factors that contribute to poverty and, much like health, the factors appear to be more difficult to overcome now than in times past.

That said, the idea that someone who wishes not to be poor would simply toss up their hands and say "it is my fate" or, worse, to make public their resentment of folks who actually did work their ways out of poverty as "sell outs" or "lucky" is not just a cop out, it is reprehensible and an example of moral cowardice. That individual is right to state that factors make things difficult, but not putting in the work (or worse, putting up obstacles to those that do in order to feel better about himself) is not tolerable behavior and should be responded to with a swift kick in the rhetorical nuts.

I have all too often seen this behavior in my experience in inner city Baltimore. And I see even more of it from unhealthy people that have given up on their efforts to attain health. And if you let these folks continue to drag you down with their talk of how you can achieve nothing, you will absolutely get what you get.

There are studies that show willpower is finite, like a muscle. And, like a muscle, it can be strengthened or fatigued.

See also "acting white", "talking smart", and "tall poppy syndrome".

Groups of humans want to pressure outliers to conform. It's bullsh*t, but it's also pervasive in every way. Standing up to majority pressure, whether it's a bunch of thin people who want to point out you're fat, a bunch of fat people who don't want you to lose weight, a bunch of standard-american-dieters who want to give you a hard time about your veggie burger, a bunch of vegans telling you you're polluting the temple of your body with meat, smokers, non-smokers, whatever, people collectively are likely to create tidal waves of social pressure for anyone who is doing something differently.

It takes gonads to stand up to that, in any iteration. Like Certis said, a lot of people get uncomfortable when that mirror is held up in front of them, and want to "fix" it.

Mex wrote:

Hey OG, I'm curious about this - does this mean everyone has a certain level of willpower and it doesn't matter if you test it every day? Or do you get mentally stronger and adapt if you test your willpower regularly?

Sorry to skim but I have a crapload of things to read already : s

The experiments didn't cover anything like that.

Instead, they tested the hypothesis that our ability for self-control or self-regulation shares a common mental resource pool with the executive functions of our brain, the parts we use for reasoning, decision making, problem solving, planning, etc. They showed that self-control/self-regulation decreased after participants had to make decisions.

Basically, the more you have to think and make decisions, the less energy you have to either do things you don't want to do--such as exercise or make a healthy meal in the context of this thread--or to resist the things you want to do, but probably shouldn't--such as order an extra large meat lovers pizza for dinner.

The experiments tested this by having the subjects make a series of decisions and then do a task that required self-control, such as seeing how much of a nasty tasting liquid the subject could drink or how long they could withstand the pain of submerging their arm in ice water. The result was that making decisions did impact the subjects' ability to exert self-control.

The studies didn't examine the idea that you could improve your willpower. Mainly that's because they're really trying to figure out what willpower actually is.

Paleocon wrote:

I still insist that the responsibility of the individual is to exert his/her choice as effectively as he/she can -- not to point at the environment or circumstance as the reason for failure.

But doesn't "Personal Responsibility" in question here require the person to have a certain level of education? Doesn't it require access to food that is healthy and time to do exercise? Lots of cheap foods tend to be very unhealthy for you, yet most of the population can't go buy lots of organic vegetables and make good whole foods. Sometimes Mac and Cheese is what you have to eat. And if you are stuck working 12 hours a day sitting down in front of a computer, then go home and have to spend time with your kids, exercise time gets hard to find.

I know using McDonalds is probably a bad example, but this kind of thing happens everywhere. When you go buy a chicken wrap from McDonalds with a small french fry side. They use a sugar/salt combination in the frys. The sugar gets you addicted to the frys while the salt makes you thirsty. Since you are thirsty, you feel you need something to drink. So now you are adding a soda to your meal. This is all at a subconscious level. It is this that is the biggest problem in our society today, and what I see as the reason for failure (before personal responsibility). We as a society are so obsessed on making an extra buck that we try to get people to eat more without them realizing it. It is a giant scam.

Take Cocacola for example. Originally they used cocaine to get people addicted, now they use caffeine. Does the caffeine make the soda taste better? Not really (if anything it make it more bitter). We need to change how our society works if we want to make a dent in this problem. Putting it on the person won't work as the cards will always be stacked against them.

There's an awesome book someone linked in these forums that talks about how all the big trash food companies got together in the 80's and decided to increase sugar levels to get customers addicted, and a bunch of other great information about that industry. I forget the name >: ( since I only read an excerpt, but it had a huge dorito on the cover, I need to find that again.

OG_slinger wrote:

The experiments didn't cover anything like that.

Instead, they tested the hypothesis that our ability for self-control or self-regulation shares a common mental resource pool with the executive functions of our brain, the parts we use for reasoning, decision making, problem solving, planning, etc. They showed that self-control/self-regulation decreased after participants had to make decisions.

Basically, the more you have to think and make decisions, the less energy you have to either do things you don't want to do--such as exercise or make a healthy meal in the context of this thread--or to resist the things you want to do, but probably shouldn't--such as order an extra large meat lovers pizza for dinner.

The experiments tested this by having the subjects make a series of decisions and then do a task that required self-control, such as seeing how much of a nasty tasting liquid the subject could drink or how long they could withstand the pain of submerging their arm in ice water. The result was that making decisions did impact the subjects' ability to exert self-control.

The studies didn't examine the idea that you could improve your willpower. Mainly that's because they're really trying to figure out what willpower actually is.

Allright, that makes sense, it seems obvious that when you're tired you want to gorge on food.

kazar wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I still insist that the responsibility of the individual is to exert his/her choice as effectively as he/she can -- not to point at the environment or circumstance as the reason for failure.

But doesn't "Personal Responsibility" in question here require the person to have a certain level of education? Doesn't it require access to food that is healthy and time to do exercise? Lots of cheap foods tend to be very unhealthy for you, yet most of the population can't go buy lots of organic vegetables and make good whole foods. Sometimes Mac and Cheese is what you have to eat. And if you are stuck working 12 hours a day sitting down in front of a computer, then go home and have to spend time with your kids, exercise time gets hard to find.

I know using McDonalds is probably a bad example, but this kind of thing happens everywhere. When you go buy a chicken wrap from McDonalds with a small french fry side. They use a sugar/salt combination in the frys. The sugar gets you addicted to the frys while the salt makes you thirsty. Since you are thirsty, you feel you need something to drink. So now you are adding a soda to your meal. This is all at a subconscious level. It is this that is the biggest problem in our society today, and what I see as the reason for failure (before personal responsibility). We as a society are so obsessed on making an extra buck that we try to get people to eat more without them realizing it. It is a giant scam.

Take Cocacola for example. Originally they used cocaine to get people addicted, now they use caffeine. Does the caffeine make the soda taste better? Not really (if anything it make it more bitter). We need to change how our society works if we want to make a dent in this problem. Putting it on the person won't work as the cards will always be stacked against them.

Those circumstances describe exactly no one at my office and I suspect that the number of people we, as a community, collectively know that are not aware of the effects of bad food choices is along the order of purple female unicorns. Perhaps some folks are completely ignorant regarding food choices, but I, honestly, don't know any. As others above have mentioned, it is not lack of knowledge that prevents them from doing the right thing for them. Nor, in most cases, is it lack of proper access or resources. These are not the issues that folks who have the disposable income and leisure time to belong to a group called Gamers With Jobs generally deal with.

Also consider that when someone is low income, they're going to get into the habit of eating high-calorie foods. Why? Because they're cheap. Because caloric density is important when you're just trying to survive. Because the first thing you have to prioritize is getting enough to eat—eating the right things comes in a distant second. Bread? Pasta? Cheese? Peanut butter? Beans? Rice? These are all calorie-dense foods, and they're also reasonably cheap foods. They don't necessarily make you feel satisfied, but at least they give you the energy you need to be able to work your two jobs tomorrow. When you're feeling a bit flush and want to celebrate? Get some occasional fried food and the like as treats (even higher caloric density, still pretty cheap, tasty).

So you move up from cheap energy-providing food to cheap energy-providing good-tasting food. This improves your quality of life a good amount, as you're no longer surviving on a diet of the same pasta and peanut butter sandwiches ever day.

More nutritious food takes a lot more effort to procure. It costs more, it takes more effort to prepare, it's also not what you're used to eating. If you prepare it wrong, it tastes kind of crappy. If you don't have time to prepare it, it doesn't keep, and it's wasted.

It's worthwhile, but from the position of trying to get enough food to fill your stomach that also tastes good, it's an incredible luxury.

So food insecurity (often from income insecurity) is also a thing that puts people in situations where they're eating more calories than they need.

Mex wrote:

There's an awesome book someone linked in these forums that talks about how all the big trash food companies got together in the 80's and decided to increase sugar levels to get customers addicted, and a bunch of other great information about that industry. I forget the name >: ( since I only read an excerpt, but it had a huge dorito on the cover, I need to find that again.

How the Processed Junk Food Giants Have Us Hooked

One in three adults are clinically obese. The reason? Selling foods laden with sugar, salt and fat is incredibly lucrative.

OMG you're a wizard, Edwin : D

Yeah that's the one, I guess I remembered the image on the NYTimes extract: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/ma...

Still need to read it but as I said I'm not moving very fast through my reading list : s

These are not the issues that folks who have the disposable income and leisure time to belong to a group called Gamers With Jobs generally deal with.

Assume much?

Paleocon wrote:

Those circumstances describe exactly no one at my office and I suspect that the number of people we, as a community, collectively know that are not aware of the effects of bad food choices is along the order of purple female unicorns. Perhaps some folks are completely ignorant regarding food choices, but I, honestly, don't know any. As others above have mentioned, it is not lack of knowledge that prevents them from doing the right thing for them. Nor, in most cases, is it lack of proper access or resources. These are not the issues that folks who have the disposable income and leisure time to belong to a group called Gamers With Jobs generally deal with.

For the people you are refering to, a lot of the bad food choices start as a teenager. My weight gain problem started when I got my first job at 17. I started eating when I was hungry instead of when my parents fed me and while I knew the obvious when it came to eating healthy, the fact is, I didn't have a lot of money and being young, I was naive. I ate fast food on a regular basis and snacked on candy whenever I could. I used to drink around 4L of Mountain Dew a day (I didn't know how bad it really was). Now I am more responsible, but the damage is done. My body's metabolism is shot and I find most good foods to taste bad (being addicted to bad foods). I have to fight every time I go on a diet and I usually can only last so long before I work my way back to the foods that I enjoy.

So even if people eventually get into a position where they are financially capable of eating healthy and have time for exercise (which cuts into video game time), sometimes their story of what got them where they are, goes back much further than you can see. The cards are stacked against human kind right now (at least in US society, though the rest of the world is catching up). I am not giving up, but I agree with OG, things have to change. Not all people are strong willed or knowledgable enough to do what needs to be done to stay healthy, and the system isn't helping in that regard.

My weight problems started when the following things happened.

- I was working almost full time while going through college
- I was dirt poor
- I worked at a pizza place

The availability of free, calorie-dense food was necessary for me to have the energy to work, make money and pay for my education. Never mind to have the energy to study and go to class on 4 - 6 hours of sleep every day. It was a bad habit, though, that absolutely set me up for problems later in life. It didn't help that since my parents were poor this diet was firmly nestled into what I knew as a kid.

Also, on the issue of the 5k from pages ago... I like these arbitrary lines in the sand. My wife did the Ironman 3 times. And she was still a little overweight, even if her fitness was amazing. Ipso facto, anyone who hasn't done an Ironman isn't fit. That's just logic.

kazar - It may be hard but don't give up on your metabolism always being "shot". It is a long term thing. Don't diet. Just eat healthy and when you are hungry, exercise everyday, at least a 1 hour walk, and realize fasting during the a part of the day won't hurt you. Soon you will see results. Realize it took a long time to get to where you are now. It will take a long time to turn your slow metabolism around.

People think they are knowledgeable, but I learn something new everyday.

DSGamer wrote:

Also, on the issue of the 5k from pages ago... I like these arbitrary lines in the sand. My wife did the Ironman 3 times. And she was still a little overweight, even if her fitness was amazing. Ipso facto, anyone who hasn't done an Ironman isn't fit. That's just logic. :)

She may be overweight but I bet she is not obese.

There is a difference between overweight and obesity. Don't confuse the two.

DSGamer wrote:

Also, on the issue of the 5k from pages ago... I like these arbitrary lines in the sand. My wife did the Ironman 3 times. And she was still a little overweight, even if her fitness was amazing. Ipso facto, anyone who hasn't done an Ironman isn't fit. That's just logic. :)

What a weird argument. First, you are agreeing with me that weight doesn't always indicate fitness. Second, no sh*t it's arbitrary. It's not like I'm the world's judge on fitness. Third, I explained my reasoning that a 5k is around 30 minutes of straight activity. Most people would find that reasonable and achievable. An Ironman is around 12-16 hours of straight activity. Your logic is poor :P.

Just because you have disposable income at the moment doesn't mean you got there without having habits and taste shaped by being poor and time-crunched. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most people with jobs and family are time-crunched. Certainly, anyone with a job and has to care for kids absolutely is. Demanding time for research, special market-shopping effort, and requiring you to work out rather than just work at your job to stay fit is more than a lot of people can keep doing.

As for lack of knowledge, we have had people here insisting on very damaging nutritional myths such as "a calorie is a calorie," and applying physics laws to biological problems. This suggests widespread and deeply entrenched misinformation.

cheeba wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Also, on the issue of the 5k from pages ago... I like these arbitrary lines in the sand. My wife did the Ironman 3 times. And she was still a little overweight, even if her fitness was amazing. Ipso facto, anyone who hasn't done an Ironman isn't fit. That's just logic. :)

What a weird argument. First, you are agreeing with me that weight doesn't always indicate fitness. Second, no sh*t it's arbitrary. It's not like I'm the world's judge on fitness. Third, I explained my reasoning that a 5k is around 30 minutes of straight activity. Most people would find that reasonable and achievable. An Ironman is around 12-16 hours of straight activity. Your logic is poor :P.

IMAGE(http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/105933d1318406142-fuji-evil-pro-thats-joke-1305040347784.jpg)

kazar wrote:

And if you are stuck working 12 hours a day sitting down in front of a computer, then go home and have to spend time with your kids, exercise time gets hard to find.

As someone who is stuck inside a factory almost 11 hours a day, I have to call BS on that. Integrating one's kids into the exercise period or doing it after they're in bed are two easy ways. The truth is that people usually find the time to do what's important to them, the "Can't find the time" excuse is a poor one for 99% of people.

A quick point on the fat shaming study, I dismissed it entirely because it disagrees with reality. Fat shaming is at a low compared to decades past and yet obesity is at a high, to me that doesn't correlate to fat shaming contributing to obesity.

CannibalCrowley:

Post an hourly schedule of your daily life including 11 hours of factory work, commute, study time with kids, and chores. At least 7 hours of sleep and 1 hour of commute must be included. In keeping with our site, at least 1 hour of gaming must also be included. Your allotted time for kids, exercise, and various household chores is 4 hours.

If you have labor-saving devices, please indicate where used. Also, you must allot time for various unavoidable social obligations and time spent on the internet for message board activity.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
kazar wrote:

And if you are stuck working 12 hours a day sitting down in front of a computer, then go home and have to spend time with your kids, exercise time gets hard to find.

As someone who is stuck inside a factory almost 11 hours a day, I have to call BS on that. Integrating one's kids into the exercise period or doing it after they're in bed are two easy ways. The truth is that people usually find the time to do what's important to them, the "Can't find the time" excuse is a poor one for 99% of people.

A quick point on the fat shaming study, I dismissed it entirely because it disagrees with reality. Fat shaming is at a low compared to decades past and yet obesity is at a high, to me that doesn't correlate to fat shaming contributing to obesity.

"I can't find the time" is usually shorthand for "I don't have the time it'd require to meet your acceptable level of personal fitness and still be able to do the things that I enjoy as well." It's also why people don't have a degree in every subject they find interesting, don't volunteer for every charity they like, haven't learned every craft they'd like to, haven't read/watched/played every book/tv show/movie/game they own, and aren't working several jobs at once so they can retire much earlier than they would otherwise. People only have so much free time and ambition, and the level of judging that goes on when someone doesn't prioritize their weight and fitness at the same level is where the fat shaming comes in. Whether it's the obvious fat shaming or the "concern" complete strangers have for your health, it's still someone attempting to get you to change something about you that they don't like.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make, Stengah. Every person on the planet only has 24 hours in every day, and in addition, a certain portion of that time for most people is wasted on various things - waiting for late friends, waiting for late colleagues, unexpected traffic, unexpected damages in household appliances and transportation, and so on. Citing "sedentary work" as a factor in the growing prevalence in obesity involves a lot of factors - obligating people to exercise outside of work and other life activities, as well as sapping willpower, requiring separate education, equipment, payment, and blocks of time. It is a remarkably potent lifestyle factor.

Citing "personal responsibility" is the same thing as saying "only me and people like me deserve to be healthy, because we made better choices, and because most people enjoy the same privileges I do."

Stengah wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:
kazar wrote:

And if you are stuck working 12 hours a day sitting down in front of a computer, then go home and have to spend time with your kids, exercise time gets hard to find.

As someone who is stuck inside a factory almost 11 hours a day, I have to call BS on that. Integrating one's kids into the exercise period or doing it after they're in bed are two easy ways. The truth is that people usually find the time to do what's important to them, the "Can't find the time" excuse is a poor one for 99% of people.

A quick point on the fat shaming study, I dismissed it entirely because it disagrees with reality. Fat shaming is at a low compared to decades past and yet obesity is at a high, to me that doesn't correlate to fat shaming contributing to obesity.

"I can't find the time" is usually shorthand for "I don't have the time it'd require to meet your acceptable level of personal fitness and still be able to do the things that I enjoy as well." It's also why people don't have a degree in every subject they find interesting, don't volunteer for every charity they like, haven't learned every craft they'd like to, haven't read/watched/played every book/tv show/movie/game they own, and aren't working several jobs at once so they can retire much earlier than they would otherwise. People only have so much free time and ambition, and the level of judging that goes on when someone doesn't prioritize their weight and fitness at the same level is where the fat shaming comes in. Whether it's the obvious fat shaming or the "concern" complete strangers have for your health, it's still someone attempting to get you to change something about you that they don't like.

And once again, if folks have reached acceptance with their own body weight, I am certainly not one to judge. But if folks complain that they can't lose weight despite the desire and spend time in front of the television instead of going out for leisurely walks, that's on them and not the corn syrup industry, urban planners, or fast food restaurants.

And the evidence shows that the average American has enough time for 34 hours of that a week.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...

I'd also add that making time for exercise greatly improves my productivity. I'm pretty sure it improves my mental acuity as well, but I'm open to the possibility that might just be the lightheadedness I feel ;).

Paleocon:

And once again, if folks have reached acceptance with their own body weight, I am certainly not one to judge. But if folks complain that they can't lose weight despite the desire and spend time in front of the television instead of going out for leisurely walks, that's on them and not the corn syrup industry, urban planners, or fast food restaurants.

I think that's a little on urban planners, and a lot on TV ads and general American cultural expectations. You can't take enjoyable, leisurely walks when you live in a dangerous neighborhood where there's nowhere worthwhile to walk, and it punishes you again at the watercooler when everyone's talking about the latest news or shows and you have no idea what everyone else is talking about.

Paleocon wrote:

And once again, if folks have reached acceptance with their own body weight, I am certainly not one to judge. But if folks complain that they can't lose weight despite the desire and spend time in front of the television instead of going out for leisurely walks, that's on them and not the corn syrup industry, urban planners, or fast food restaurants.

There's a difference between wanting to lose weight and wanting to spend 25%+ of their spare time exercising. If we're saying an hour a day (including warming up, showering afterwards, and actually getting to and from whatever activity we're talking about), that's about a quarter of the time that I have on any given day after work/commute/supper/6.5 hrs of sleep. That's not trivial.

EDIT: Oh, and you go for an hour-long "leisurely walk" when it's pitch black and -20C.

Half hour every other day is enough for significant gains in fitness. Don't need to warm up for running. Run before you'd take a shower anyways and that time is negated. You should hopefully be able to plan a route from your home and back.

sh*t if people really wanted to shave off some time, there are some High Intensity Interval Training regiments that can be done in 10 minutes and work you out at least as hard if not harder than running 30 minutes. Though in the interest of full disclosure I must say those workouts beat the hell out of me and make me wish for death.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

And once again, if folks have reached acceptance with their own body weight, I am certainly not one to judge. But if folks complain that they can't lose weight despite the desire and spend time in front of the television instead of going out for leisurely walks, that's on them and not the corn syrup industry, urban planners, or fast food restaurants.

There's a difference between wanting to lose weight and wanting to spend 25%+ of their spare time exercising. If we're saying an hour a day (including warming up, showering afterwards, and actually getting to and from whatever activity we're talking about), that's about a quarter of the time that I have on any given day after work/commute/supper/6.5 hrs of sleep. That's not trivial.

EDIT: Oh, and you go for an hour-long "leisurely walk" when it's pitch black and -20C.

These are not reasons. These are excuses.

I believe this is where you lose most of us, Paleocon. Those are not excuses. Those are actual reasons. As in, I value continuing to live rather than exercising in pitch darkness in a dangerous neighborhood at -20C. You can call that a difference in priorities, if you like, but excuses sounds too much like fat shaming, if you ask me.

I mean, by the same token, a busy parent prioritizing their children's education over exercise is also making excuses. If that's an excuse, I can list dozens and dozens of excuses.

I think what most people mean when they say "I want to get fit," is "I want to get fit without giving up on participating in my children's life," or "I want to get fit without looking like a goof when my friends start talking about the latest fashion trends."