The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by jennypenny »

Ego wrote:There are definitely factors that are beyond the control of the individual, but most are within our control. I wonder how much of the problem is that it demands greater ingenuity from those who are least capable of it.

This study turned the commonly held assumption on its head.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/COEDO2014.pdf
I dunno. It doesn't really prove that lower intelligence leads to poor lifestyle choices which then lead to obesity. Doesn't it lend credence to the idea that (in general) people with lower intelligence earn less and so would have less access to healthier options? It might also suggest that stress levels are higher which we know leads to obesity. Studies show lower income people receive lower quality healthcare, which could also contribute to the problem.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong. This problem can be solved on an individual level. I just think for some people, maybe even a majority of people, there is more going on than just an unhealthy lifestyle which makes solving the problem much more complicated than just choosing an apple over a twinkie.

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by jennypenny »

jacob wrote: I don't think obesity is a ruin problem. Mainly because the systemic dynamics of the junk food-medical complex is parallel to the tobacco industry and that problem was solved by regulation. Of course learning what to eat and how to cook is intellectually harder than simply not smoking but I don't think it's a skill that's beyond ... well .. basically everybody. The other problem that makes food harder than smoking is that tobacco is a limited/narrow product category, so it's easy to single out as in "your problem is THAT ONE behavior".
There are two ways that I see the food problem as different from the tobacco problem. First, it's much easier to solve the tobacco problem (or any similar problem like drugs or alcohol) by changing your environment and avoiding the temptation entirely. With food, well ... you gotta eat. On a personal level, avoidance and abstinence are easier behavior modifications to implement than learning to control consumption. Second, people have to solve the problem of what to eat on an individual level. It's obvious from all of our discussions on the forum about diet that what works for one person doesn't work for another. Some thrive on paleo/low carb diets, others on vegetarian diets. It can be difficult to determine what the best diet is for an individual. There are general guidelines that apply to everyone (less sugar, more activity), but they don't come close to solving the problem on an individual level. With smoking, the negative effects are universal. Maybe gene research will lead to a way to determine a person's optimal diet.


edited to add: I agree that the tobacco industry is similar to the junk food industry, but you're arguing that this problem is an individual problem, right? If so, on an individual level, IMO they aren't as similar.

Do you think if they regulated junk food and removed it from grocery stores or maybe sold it in licensed retailers (like alcohol and cigarettes) and limited it to 'over 21', that would eliminate most of the problem? (I have no idea, that's why I'm asking)

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by Ego »

jennypenny wrote: Do you think if they regulated junk food and removed it from grocery stores or maybe sold it in licensed retailers (like alcohol and cigarettes) and limited it to 'over 21', that would eliminate most of the problem? (I have no idea, that's why I'm asking)
Absolutely. That's why I am for taxing the bejesus out of sweet drinks, junk food, candy, fast food, highly processed meats and alcohol (a conveniently forgotten source of sugar), and outlawing things like hydrogenated oils. Obesity costs us all. We should be recouping some of those costs.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by Chad »

jacob wrote: We already have science trying to figure out how to engineer food to be more addictive. We know how to trigger the desire to eat more. This is the exact problem. Science knows but the science is being misused to profit from an uninformed public. This is why this is a cultural ingenuity problem.

A guy just wrote a book on this titled, "The Dorito Effect." Here is brief interview with him:

http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitne ... t-20150812

http://smile.amazon.com/Dorito-Effect-S ... tos+effect

Basically, he is suggesting we are tricking ourselves into eating things we wouldn't normally eat with the intense fake flavoring.
What changed? Did we suddenly lose willpower? We have to look at what controls our desire to eat — that's where flavor comes in. Flavors are an indicator of nutrients. When we take flavors and slice them off the nutrition that they signal — I call it nutritional decapitation — we create food that tells us a thrilling but deceptive lie. Bring it back to carbs: Who would overindulge in crackers and potato chips if they weren't flavored?
You eat all this food and get basically zero nutrition from it. You are still hungry after eating 800 calories of junk food because your body didn't get the fuel it needs to run properly. Handful after handful of junk food is telling you through flavor you are getting food, but your body isn't getting any nutrition so it asks for more "food." This doesn't happen with real food at nearly the same level. After you eat a delicious apple you don't really want another apple right then. This was demonstrated in a study on the CHORI-bar, which was designed as a cheap way to get nutrition to poor areas.

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles ... 70014.html

https://foundmyfitness.com/ (Podcast with Dr. Ames)

The only dietary change the researchers asked of the participants was to eat two CHORI-bars per day. Just by giving them a little better nutrition they managed to cause weight loss and improve some blood markers (obviously, the nutrition bars caused them to change certain bad eating habits). This suggests we would naturally self regulate, at least a little, if we had better nutrition.

@Ego
Absolutely. That's why I am for taxing the bejesus out of sweet drinks, junk food, candy, fast food, highly processed meats and alcohol (a conveniently forgotten source of sugar), and outlawing things like hydrogenated oils. Obesity costs us all. We should be recouping some of those costs.
I couldn't agree more. Plus, stop government subsidies of crops we should eat less of like corn, wheat, etc. As the Men's Journal article posted above mentioned, "We're cheapskates when it comes to food. We buy nice clothes, want a nicer house, but we think food should be as cheap as possible." This is actually one of the few issues I see in our community (not the nice clothes part :) ).


jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by jacob »

jennypenny wrote: edited to add: I agree that the tobacco industry is similar to the junk food industry, but you're arguing that this problem is an individual problem, right? If so, on an individual level, IMO they aren't as similar.

Do you think if they regulated junk food and removed it from grocery stores or maybe sold it in licensed retailers (like alcohol and cigarettes) and limited it to 'over 21', that would eliminate most of the problem? (I have no idea, that's why I'm asking)
Ha! It's a problem that can be solved on an individual level. On that individual level, solving the junk food problem requires more expertise (knowledge of cooking---but nothing beyond what I learned in the school system in grades 5 through 7 (we had cooking classes)).

The individual problem collectively becomes a public problem with all the lost health+cost flushed down the drain. Taxing it would solve it. It worked somewhat on the tobacco industry. But lawsuits and "death commercials" worked even better. Those are the typical ways of solving public problems: information, regulation, and taxes. Note that information often takes a long time to work because standard psyops is easy (and already present in the food industry as well). See the dog and pony thread.

Since younglings have better metabolisms and seem to be able to process crap food better than adults, if there was an age ban, junk food should be limited to 'under 21' :P

henrik
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: EE

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by henrik »

If you're going to ban or tax something, you need to be able to clearly define it. What would be the definition of "processed food" for that purpose?

Number 1 definition found through google:
The term 'processed food' applies to any food that has been altered from its natural state in some way, either for safety reasons or convenience.
Leaving aside philosophical discussions about the natural state of food:), is there anything available commercially that would escape that ban?

Isn't it rather about the concentration (or lack?) of certain ingredients than about the fact of processing? After all, with some exceptions like vegetables, I'm going to process food anyway before I eat, even if I buy it fresh. And I might add even more salt or sugar than would have been in the ready-made product...

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Will likely just lead to a new black market industry involving children cooking down sugar beets in abandoned houses.

Also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX87QQLVD5k


Seriously, given that we are all going to fall ill or decrepit and die of something, some day, is there any research on what health practices do lead to less expenses on the medical system over a lifetime? I mean, let's say obese woman manages to lose the weight in her 40s, so then doesn't keel over from heart attack in her 60s, but then ends up with hip fracture in her early 80s. Would the blood pressure drugs and emergent care necessary in Scenario 1 cost society more than the long-term nursing home care in scenario 2?

Also, it's interesting how statistics can vary from individual experience. My sister is a sentimental clothing hoarder, so she saved one of our grandmother's bathing suits we both remembered her wearing when she was in her early 50s. At age 50, I now bear a striking resemblance to this curvy Polish-heritage grandmother, except that I am 4 or 5 inches taller than she was, and her bathing suit fits me. Our other Irish-heritage grandmother was painfully thin and crippled with arthritis in a wheelchair during our childhood. The curvier grandmother was working class and the thinner grandmother was upper-middle-class, and they both smoked, drank (beer after work vs. cocktails starting with Blood Marys any given morning) and did not engage in any sort of regular aerobic exercise or strength-training. The thin one died in her late 70s and the curvy one in her early 80s, cigarettes being the obvious culprit in both deaths. I guess I'm just imagining an ad campaign aimed at my daughter's generation along the lines of "Wear your grandmother's bathing suit, but get your menthol fix from sugar free gum and skip the vodka in that glass of tomato juice!"

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by jacob »

@henrik - I grew up being allergic to nearly everything (thankfully I grew out of nearly all of it) including food additives, so in the name of self-reservation I learned to read ingredient lists very early on. That's where to focus both if you want to regulate or tax it or if you just want to avoid certain foods.

There are definitely foods on the market that pass the "this product does not sound like a chemical experiment"-test. I just went down in the kitchen and compared some pita bread that was marketed as being healthy (you know the wrapping designed to appeal to fitness people) and some tortillas that looked rather cheap and sad. The latter only had a couple of ingredients that deviated from what's necessary to bake a bread. The former had about 20 different additives intended to stabilize, preserve and change the color and texture/mouth-feel of the bread!

Of course companies will try to slip through the cracks here by writing legislation intended to avoid disclosure and then have their politicians pass it. E.g. GMO labels in the US. The food lobby is pretty strong. Also see the SNAP thread.

A simpler way is simply to tax food groups by the duck test. I know a piece of candy when I see it. Of course companies will try to slip through the cracks here and call it something else, e.g. "energy drink" instead of "soda". Practically the entire breakfast cereal department is still sold as breakfast even if it's more akin to sugar coated corn chips. However, this can be fixed by just doing cut-offs, like "exceeds 30% sugar" or "contains corn syrup as the main ingredient".

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

For instance, based on my quick and dirty internet research, people with diabetes usually die in their early 70s and the lifetime cost for treating diabetes is around 85,000 per individual and people who get hip fractures are usually in their early 80s and the cost of treating the complications of hip fracture is around 332,000 per individual. So, it seems to me (my math may be flawed) that the best way for society to save money on health costs would be to encourage everybody who doesn't do strength training exercise to eat lots of candy.

J_
Posts: 883
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:12 pm
Location: Netherlands/Austria

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by J_ »

I met last month my 14 month older brother. His remarks: Tall you have become.
We both are over sixty. He has little clue about real healthy eating and lives sedentary. I keep informing myself about food, cooks from scratch (mostly vegetarian) and am active.
He shrinks, but not noticing that. Has clogged arteries, painful knees and no stamina anymore. I am fit. Same genes.
Some years ago I gave him a first class bicycle, he hardly ever uses it, prefers his car.

I do not say it to him, but I have pity about him. For me he is the painful truth about what @Jacob writes and what I fully endorse.

We ((also) in Europe) need a battalion Ralph Nader's who battles the Medicine/Food-factories/lobbies. New slogan: "Unhealthy in any quantity!"
This forum gives antidote's to the decline in living/growing old with pleasure and stay healthy.

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by enigmaT120 »

I hope I haven't posted this here yet:

ImageJack in the box by Ed Miller, on Flickr

oldbeyond
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:43 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by oldbeyond »

Here's a great graphic comparing different countries: http://healthintelligence.drupalgardens ... ntry-level

Palestine, Syria and Iraq have a more serious obesity problem than the US! South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have lower obesity levels than many countries in sub-Saharan Africa! The explanation can't be found in general economic development, but must be tied to other factors, possibly culture, the economics of the local food industry and genetics.

I think it's easy to underestimate just how poor a diet many people eat. Just looking at sugar, americans consume 1.36 kg(3 lb) a week, with an energy content of roughly 400 kcal/100 g, giving a total energy intake of 5440 kcal/week, or 2-3 DAYS of energy expenditure. Even excluding "dairy deserts and milk", over 70 percent of that comes from food that everyone would recognize as pure garbage:

http://tranastyrka.se/wp-content/upload ... socker.jpg

Those 5440 calories are empty and not very filling, and they most likely mess up your apetite, making causing you to overeat. And then you have the refined grains and vegetable oils on top of that. Simply removing(or perhaps rather severely limiting) one of these foods in your diet would make a huge difference. Doing away with all three puts you on another planet from your peers. Much like ERE/frugality vs credit-fueled consumerism.

Tax all drinks containing calories and all foods with an energy content higher than say 300 kcal/100 g, with exceptions for foods containing good fats(olive oil, coconut oil, butter) or consisting of whole grains?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I simply do not like the idea of a sin tax on sugar because it will effect all the wonderful little old authentic ethnic bakeries in my neighborhood, as well as Frito-Lay Inc. Go take a long swim, and then dinner of fresh tomatoes, eggplant and basil from my garden, feta, cashews and olive oil from the Middle-Eastern market, eggs and bit of smoked bacon from the neighborhood sausage making family who also raise their own chickens and small slice of poppy-seed stuffed yeast cake bought from the funny old lady at the Polish bakery around the corner. Aaaaaah.....that's living. Just because some people don't know how to purchase, cook and eat real food in moderation doesn't mean we should all have to suffer from rigid ridiculous rules made up by people who are trying to erase the history of cuisine and feed people on soylent paste because all they comprehend is the science of the nutritionist with no appreciation for the art of the sensualist that has been developed over the millennia.

OTOH, making factories that process food in quantities bigger than X illegal. That I could go for.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by Ego »

Deliciousness is learned. Feed a toddler a wedge of epoisses or fill their sippie cup with cabernet and see what happens. They have not yet been inculcated into the cult of self destruction where the highest pleasures are delivered to the table in a styrofoam container or a plastic bag.

Cultures that thrive incorporate new knowledge into their traditions and expunge damaging practices. They evolve. Same goes for individuals. Those that cling to - or worse, make a virtue of - damaging traditions wither on the vine.

The art of the sensualist developed over millennia, blah! Just because something evolved over thousands of years doesn't make it right or good. Go smoke a pipe with your concubines then chew some khat with your wife. Hopefully you won't die or she'll have to commit seti. Ouch.

Mr. Creosote can eat what he likes but he should be forced to cover the full cost of the consequences of his meal. Right now he is doing a runner and leaving his healthy tablemates with the tab.

Chad
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by Chad »

I'm all for a very high level of freedom, but too many people push the actual cost of their actions on to others. Go ahead and eat a lot of sugar. Though, you should pay higher taxes (placed on the sugar) and higher health insurance (based on negative health factors caused by the sugar).

Also, someone mentioned this would be difficult and there would be loopholes. Both true, but this is true of almost anything with any sort of complexity. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Okay, how about a direct paunch tax then? The bigger the paunch, the higher the tax rate. Oh, wait, I forgot, that is already pretty much what happens.

Also, try feeding a toddler some kale, kimchi or mushrooms and see what happens. Young children have more sensitive taste buds because otherwise they would put poisonous substances in their mouths all the time. I didn't give mine anything but breast milk and the occasional tray of generic Cheerios to finger until they were a year old. Baby food is as much of a scam as most health food. After that I pretty much let them eat what they wanted but I didn't cater to any whims. They are both very tall, slender and healthy as adults. Of course, the fact that their father practically looked like a POW when I met him might have something to do with that. Total bullsh*t that you have to teach kids to like sugar and fat. Have you ever tasted human breast-milk? It's much more the case/problem that many adults have never refined their buds to include more complicated tastes. The guy sucking down a Bud while munching on some Fritos is basically putting himself back on the tit, plain and simple.

Anyways, I am actually laughing as I type this because what is in alignment with my own clear self-interest. given that I know that my blood sugar processing levels are very healthy, is that I don't want a tax put on the raspberry babka that only results in healthy fat/muscle on my ass. Paunch tax, yes! Ass tax, no!

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by GandK »

7Wannabe5 wrote:Okay, how about a direct paunch tax then? The bigger the paunch, the higher the tax rate. Oh, wait, I forgot, that is already pretty much what happens.
I read recently that Uzbekistan Airlines has begun weighing passengers. How long until that becomes the basis of fee differences, I wonder?

Also spotted another plus sized clothing rant today, this one specifically taking issue with the terminology involved:
"Seventy percent of women in the United States are a size 14 or above, and that's technically 'plus size,' so you're taking your biggest category of people and telling them, 'You're not really worthy,'" the star told Refinery 29 in an interview to herald her new clothing line, Melissa McCarthy Seven7.

... The insinuation is that bigger women don't care about their health or their appearance, but this ignores what larger women such as myself know all too well: It's hard as hell to lose weight and keep it off.

... All women deserve the right to feel good about themselves and to have a shopping experience that doesn't categorize them with a label that has long held a negative connotation.

I remember as a teen shopping with my grandmother and being told that "I was in the wrong section. The chubby girl items are over there." I still inwardly cringe whenever I'm out with friends and have to go to a different part of a shop to (sometimes in vain) find items for me.

Let's take a page from McCarthy and start referring to clothing for all women as what it simply is: fashion.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think that vanity could be a positive rather than negative motivator, but a lot of people prefer to live in a world of delusion. One story I constantly hear from men I date is that other women put up pictures of themselves that are 50 lbs. and 10 years outside of current reality. Men sometimes fudge a bit on their height or age, but not so much their weight/shape. Of course, a more positive way for a fit person to think about the economics of the obesity epidemic would be to realize that the more people who are in worse shape than you, the more you are relatively "worth" on the dating market, and this increases with age. Lots of 20 year old women have .7 WHR, not so many 50 year old women do. Now, if I had only not chosen to slather myself with coconut butter and sunbath when I was a teenager-lol.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

Post by jacob »

Vanity is mysteriously important! It's interesting how it differs between men and women but I suppose that has to do with sexual dynamics currency. Telling a guy he's morbidly obese usually results in some rational acknowledgement that yes it's a problem and it should be fixed. Telling a girl the same thing is a major diplomatic incident. Curious! I haven't tried telling a guy that he's short and seeing what reaction this gets.

It's a problem when vanity overrides health. Or maybe it's just that I think it's a problem because I place a higher value on health.

I agree that calling stuff plus or petite is unnecessary. This would be much easier if the number/sizing related to some constant body value, e.g. waist size. Then you'd measure yourself and the clothes would fit as the tailor intended instead of looking up size charts for each and every item of clothing. Currently, it's bad enough that e.g. means waist sizes (e.g. 34/34 pants) might actually turn out to be 35 inches instead. ARGH!!!!

If you're gonna weigh the luggage it makes total sense to weigh the passengers. Since the cost of passage is so strongly dependent on fuel cost which is strongly dependent on weight, why should a 100 pound person with 100 pounds of luggage pay more than a 200 pound person with 10 pounds of luggage?! I don't even understand why people get upset about this. Maybe it's that vanity thing.

PS: If someone in your cicrcle sews well, you can get everything fitted. This is very nice. Highly recommended!

Post Reply