The ingenuity gap of the obesity epidemic

[enigmaT120]

Jacob wrote: "They are not only unaware of what physical exercise should feel like, they are unaware of their own limits because they never pushed them before."

I just grabbed that one line out of there, because lately I've started wondering if different people experience exercise differently. It seems like other people experience as pain what I experience as a form of pleasure -- exertion, and being tired afterward. Even some soreness the next day seems nice to me. I presume at least part of it is the first group not knowing how to moderate the exertion level to one that is sustainable and avoids injury.

[jacob]

@enigmaT120 - Based on personal observations, chronically sedentary people are more likely to under-exercise and do less than what they could/should than to overexert themselves. Being unaware of what soreness is, they confuse it with injury. (The opposite happens too but it is rare in the sedentary group although much more common in ex-athletes who go too far too fast.) They will give an elaborate argument of how their perceived level of exertion is currently at 8 or 9 and how it's impossible to go any further even the amount of talking/complaining suggests they're working at level 5.

The endorphine response is surely different in different people, but so is the talent for math. My posit is that there's a widespread physical equivalent to illiteracy and that some people just never learned how to do 10 pull-ups or run a sub 8 minute mile just as some never learned the multiplication table or the difference between then and than.

I consider this an educational failure. I don't know where to put the blame for such an educational failure: The individual, their parents, "society", or the school system? In terms of my personal experience, PhysEd was a joke. If math had been taught in the same way, we would have spent 12 years playing Yatzie for a couple of 45 minute sessions per week.

[7Wannabe5]

Ego said:

1. They can't not eat the bad stuff.
2. Obesity is outward social proof of a willingness to sacrifice all for the family. It has become evidence of virtuous living.
3. There are no bike racks at the schools. They only know exercise as a chore rather than a pleasure.
4. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is a weird threat. There is something wrong with people who are fit.

All very good insights, but as somebody who might be assigned the center-triangle-position between you and those you are attempting to educate, I have to tell you I don't think you are taking the most likely to succeed approach. Inappropriate carrots. Counter-productive sticks. What you have to understand is that your lifestyle likely does not seem either virtuous OR enjoyable from their perspective.

[Ego]

What you have to understand is that your lifestyle likely does not seem either virtuous OR enjoyable from their perspective.

Yes, you've made that opinion abundantly and redundantly clear. What you are not understanding is that nobody is selling a lifestyle. What was incorrectly being sold, if anything, was the belief that underprivileged obese people don't know how to not be obese. They know. Obesity is one among a myriad of choices. It does not appear to be the result of ignorance.

[Laura Ingalls]

I get that exercise is viewed as a chore. That was really my stance until adulthood when I started walking and exploring on foot in the city I lived in at the time.

And we all know how to eat better than we actually do.

I really don't get that being fat is something you do for your family. I am no help to my children or parents if I am dead. I try to stay at a healthy weight for lots of reasons but this is one of the biggest. Ego could you elaborate?

[Ego]

Ego could you elaborate?

Yeah, we talked about this after one of the adult classes. It is a phenomenon I once saw in the fitness class I teach as well (opposite socioeconomic background) so we found the commonalities interesting.

One of the alpha-moms said something about how she was too busy taking care of her kids and her parents to find the time and energy to exercise and cook complicated healthy meals. She encouraged the other participants to agree with her.

There was an unspoken implication that those who exercised and ate healthy - there are a handful in the class who do both - were too self-absorbed. It is a strange paradox where a person's fitness becomes outward evidence to others of their unwillingness to sacrifice for the well-being of their family. Obesity becomes a badge of honor.

When you think about it, it makes sense. We are constantly surrounded by messages that the hero's journey is one where the hero is willing to sacrifice for others. It is only natural that people would want to signal that willingness.

Just my crazy theory. I could be wrong.

[enigmaT120]

I think what ego wrote is accurate in my case. I don't stay fit to do stuff for other people, I stay fit because the things I like to do are so hard that if I didn't stay fit I couldn't do them. I pulled a hamstring muscle on Monday running and I'm all bent out of shape that I couldn't bicycle today, as it's a nice day and I'm working in Salem and could have a long ride home. At least I'll still be able to cut down trees Sunday and peel off the bark for a project later this summer. So yeah, self-absorbed.

[jacob]

@Ego - That's similar to the suntan theory of the leisure class. When most people worked outside and only rich people worked inside, being pale was a status symbol. When most people become office drones and only rich people could afford to travel and spend weeks under sun, tan became a status symbol. I can certainly see why being fit in the current culture is a status symbol: It implies that you have hours of spare time to spend on exercise and diet (because most people are otherwise sedentary, driving, and eating junk). Conversely, the sour grapes response and similar can be equally large.

[Ego]

@Jacob, yeah, kind of like taking pride in being bad at math.

Different cultures have different stereotypes for fat and skinny people. Some cultures judge overweight people to be giving, nice, and passive while thin people are seen as mean, conceited and superficial.

It's no surprise that some people would want to project or signal those qualities and might become overweight for that reason. After all, people are willing to go to great lengths to convey certain signals.

This may explain why obesity seems to be contagious.

[George the original one]

I can understand the argument that one is too busy to exercise, but it makes no sense for not cooking healthy meals. Bag of prewashed healthy greens dumped into a bowl is about as easy to cook as anything!

[Peanut]

Yeah, we talked about this after one of the adult classes. It is a phenomenon I once saw in the fitness class I teach as well (opposite socioeconomic background) so we found the commonalities interesting.

One of the alpha-moms said something about how she was too busy taking care of her kids and her parents to find the time and energy to exercise and cook complicated healthy meals. She encouraged the other participants to agree with her.

There was an unspoken implication that those who exercised and ate healthy - there are a handful in the class who do both - were too self-absorbed. It is a strange paradox where a person's fitness becomes outward evidence to others of their unwillingness to sacrifice for the well-being of their family. Obesity becomes a badge of honor.

That's very interesting, and Tina Fey said something similar once about how if she spent an hour a day on working out (to get a more Hollywood-style body) it would be "selfish" and take away from her time with her kids.

I myself have semi-jokingly lamented DH's "vanity running" because it takes him 35 minutes to get home on foot versus 15 via public transport. (20 minutes feels like a lot at the end of the day.)

In general, I'd say toned thinness among parents both men and women is not selfish at least in a bad sense but it is a luxury because you need to pay someone to watch your kids while you're spinning, lifting, etc.

Re: the contagion theory of obesity--it was also discussed in this article. Apologies for redundancy if it's been posted before:
"Are your friends making you fat?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magaz ... ion-t.html

But I actually only half believe it. I agree with the critique that homophily (like seeking like) is very common. I have two friends who are both very overweight and who quickly bonded over that when we all met. In terms of their interaction, I noticed that indulgence on the part of one of them facilitates the same in the other.

[Peanut]

I can understand the argument that one is too busy to exercise, but it makes no sense for not cooking healthy meals. Bag of prewashed healthy greens dumped into a bowl is about as easy to cook as anything!

Kudos if you like that, but it doesn't sound tasty to me or presumably 99% of Americans.
Ime, meals do take time. Kiddo eats "magic broccoli" eagerly only because the magic involves roasting, garlic, lemon zest, olive oil, parmesan. 35 minutes and it's just the side dish

[Ego]

Peanut, that Tina Fey example is spot on. It seems to me that Tina Fey is in great shape, so it is logical for her to question the value in going from great shape to Hollywood great shape. Sadly, others see that and use the same logic to avoid making improvement when improvement is needed.

[Dragline]

When you think about it, it makes sense. We are constantly surrounded by messages that the hero's journey is one where the hero is willing to sacrifice for others. It is only natural that people would want to signal that willingness.

Just my crazy theory. I could be wrong.

This has way longer legs than you might think and is part of the subject matter of Frederick Nietzche and Rene Girard. Both recognized that Western society is permeated by the Christian idea of the sacrificial victim. (The so-called "Culture of Victimhood that people think is a "Millennial issue" ain't nuthin' new -- its just warmed over and trans-mutated Christian ethics.)

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/#SH4c

"Nietzsche criticized Christianity for its ‘slave morality’; that is, its tendency to side with the weak. Nietzsche recognized that, above other religions, Christianity promoted mercy as a virtue. Nietzsche interpreted this as a corruption of the human vital spirit, and advocated a return to the pre-Christian values of power and strength.

Girard is, of course, opposed to the Nietzschean disdain for mercy and antipathy towards the weak and victims. But, Girard considers Nietzsche a genius, inasmuch as the German philosopher saw what, according to Girard, most people (including the majority of Christians) fail to see: Christianity is unique in its defense of victims. Thus, in a sense, Girard claims that his Christian apologetics is for the most part a reversal of Nietzsche: they both agree that Christianity is singular, but whereas Nietzsche believed this singularity corrupted humanity, Girard believes this singularity is the manifestation of a power that reverses the violent foundations of culture."

[Dragline]

In general, I'd say toned thinness among parents both men and women is not selfish at least in a bad sense but it is a luxury because you need to pay someone to watch your kids while you're spinning, lifting, etc.

Maybe yes when they are small, but as soon as they are able (around 10) you should teach them how to exercise, lift weights, etc. Some of my best "successes" in parenting involving rousing children before dawn and taking them to lift weights. (And maybe have pancakes after that.)

In pre-industrial societies, parents took their kids to hunt, gather, farm or whatever as soon as they were able. This was something that was lost when the adult world of going to work separating from the child's world of learning skills. Teaching your kids how and why to exercise can substitute for this in a modern world. But one of the keys is having the child keep a log (just one piece of paper) -- once they see they are getting faster or stronger they will become more confident in themselves and bond closer to you.

At a certain point, your kids will say "why are we doing this?" "Are we different from other people?" And you will say "Yes, we are. We take care of ourselves so we can be calmer, healthier and happier. We don't follow the crowd. We think about what we do and make the best choices we can make."

But you have to make sure you are walking the walk before you can talk the talk. Focusing on health/exercise first actually makes it way easier to talk about money/finances/frugality later, because they already know they are different and that what you tell them yields concrete results.

[George the original one]

I can understand the argument that one is too busy to exercise, but it makes no sense for not cooking healthy meals. Bag of prewashed healthy greens dumped into a bowl is about as easy to cook as anything!

Kudos if you like that, but it doesn't sound tasty to me or presumably 99% of Americans.
Ime, meals do take time. Kiddo eats "magic broccoli" eagerly only because the magic involves roasting, garlic, lemon zest, olive oil, parmesan. 35 minutes and it's just the side dish

Thanks for making the point, that it's a CHOICE people make Some people try to justify their choice even though they know what's healthy and what's not healthy, what takes time to prepare and what is easy.

[theanimal]

Thanks for making the point, that it's a CHOICE people make Some people try to justify their choice even though they know what's healthy and what's not healthy, what takes time to prepare and what is easy.

+1.

There have been a number of different instances in the past 6 months where I've had coworkers tell me they are going to start eating healthy. They do so for a few meals, inevitably cheat, and head right back to the crap they were eating before. To a certain extent, people know which foods are good for them and which are not. Yet, they eat the crap anyways. It's an addiction.

I get teased for eating healthy. How odd is that?!?

[Ego]

...but whereas Nietzsche believed this singularity corrupted humanity, Girard believes this singularity is the manifestation of a power that reverses the violent foundations of culture."

I'd argue against the premise of culture's violent foundations, but that's beside the point. There may be some truth in the idea that Christianity doesn't reverse the violence, it redirects it from harming others to harming oneself, with Christ the crowning example.

Society functions because parents are willing to give everything for their children and people are willing to rush to the scene of a disaster. It is a beautiful characteristic.

It's sad that the self-destruction also seems to become a virtue. No simple answer here.

[Dragline]

I'd argue against the premise of culture's violent foundations, but that's beside the point. .

Yeah,lots of people don't like that premise these days, but its ingrained due to people (and mammals) wanting what other people have: You may not agree with the two videos here, but its hard to deny them other than in exceptions that prove the rule: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... -lens.html

The history of successful cultures is ones that corral random violence into officially sanctioned violence, such as depicted in Shakespeare's "Coriolonus."
The reason Shakespeare is so good and so relevant even 500 years later is that he captured the natural human condition of mimetic rivalry described in the second video in the link above.

[Ego]

You may not agree with the two videos here, but its hard to deny them other than in exceptions that prove the rule: http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... -lens.html

I agree with a lot of it. But in the second video there is a frame dealing with the exception of hunger. Hunger, they argue, is not a desire but a need. Deciding what to eat is the desire.

Along those same lines, could it not be true that love itself is not a desire but a need? Romanian orphans? Do good = feel good. Do bad = feel bad. It is the underlying default setting. You don't control that reaction. The autonomic nervous system produces it beyond your control.

People do bad thing when their definition of "Do bad" gets perverted. I guess what I am arguing above is that some people are becoming obese in order to show others that they follow what I consider to be a perverted definition of "Do good". A certain culture built that perverted definition.

But it is not so simple because a well functioning society need people willing to follow a somewhat perverted definition. No good answers.