5 ms·

Some of their pieces on the blog site read completely like satire (unfortunately they are not), it baffles me how a sane person can write something like that ht

by type0 5y ago

Some of their pieces on the blog site read completely like satire (unfortunately they are not), it baffles me how a sane person can write something like that https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fat-is-not-the-problem-fat-stigma-is/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fat-is-not... tldr it's because the oppression

christkv 5y ago
I cracked up when I saw the name of the author to the link you posted. Some sort of comic joke or destiny.
- type0 5y ago
  I was more shocked to find out that the author somehow got a PhD in Physiology
- zo1 5y ago
  For those wanting to know, her surname is "Bacon".
readthenotes1 5y ago
"Focusing on weight—or health behaviors—puts the burden on the individual, deflecting attention from the more pernicious problem: systemic injustice." Sounds like when I was a kid and said "the devil made me do it". Taking responsibility for our (in)actions is a necessary prerequisite for being an adult.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- colordrops 5y ago
  Realistically it's a joint responsibility between the system and the individual. Culture and historical context have a huge role in how people behave, which is why one country can consist of mostly skinny healthy people and another unhealthy overweight people. It's not because the latter country's people are genetically predisposed to be irresponsible adults. You can't fully blame the system or the individual. It's both. Why must everything be a binary war nowadays?
  - serf 5y ago
    >You can't fully blame the system or the individual. It's both. Why must everything be a binary war nowadays? in societies with limited 'systems', obesity is a non-issue; so if that's the case then it stands to reason that it's the responsibility of the individual to try to disregard the temptations that the 'system' they're a member of places in front of them, no? This is further reinforced by the fact that heavily-obese countries are not anywhere near 100% obese; individuals in those societies acted with their own sovereignty to avoid whatever physiological issues. So, in other words, I blame both the individual and the system for the journey towards obesity, but feel that it remains staunchly in the individual hands of the person to avoid whatever pitfalls their individual systems put in front of them.
    - kiba 5y ago
      I mostly viewed obesity as an insidious health problem that cannot easily be resolved, and yet individual agency can somehow overcome the problem, as I nearly did two months ago.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      In a society which spends around $750 billion annually on formal advertising, and a related amount on "influencing", client journalism, covert PR, and so on, individuals are primarily motivated by sovereign independent choices? Does this really sound even remotely plausible? That's ignoring the very obvious practical issues that make poorer people more prone to obesity - extreme time poverty, exhaustion and stress, limited affordability of healthy food choices, limited physical access to healthy choices, time and money costs of exercise options, and so on.
      - lancesells 5y ago
        Advertising is filled with psychological tricks and should be much more regulated than it currently is. I definitely blame the system for a lot of things but an individual does have some responsibility and agency as to how they live.
  - andrewclunn 5y ago
yeetaccount4 5y ago
I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non whites. In some circles, this sort of thing is called eco-fascism I guess.
- commoner 5y ago
  The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the long term. The financial and health benefits of switching to healthy non-meat foods would reduce racial disparities, if people of color tend to eat a greater amount of meat, as the question implies.
  - raegis 5y ago
    Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
    - commoner 5y ago
      You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.) I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.

by type0 5y ago

christkv 5y ago

I cracked up when I saw the name of the author to the link you posted. Some sort of comic joke or destiny.

type0 5y ago
I was more shocked to find out that the author somehow got a PhD in Physiology
zo1 5y ago
For those wanting to know, her surname is "Bacon".

readthenotes1 5y ago

"Focusing on weight—or health behaviors—puts the burden on the individual, deflecting attention from the more pernicious problem: systemic injustice." Sounds like when I was a kid and said "the devil made me do it". Taking responsibility for our (in)actions is a necessary prerequisite for being an adult.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
colordrops 5y ago
Realistically it's a joint responsibility between the system and the individual. Culture and historical context have a huge role in how people behave, which is why one country can consist of mostly skinny healthy people and another unhealthy overweight people. It's not because the latter country's people are genetically predisposed to be irresponsible adults. You can't fully blame the system or the individual. It's both. Why must everything be a binary war nowadays?
- serf 5y ago
  >You can't fully blame the system or the individual. It's both. Why must everything be a binary war nowadays? in societies with limited 'systems', obesity is a non-issue; so if that's the case then it stands to reason that it's the responsibility of the individual to try to disregard the temptations that the 'system' they're a member of places in front of them, no? This is further reinforced by the fact that heavily-obese countries are not anywhere near 100% obese; individuals in those societies acted with their own sovereignty to avoid whatever physiological issues. So, in other words, I blame both the individual and the system for the journey towards obesity, but feel that it remains staunchly in the individual hands of the person to avoid whatever pitfalls their individual systems put in front of them.
  - kiba 5y ago
    I mostly viewed obesity as an insidious health problem that cannot easily be resolved, and yet individual agency can somehow overcome the problem, as I nearly did two months ago.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    In a society which spends around $750 billion annually on formal advertising, and a related amount on "influencing", client journalism, covert PR, and so on, individuals are primarily motivated by sovereign independent choices? Does this really sound even remotely plausible? That's ignoring the very obvious practical issues that make poorer people more prone to obesity - extreme time poverty, exhaustion and stress, limited affordability of healthy food choices, limited physical access to healthy choices, time and money costs of exercise options, and so on.
    - lancesells 5y ago
      Advertising is filled with psychological tricks and should be much more regulated than it currently is. I definitely blame the system for a lot of things but an individual does have some responsibility and agency as to how they live.
- andrewclunn 5y ago

yeetaccount4 5y ago

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non whites. In some circles, this sort of thing is called eco-fascism I guess.

commoner 5y ago
The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the long term. The financial and health benefits of switching to healthy non-meat foods would reduce racial disparities, if people of color tend to eat a greater amount of meat, as the question implies.
- raegis 5y ago
  Reducing or eliminating fructose is a better answer, I think. Anti-fat messaging (in food) has resulted in food producers reducing fat but increasing fructose content for decades, with an associated rise in obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Check out the lecture "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&t=179s
  - commoner 5y ago
    You're completely right that excess added sugar (including added fructose) is well-known to be unhealthy, and that switching to non-meat foods wouldn't address this issue. But, low-meat diets aren't necessarily higher in added sugar than higher-meat diets. (I did say "healthy" non-meat foods to exclude, for instance, replacing meat with candy.) I agree that reducing added sugar consumption should be one of the highest priorities for the average individual who is looking to improve their diet. However, this particular question asked about the racial effects of reducing meat consumption, so the benefits of reducing added sugar consumption wouldn't be the most relevant piece of information to answer with.