14 ms·

Paying obese people to lose weight doubles rate of weight loss

35 points by aryan14 4y ago

hirundo 4y ago
> A total of 1280 adults with obesity ... could earn up to $750. A financial incentive to lose weight is also a financial incentive to qualify for the incentive program. If it becomes a policy instead of a one-off study, and you could qualify by gaining a few pounds, you can justify your next binge as a duty to your family. As a champion binge-justifier I can testify that this is an easy one. Advanced justifiers can do it from just a palindrome in the current date, in the Babylonian calendar.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  As a person who lost 100 lbs this year, I can testify if you do this you deserve the money.
  - hirundo 4y ago
    Congratulations. I've been there, and I'd rather have the weight loss than a million dollars. A billion dollars wouldn't be an easy choice.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  As someone who struggled with weight for decades, and finally has it under control, I cannot relate to your logic at all. I’ll take my stable weight and skip the cash incentives thanks. Granted I also don’t need the cash so acutely. I hope incentives like this will help others though.
throwaway22032 4y ago
I'd expect that simply paying people would also improve rate of weight loss. If you buy and eat less processed food with higher levels of protein, fiber, and fat, you're likely to manage your appetite far better than if you just smash loads of donuts and crisps. It's cheaper to eat nonfood though, particularly if you take preparation into account.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Obesity rate is completely uncorelated to poverty, in the US we're talking 40%+, 70%+ overweight It's not cheaper to eat junk food, it's just more convenient, I never spent so little on food than when I switched to vegetarian/bio, and I've never been so healthy in general. I very often make soup/stew that last 2-3 days for me and my gf for less than 15$
  - aradox66 4y ago
    That doesn't seem right? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6650a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6650a1.htm sounds like the general trend is obesity declines with income and education, although more strongly for some demographics and negligibly for others
    - djbebs 4y ago
      Obesity declining with income doesn't mean less calorically intense food is cheaper, it just means that higher income better educated people eat less calories.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - j33zusjuice 4y ago
        That still creates a correlation between income and obesity.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - brailsafe 4y ago
    So you just eat stew constantly all the time and that means junkfood isn't cheaper? I have to imagine it only lasts 2-3 days because you're just having a bowl each or something. If you and her ate just that, you'd still be spending $120/month on just stew and probably undereating by a good amount, and also regretting full commitment to stew. You may still be right but it's a narrow example that sort of entirely depends on the season and region. What's cheaper? Canned stew. 3 days on canned stew and in the U.S it's probably less and way faster. Add in $3 worth of fried chicken from Walmart and that's a day's worth of food, and a fuck ton of salt. I don't think it's really an argument that holds up, but I would agree that it's a way better use of money to get good stuff if you can afford it and spend the time making it. I'm not where you are but a small bag (5lb) of potatoes at Safeway costs $6, add in something like 5 apples and you're already at $15. Bag of frozen fruit, another $6. It adds up quickly and goes away even quicker.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
If this were true, insurance companies would already be doing this. There are many medical issues that could be lessened if people could be convinced to stop eating so much.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Insurance companies are not paragons of reason. They’re certainly not motivated by reducing medical risk to their customers. Among the many things they objected to in recent healthcare reforms, preventive care requirements ranked very high. They penalize high risk customers so it’s easy to conclude they view those customers negatively, but in reality they just want to extract value from the risk and from their market capture wherever they can.
- Larrikin 4y ago
  If you look into it insurance companies are paying people to be healthier. Even the crappiest insurance companies are offering discounted at home fitness companies, my previous insurance offered free peloton basic, my elderly mother's insurance is willing to give her up to 30 dollars a month on her AARP insurance to complete various health and doctor tasks each month. But the best I've seen is UHC Motion on my current insurance. Up to 3 dollars a day/1095 dollars a year for connecting my Fitbit to it and reaching the step goals I'm already trying to reach.
Proven 4y ago

35 points by aryan14 4y ago

> A total of 1280 adults with obesity ... could earn up to $750. A financial incentive to lose weight is also a financial incentive to qualify for the incentive program. If it becomes a policy instead of a one-off study, and you could qualify by gaining a few pounds, you can justify your next binge as a duty to your family. As a champion binge-justifier I can testify that this is an easy one. Advanced justifiers can do it from just a palindrome in the current date, in the Babylonian calendar.

BoorishBears 4y ago
As a person who lost 100 lbs this year, I can testify if you do this you deserve the money.
- hirundo 4y ago
  Congratulations. I've been there, and I'd rather have the weight loss than a million dollars. A billion dollars wouldn't be an easy choice.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
As someone who struggled with weight for decades, and finally has it under control, I cannot relate to your logic at all. I’ll take my stable weight and skip the cash incentives thanks. Granted I also don’t need the cash so acutely. I hope incentives like this will help others though.

throwaway22032 4y ago

I'd expect that simply paying people would also improve rate of weight loss. If you buy and eat less processed food with higher levels of protein, fiber, and fat, you're likely to manage your appetite far better than if you just smash loads of donuts and crisps. It's cheaper to eat nonfood though, particularly if you take preparation into account.

lm28469 4y ago
Obesity rate is completely uncorelated to poverty, in the US we're talking 40%+, 70%+ overweight It's not cheaper to eat junk food, it's just more convenient, I never spent so little on food than when I switched to vegetarian/bio, and I've never been so healthy in general. I very often make soup/stew that last 2-3 days for me and my gf for less than 15$
- aradox66 4y ago
  That doesn't seem right? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6650a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6650a1.htm sounds like the general trend is obesity declines with income and education, although more strongly for some demographics and negligibly for others
  - djbebs 4y ago
    Obesity declining with income doesn't mean less calorically intense food is cheaper, it just means that higher income better educated people eat less calories.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - j33zusjuice 4y ago
      That still creates a correlation between income and obesity.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- brailsafe 4y ago
  So you just eat stew constantly all the time and that means junkfood isn't cheaper? I have to imagine it only lasts 2-3 days because you're just having a bowl each or something. If you and her ate just that, you'd still be spending $120/month on just stew and probably undereating by a good amount, and also regretting full commitment to stew. You may still be right but it's a narrow example that sort of entirely depends on the season and region. What's cheaper? Canned stew. 3 days on canned stew and in the U.S it's probably less and way faster. Add in $3 worth of fried chicken from Walmart and that's a day's worth of food, and a fuck ton of salt. I don't think it's really an argument that holds up, but I would agree that it's a way better use of money to get good stuff if you can afford it and spend the time making it. I'm not where you are but a small bag (5lb) of potatoes at Safeway costs $6, add in something like 5 apples and you're already at $15. Bag of frozen fruit, another $6. It adds up quickly and goes away even quicker.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

If this were true, insurance companies would already be doing this. There are many medical issues that could be lessened if people could be convinced to stop eating so much.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
Insurance companies are not paragons of reason. They’re certainly not motivated by reducing medical risk to their customers. Among the many things they objected to in recent healthcare reforms, preventive care requirements ranked very high. They penalize high risk customers so it’s easy to conclude they view those customers negatively, but in reality they just want to extract value from the risk and from their market capture wherever they can.
Larrikin 4y ago
If you look into it insurance companies are paying people to be healthier. Even the crappiest insurance companies are offering discounted at home fitness companies, my previous insurance offered free peloton basic, my elderly mother's insurance is willing to give her up to 30 dollars a month on her AARP insurance to complete various health and doctor tasks each month. But the best I've seen is UHC Motion on my current insurance. Up to 3 dollars a day/1095 dollars a year for connecting my Fitbit to it and reaching the step goals I'm already trying to reach.

Proven 4y ago