13 ms·

It appears that sentiments that downplay or dispute the health risks are growing in large social media bubbles, with strong effects on the real world. Efforts t

It appears that sentiments that downplay or dispute the health risks are growing in large social media bubbles, with strong effects on the real world. Efforts to push back on serving unhealthy food are undermined, doctors discouraged from discussing weight with their patients as a personal and sensitive issue; overweight models validate unhealthy body compositions. This surely has to please the food industry, which is as culpable as the tobacco industry in harming peoples health. I would propose a concerted effort through mandatory levels of food quality that is served to the public (e.g. schools, hospitals), funded by a higher tax on sugary atrocities, limits on sale of sugary food and drinks to children, and an outright ban on any substance designed to create cravings.

voisin 2y ago
Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?
- bumby 2y ago
  I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security. Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates. Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.
    - bumby 2y ago
      I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few: - agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically) - A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. - subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming. - corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor. - I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.
      - slothtrop 2y ago
        > agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains. > A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes. > subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons: Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else. > part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol) This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.
edflsafoiewq 2y ago
The causality seems more likely to go the other way to me.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  For almost any problem people care about enough to discuss on a forum like this, it's a fools errand to try to determine "which" way causality goes. It goes both ways. You can't isolate the cause. It's a feedback loop which is what makes it persistent and hard to solve and ergo worth discussing on a forum.
nerdjon 2y ago
There is a middle ground, and I agree that there are some people that have gone too far. I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story. But I also see the extremes of just ignoring it, not even wanting your doctor to talk about it. (I do realize that there are some exceptions to this like when it comes to eating disorders) I don't understand this. I want my doctor to tell me everything, hell I will overshare in the hopes that something is a thing that needs to be addressed. I have also personally seen a subset of people that push back on anyone wanting to loose weight. I have lost about 45 lbs over the last year (still not at my target weight but I am very close, about 5-10 lbs off so really not stressing and for context I am 6'5). A friend I have not seen in a while recently gave me a hug, commented that I was loosing weight and asked me "Why". I was put off by it, because why is that even a question? You would get mad if I asked why you were gaining weight. My point here, there is a middle ground and there is a right and wrong place to address this. Society shaming someone isn't the right choice and ignores that we don't know what is really going on with someone.
- throwaway756544 2y ago
  > I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story. I’m slightly overweight and an ex-smoker. For years, nothing seemed to help me quit—high taxes, indoor smoking bans, health risks, and so on didn’t diminish my desire to smoke. I tried quitting a few times for financial and health reasons, but it never stuck. What ultimately got me to quit was social stigma, especially after having kids. The stigma around smoking has grown over the years, but it reaches another level when you become a parent. Other parents didn’t hesitate to judge me for smoking, and I realized there was no way my kids wouldn’t face social consequences because of my habit. That was the push I needed to quit. I do believe it’s wrong to judge people for their choices, but at the same time, I sometimes wonder if we’re going too far with body positivity. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m grateful for the stigma surrounding smoking—it helped me make a positive change.
monero-xmr 2y ago
I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  > I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend. Key question: are they cured now after you were a jerk? What was the ROI on relationship damage per pound lost?
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    It's fine because when I say this it's because the context of the conversation has been set that I'm going to tell them hard truths
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      You avoided the actual question: did it work?
      - monero-xmr 2y ago
        Great question - it has worked sometimes. I don't just do it for the fats. I had a serious discussion with one of my best friends who narrowly escaped a DUI after successfully beating the patrolman's tests and lucking out when they didn't have a breathalyzer, and he stopped drunk driving. Another time I told my friend he was a fat, disgusting lard and he successfully slimmed up and hit the gym more. So it depends. Sometimes if you just outright tell someone they are making huge mistakes in the bluntest terms it can shake them, when they know you are their friend.
shin_lao 2y ago
Tax won't solve anything - just make it socially unacceptable to be obese.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Interesting because Pigouvian taxes have a long and storied history of being extremely effective while your proposed solution has... zero evidence of effectiveness? Feel free to provide it though.
- yamazakiwi 2y ago
  I don't know about you but I'm paid to sit in a chair for 12 hours a day.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  It already is. If you are obese, you: * Can't get clothes that fit you * Are uncomfortable on public transit, in public places like theaters, etc as the seats are designed for someone much smaller than you * Can't get into relationships * Get social feedback ranging from well meaning (but still embarrassing) to downright cruel on a regular basis In discussions like this, someone always says "the solution is to shame people" as if it's some kind of picnic to be fat. It's not - it's fucking miserable. And even with all that people are still having a hard time taking control of their lifestyle. Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing. It do accomplish a thing of helping people that don't want to be ashamed to take better care of their weight before it becomes a bigger issue.
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      Bullshit. We already know that adding a stressor to problem eaters is the opposite of a solution!
- 2y ago
didibus 2y ago
I still feel like the root causes are not well known. Blaming sugar is the current trend, but this article talks about weight, American have a fat heavy diet as well, which is very high in calories. Sure, cutting our sugar helps you lose weight, but did sugar cause you to eat all those calories or was it fried food? Who knows? Then there are processed foods, is that actually the culprit? Or is it really sugar? Then some things are confusing, someone else linked to a study that showed that "lowest All-cause mortality is at a BMI of 25". Well that's verging on overweight, so people with "healthier" BMI have higher rates of death, weird. A few days ago a study showed that sugar intake from pastries, ice creams, chocolate and candy reduced your risks of 7 cardiovascular diseases. What's going on? I say that as someone that's normal weight. I can understand some counter-reaction being wishful thinking, or part of body positivity movements, but objectively when I look at what we know, it's still quite fuzzy. Having said that, I would not mind over-enforcing in this case. I'd love it for portion sizes to be smaller, for processed foods to be phased out, for sugar content to be lowered in packaged and restaurant products, for deep fried foods to be less common, etc. And ideally, for what we do know is healthy, vegetables, fruits, lean meats, fish, poultry, often the least refined as possible, to be both accessible, convenient and cheap.
- apitman 2y ago
  Anecdotally, I feel like I can consume way more calories from carbs than fat or protein. I burn out on the other two way faster, and stay satiated longer. Though I agree deep fried is probably second to sweets.
  - vladvasiliu 2y ago
    I think there's something to be said about what we take with the food. I mostly cook at home, and if I have meat, I'll only season it with some herbs and have some steamed vegetables or baked potatoes with it. If I have ham or similar, I'll eat it raw. This leaves me feeling full for the afternoon. But having a similarly sized piece of meat at a restaurant, which usually comes in some form of sauce (which I don't go out of my way to eat), will leave me hungry almost as soon as the meal is over. Anecdotally, when I stopped going to the office every day and switched to home-cooked meals as described above, I pretty quickly lost some weight.
vladvasiliu 2y ago
> I would propose a concerted effort through mandatory levels of food quality that is served to the public (e.g. schools, hospitals) The issue I've found is that it's much easier (= cheaper) to have tasty-enough food which is actually "junk". I love me some broccoli or other random steamed veggies with a steak. But when I was in school, these things were horrendous. Everything was a soggy, slimy mess. So fries it was, almost every day, except when they had pizza. And since this was in my formative years, I can understand how people learn to associate "eating healthy" with that atrocious thing nobody wanted to get close to. So they will tend to gravitate to what they remember as being reasonably tasty. It was my case, too, until I got fat and tried to do something about it. Which allowed me to discover it's not that much more work to make a tasty meal, which I actually like better. But it does take longer than throwing two frozen burgers in the microwave and calling it a day.

voisin 2y ago

Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?

bumby 2y ago
I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- slothtrop 2y ago
  The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security. Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates. Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few: - agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically) - A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. - subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming. - corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor. - I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains. > A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes. > subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons: Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else. > part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol) This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.

edflsafoiewq 2y ago

The causality seems more likely to go the other way to me.

llamaimperative 2y ago
For almost any problem people care about enough to discuss on a forum like this, it's a fools errand to try to determine "which" way causality goes. It goes both ways. You can't isolate the cause. It's a feedback loop which is what makes it persistent and hard to solve and ergo worth discussing on a forum.

nerdjon 2y ago

There is a middle ground, and I agree that there are some people that have gone too far. I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story. But I also see the extremes of just ignoring it, not even wanting your doctor to talk about it. (I do realize that there are some exceptions to this like when it comes to eating disorders) I don't understand this. I want my doctor to tell me everything, hell I will overshare in the hopes that something is a thing that needs to be addressed. I have also personally seen a subset of people that push back on anyone wanting to loose weight. I have lost about 45 lbs over the last year (still not at my target weight but I am very close, about 5-10 lbs off so really not stressing and for context I am 6'5). A friend I have not seen in a while recently gave me a hug, commented that I was loosing weight and asked me "Why". I was put off by it, because why is that even a question? You would get mad if I asked why you were gaining weight. My point here, there is a middle ground and there is a right and wrong place to address this. Society shaming someone isn't the right choice and ignores that we don't know what is really going on with someone.

throwaway756544 2y ago
> I think body positivity, validating those choices with models that represent more people is a good thing. As a society we should not be judging someone for their choices or making medical claims about their bodies when we don't know their story. I’m slightly overweight and an ex-smoker. For years, nothing seemed to help me quit—high taxes, indoor smoking bans, health risks, and so on didn’t diminish my desire to smoke. I tried quitting a few times for financial and health reasons, but it never stuck. What ultimately got me to quit was social stigma, especially after having kids. The stigma around smoking has grown over the years, but it reaches another level when you become a parent. Other parents didn’t hesitate to judge me for smoking, and I realized there was no way my kids wouldn’t face social consequences because of my habit. That was the push I needed to quit. I do believe it’s wrong to judge people for their choices, but at the same time, I sometimes wonder if we’re going too far with body positivity. I don’t have all the answers, but I’m grateful for the stigma surrounding smoking—it helped me make a positive change.

monero-xmr 2y ago

I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend.

llamaimperative 2y ago
> I have told plenty of friends and family that they are fat gross slobs and need to lose weight, and that is the cause of many of their non-specific maladies that doctors can't seem to pinpoint. Sometimes you need to sit someone down and level with them, I'm not going to pretend. Key question: are they cured now after you were a jerk? What was the ROI on relationship damage per pound lost?
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  It's fine because when I say this it's because the context of the conversation has been set that I'm going to tell them hard truths
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You avoided the actual question: did it work?
    - monero-xmr 2y ago
      Great question - it has worked sometimes. I don't just do it for the fats. I had a serious discussion with one of my best friends who narrowly escaped a DUI after successfully beating the patrolman's tests and lucking out when they didn't have a breathalyzer, and he stopped drunk driving. Another time I told my friend he was a fat, disgusting lard and he successfully slimmed up and hit the gym more. So it depends. Sometimes if you just outright tell someone they are making huge mistakes in the bluntest terms it can shake them, when they know you are their friend.

shin_lao 2y ago

Tax won't solve anything - just make it socially unacceptable to be obese.

llamaimperative 2y ago
Interesting because Pigouvian taxes have a long and storied history of being extremely effective while your proposed solution has... zero evidence of effectiveness? Feel free to provide it though.
yamazakiwi 2y ago
I don't know about you but I'm paid to sit in a chair for 12 hours a day.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
It already is. If you are obese, you: * Can't get clothes that fit you * Are uncomfortable on public transit, in public places like theaters, etc as the seats are designed for someone much smaller than you * Can't get into relationships * Get social feedback ranging from well meaning (but still embarrassing) to downright cruel on a regular basis In discussions like this, someone always says "the solution is to shame people" as if it's some kind of picnic to be fat. It's not - it's fucking miserable. And even with all that people are still having a hard time taking control of their lifestyle. Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > Shaming people even harder isn't going to accomplish a thing. It do accomplish a thing of helping people that don't want to be ashamed to take better care of their weight before it becomes a bigger issue.
  - Nasrudith 2y ago
    Bullshit. We already know that adding a stressor to problem eaters is the opposite of a solution!
2y ago

didibus 2y ago

I still feel like the root causes are not well known. Blaming sugar is the current trend, but this article talks about weight, American have a fat heavy diet as well, which is very high in calories. Sure, cutting our sugar helps you lose weight, but did sugar cause you to eat all those calories or was it fried food? Who knows? Then there are processed foods, is that actually the culprit? Or is it really sugar? Then some things are confusing, someone else linked to a study that showed that "lowest All-cause mortality is at a BMI of 25". Well that's verging on overweight, so people with "healthier" BMI have higher rates of death, weird. A few days ago a study showed that sugar intake from pastries, ice creams, chocolate and candy reduced your risks of 7 cardiovascular diseases. What's going on? I say that as someone that's normal weight. I can understand some counter-reaction being wishful thinking, or part of body positivity movements, but objectively when I look at what we know, it's still quite fuzzy. Having said that, I would not mind over-enforcing in this case. I'd love it for portion sizes to be smaller, for processed foods to be phased out, for sugar content to be lowered in packaged and restaurant products, for deep fried foods to be less common, etc. And ideally, for what we do know is healthy, vegetables, fruits, lean meats, fish, poultry, often the least refined as possible, to be both accessible, convenient and cheap.

apitman 2y ago
Anecdotally, I feel like I can consume way more calories from carbs than fat or protein. I burn out on the other two way faster, and stay satiated longer. Though I agree deep fried is probably second to sweets.
- vladvasiliu 2y ago
  I think there's something to be said about what we take with the food. I mostly cook at home, and if I have meat, I'll only season it with some herbs and have some steamed vegetables or baked potatoes with it. If I have ham or similar, I'll eat it raw. This leaves me feeling full for the afternoon. But having a similarly sized piece of meat at a restaurant, which usually comes in some form of sauce (which I don't go out of my way to eat), will leave me hungry almost as soon as the meal is over. Anecdotally, when I stopped going to the office every day and switched to home-cooked meals as described above, I pretty quickly lost some weight.

vladvasiliu 2y ago

> I would propose a concerted effort through mandatory levels of food quality that is served to the public (e.g. schools, hospitals) The issue I've found is that it's much easier (= cheaper) to have tasty-enough food which is actually "junk". I love me some broccoli or other random steamed veggies with a steak. But when I was in school, these things were horrendous. Everything was a soggy, slimy mess. So fries it was, almost every day, except when they had pizza. And since this was in my formative years, I can understand how people learn to associate "eating healthy" with that atrocious thing nobody wanted to get close to. So they will tend to gravitate to what they remember as being reasonably tasty. It was my case, too, until I got fat and tried to do something about it. Which allowed me to discover it's not that much more work to make a tasty meal, which I actually like better. But it does take longer than throwing two frozen burgers in the microwave and calling it a day.