6 ms·

"I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific

"I'm of the opinion that there is nothing wrong, or rather that the population is acting entirely naturally and appropriately given their adaptation to specific evolutionary conditions, which have changed drastically in the last 100 years. I doubt controlling marketing material will have a long-lasting effect, but anything is worth a shot. It is a very serious problem." Which is it then, 'nothing wrong' or 'serious problem'?

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Nothing structurally or behaviorally unusual. There has been no new change in the species or some external factor that has caused the obesity epidemic. It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. So there's no "disease" to cure, and no mastermind manipulation of the population by forces using [insert latest ideas here]. If anything, this leads me to believe that we'll need to take evolution into our own hands to fix this. Various measures like this could be a useful stopgap. Like I said, beats me. Happy to confess ignorance here (as opposed to seemingly most every other commenter who speaks on this topic) If pressed, however, also happy to provide more speculation. As an obese person, I can definitely add that the disease metaphor, like the "moral blemish" metaphor before it, in my opinion does more damage than good. People come up with these ideas, then start wrapping them in the conspiracy theory of the month garb. Enough with the evil corporations, corrupt governments, sick people, lazy no-goods. These highly emotionally-charged models of analysis are not helping the public conversation. For the entire history of the species nobody has had to worry about obesity until very recently. It follows that social structures and the physiology of humans are not the changing variable. The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. It's simply the result of changing environmental conditions for which the species is ill-prepared.
- doctorpangloss 13y ago
  >The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. Okay, but it's people growing and selling all that food. Social structures subsidize most of our foods. Sure, food availability is the "only variable," but it's a variable highly caused & correlated to people and social structures. >physiology of humans are not the changing variable Of course the physiology of humans are a changing variable. African Americans did not exist as a physiological idea 400 years ago, but today they represent a medical population that's much differently susceptible to disease, especially obesity, than Africans living in America or white Americans. >no "disease" to cure Similar language was used by the tobacco industry to argue against the link between tobacco marketing, tobacco use and ultimately lung disease. [0] http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.html http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.ht...
- enduser 13y ago
  > It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. Most people given access to unlimited lentils would not become obese. Food availability is NOT the only factor. A core message of the article is that the food industry has lobbied against restrictions on advertizing to children food with habit-forming non-nutritive calories. The food industry is built around cheap production of highly-processed ingredients that addictively fuel consumption and sabotage health.
- 6d0debc071 13y ago
  If the only variable you're going to invoke is food availability, why isn't everyone - or near enough everyone - obese? Also: You'd expect, if food availability was the sole variable, for things like pasta to be the ones best correlated with obesity. (Well, no, actually you'd expect wheat flour at $0.07 to be, but you'd expect pasta to correlate better ) So, how comes Coca Cola is $0.46 per 200 calories while pasta is $0.21 per 200 calories, and yet it's the consumption of sweetened beverages that correlates so well with obesity? How comes so much of our energy comes from fast food, (a Jack in the Box burger is $0,57 per 200 calories) rather than wheat flour based products?
  - VLM 13y ago
    Confusing availability solely with cost and not time. Flour costs about 3 to 4 hours to bake some bread or at least an hour to make a homemade cake or cookies. That's the most expensive. Pasta will cost me 1/2 hour absolute minimum to make spaghetti and meatballs. Cheaper, but still expensive. Next cheapest is garbage grade fast food. Well, you're in for a long walk or a short drive, I figure I can get to the closest McD and get served "something" in less than 10 minutes. Cheaper yet... Cheapest of all is a can of soda. I can hit the vending machine at work and walk back to my desk in about 3 minutes. Hmm and the cheaper they are on this list, the more blame they get for making people fat. Some of it is the hair shirt brigade with the usual claim that if we had to raise our own apple orchards we would be holy enough, err, good enough, err whatever we'd be thin. I will say that a significant medically diagnosed food allergy in the family is probably the most effective weight loss plan I've ever heard of. No wheat ever again, you say? Well that eliminates 90% of the grocery store's processed/junk food right there.
    - 6d0debc071 13y ago
      It's not time-consuming to eat healthy. So much of what you're talking about doesn't require you to be standing anywhere near the thing. Breadmakers for instance - flour does not cost you 3-4 hours to make bread, it costs you more like a minute to stick the things in the machine and press the button. Pasta's about 20 minutes - which doesn't need you to be standing there. Bolognese sauce is about 20 minutes, regardless of the amount you make. Make a bunch of the things up and stick them in the freezer. - 4 minutes in the microwave, only a few seconds of which need you to be standing there. Rice, similarly, doesn't need you to be standing there while it boils. Heck you can get rice-cooking machines. Anything made in a slow cooker pretty much by definition doesn't need you to be standing there....

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Nothing structurally or behaviorally unusual. There has been no new change in the species or some external factor that has caused the obesity epidemic. It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. So there's no "disease" to cure, and no mastermind manipulation of the population by forces using [insert latest ideas here]. If anything, this leads me to believe that we'll need to take evolution into our own hands to fix this. Various measures like this could be a useful stopgap. Like I said, beats me. Happy to confess ignorance here (as opposed to seemingly most every other commenter who speaks on this topic) If pressed, however, also happy to provide more speculation. As an obese person, I can definitely add that the disease metaphor, like the "moral blemish" metaphor before it, in my opinion does more damage than good. People come up with these ideas, then start wrapping them in the conspiracy theory of the month garb. Enough with the evil corporations, corrupt governments, sick people, lazy no-goods. These highly emotionally-charged models of analysis are not helping the public conversation. For the entire history of the species nobody has had to worry about obesity until very recently. It follows that social structures and the physiology of humans are not the changing variable. The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. It's simply the result of changing environmental conditions for which the species is ill-prepared.

doctorpangloss 13y ago
>The only obvious changing variable is food availability. So yes, obesity is a public health hazard, but it's not one based on some fault with people or social structures. Okay, but it's people growing and selling all that food. Social structures subsidize most of our foods. Sure, food availability is the "only variable," but it's a variable highly caused & correlated to people and social structures. >physiology of humans are not the changing variable Of course the physiology of humans are a changing variable. African Americans did not exist as a physiological idea 400 years ago, but today they represent a medical population that's much differently susceptible to disease, especially obesity, than Africans living in America or white Americans. >no "disease" to cure Similar language was used by the tobacco industry to argue against the link between tobacco marketing, tobacco use and ultimately lung disease. [0] http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.html http://archive.tobacco.org/resources/history/strategieslb.ht...
enduser 13y ago
> It's all based on changing external conditions, mostly food availability. Most people given access to unlimited lentils would not become obese. Food availability is NOT the only factor. A core message of the article is that the food industry has lobbied against restrictions on advertizing to children food with habit-forming non-nutritive calories. The food industry is built around cheap production of highly-processed ingredients that addictively fuel consumption and sabotage health.
6d0debc071 13y ago
If the only variable you're going to invoke is food availability, why isn't everyone - or near enough everyone - obese? Also: You'd expect, if food availability was the sole variable, for things like pasta to be the ones best correlated with obesity. (Well, no, actually you'd expect wheat flour at $0.07 to be, but you'd expect pasta to correlate better ) So, how comes Coca Cola is $0.46 per 200 calories while pasta is $0.21 per 200 calories, and yet it's the consumption of sweetened beverages that correlates so well with obesity? How comes so much of our energy comes from fast food, (a Jack in the Box burger is $0,57 per 200 calories) rather than wheat flour based products?
- VLM 13y ago
  Confusing availability solely with cost and not time. Flour costs about 3 to 4 hours to bake some bread or at least an hour to make a homemade cake or cookies. That's the most expensive. Pasta will cost me 1/2 hour absolute minimum to make spaghetti and meatballs. Cheaper, but still expensive. Next cheapest is garbage grade fast food. Well, you're in for a long walk or a short drive, I figure I can get to the closest McD and get served "something" in less than 10 minutes. Cheaper yet... Cheapest of all is a can of soda. I can hit the vending machine at work and walk back to my desk in about 3 minutes. Hmm and the cheaper they are on this list, the more blame they get for making people fat. Some of it is the hair shirt brigade with the usual claim that if we had to raise our own apple orchards we would be holy enough, err, good enough, err whatever we'd be thin. I will say that a significant medically diagnosed food allergy in the family is probably the most effective weight loss plan I've ever heard of. No wheat ever again, you say? Well that eliminates 90% of the grocery store's processed/junk food right there.
  - 6d0debc071 13y ago
    It's not time-consuming to eat healthy. So much of what you're talking about doesn't require you to be standing anywhere near the thing. Breadmakers for instance - flour does not cost you 3-4 hours to make bread, it costs you more like a minute to stick the things in the machine and press the button. Pasta's about 20 minutes - which doesn't need you to be standing there. Bolognese sauce is about 20 minutes, regardless of the amount you make. Make a bunch of the things up and stick them in the freezer. - 4 minutes in the microwave, only a few seconds of which need you to be standing there. Rice, similarly, doesn't need you to be standing there while it boils. Heck you can get rice-cooking machines. Anything made in a slow cooker pretty much by definition doesn't need you to be standing there....