|
| Thread: Obesity (Long series of images within) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 14, 2009 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Mvass: But restaurants and grocery stores hardly want to turn down obese customers. Except at buffets, they're some of the best customers to have. Now insurance policies is different...
On the other hand, movie theatres, airline companies, and any other business that involves sitting but not eating does have some incentive to turn them down.  But here's the best thing I've read about curing obesity:
"Only one thing can stop obesity: being made fun of for being fat. This is the only thing that can really push someone to take care of themselves. What with our being social animals, humans rarely care about their own health. Sure, we worry when we're ill, but we rarely think in the long term. Plus fatty foods taste good. When it comes to fitting in though, there are no lengths to which we won't go. It's no coincidence that anti-bullying rules coincide with the rise in childhood obesity. Now I of course am not saying that we ought to encourage cruelty, but our society of universal acceptance has removed the main reason why we ever tried to stay in shape: acceptance in the group.
You can't really deny that obesity has correlated with the rise of believing that everyone is beautiful in their own way and that sort of thing. When there's no outside pressure to be healthy, I don't think that people care enough to bother with watching their diet or exercise. We can't really expect people to lose weight when, on one hand, we advise them to do so while, on the other hand, we encourage them to believe that they're just fine being overweight.
Oh, to support my position, look at smoking. In the US, a lot of work was done to make smoking seem low-class behaviour. As such, Americans smoke less. In Europe, smoking isn't seen as being low-class, and so people smoke much more despite being just as aware of the ill effects."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 08:43 PM |
|
|
Being harsh does have it's inadvertent benefits, that's for sure, even though constructive criticism would be more appropriate. Nonprofit organizations in the U.S. have done wonders to discourage and dwindle smoking, and maybe eventually the same will happen with weight. As you saw from my diagrams, high obesity rates are still a fairly recent problem, so it will take awhile for the anti-fat movement to get into full swing.
You mentioned airlines, and believe it or not, I read a year back that some airlines (I think it was in Canada?) are now charging more for really fat people. It's completely logical since their tonnage costs the plane more fuel usage, but with obesity rates as high as they are, there will be a lot of opposition that will falsely claim that it's discrimination.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
A lot of people talking at once. I guess fat people is a popular topic.
A note about those charts. First, BMI is not a very good measure. Second, there's no way those numbers they are calling "obese" are correct, at least not the way I think of obese. If you are just talking about overweight, the numbers may be right, but obese is a LOT overweight and I just don't believe those numbers.
Having said that, the important thing is the trend, so in that regard the trend looks really bad. I'd be curious how it coorelates with other things, such as changes in occupation over time. If I were to guess, I'd guess that the weight increase was due to lack of exercise more than diet. There are far too many people sitting in front of computers, and both the numbers of people and the length of time is increasing. It seems like the entire purpose of so-called modern technology is so that people can sit on their *** even more than they do now. As that trend continues, the weight of people will continue to increase.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You mentioned airlines, and believe it or not, I read a year back that some airlines (I think it was in Canada?) are now charging more for really fat people
I think they are doing that in the US. BUT I don't think the reason is directly because of weight (i.e. it costs more for fuel), I think it's because the seats are so small that a really fat person "intrudes" into the seat of the person next to them and it's not really fair for that person. Airplane seats are already very small and cramped, I'd be pissed if I paid good money for the seat and got squeezed even more. Fortunately that's never happened.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:04 PM |
|
|
@Bin
Quote:
Airplane seats are already very small and cramped, I'd be pissed if I paid good money for the seat and got squeezed even more. Fortunately that's never happened.
I've had it happen, and yes, it's annoying. The airlines will make you purchase two tickets if you are over a certain size.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:09 PM |
|
|
BMI works pretty well except with bodybuilders, who have a bunch of muscle weight.
When you hear "obese" in the vernacular, you probably think of something like this. But by it's medical definition, it's not quite so bad. But the medical definition of obesity is enough to lead to a vast array of health problems.
As for the charts, there certainly are a lot of factors to consider. I'm not sure if there was a baby boomer generation in Europe & Asia the way there was in the U.S, but for those unaware, the baby boomer generation in the U.S. was after WWII in the 1950s when everybody was really horny and had obscenely massive amounts of procreative sex. So there's a disproportionately high number of people in their 50s right now. That's prime time for a person to be fat, so that could be another contributor.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:12 PM |
|
|
@Blizz
Quote:
So there's a disproportionately high number of people in their 50s right now. That's prime time for a person to be fat, so that could be another contributor.
You see the same sort of trends in other demographics, particularly children, so that's not the sole cause.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:20 PM |
|
|
Yea.
BTW
Corribus:
Quote:
We had a fat threadalready.
If Mvass and Death can have 500 threads about socialism and capitalism, I can make a 2nd thread about obesity 
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
Corribus, would you mind logging in? I sent a HCM for you. Pretty important one.
Fnny remark about BMI: Mike Tyson in his prime had BMI of... well, idk, 35 or 40 105 kg and 178 cm height - BMI sucks for muscular men, it just doesn't consider that those extra kgs may be pure muscles.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:54 PM |
|
|
This is clearly a politics failure. Look at the development for cigarettes. Massive taxes, campaigns, advertisement ban.
Same should long have been done with products containing mostly sugar and those containing "bad" fat. Moreover, ban advertisement for that stuff.
Use part of the money for campaigning against that stuff.
Double the amount of school sports.
In Europe, for truck drivers pauses are mandatory after a certain time of driving, and even so many hours of sleep after so many hours of driving.
You might make physical exercise mandatory for people having a sitting job.
An alternative are tables that are height-adjustable, where you can work standing at.
Now, for those who feel that's private business - I don't see so many differences between sugar an cigarettes, between driving and sitting at a desk. Moreover, that's what a government is for, protecting people from themselves where necessary.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 09:59 PM |
|
|
Sugar is a vital resource to the body
Nicotine is an addictive substance that destroys the lungs and potentially causes cancer.
I'm sorry, joker, but I see a big difference between that. Now, in all honesty, I don't really want to ban cigarettes or have anything against them on those grounds. I have something against cigarettes, because anyone standing near the lit ones get some tar in their lungs free of charge.
Also, I rather feel that a government is protecting people from eachother, not themselves.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:02 PM |
|
|
I'm not as extreme as JJ, since I don't want to impose anything on people but on those that sell the respective things (cigarettes or junk food), I think it's more feasible solution.
Either that or just don't do anything about it since it's not that bad actually (I mean, unless you're a kid), however don't complain if you'll need to pay more (due to your weight) or for 2 tickets like Corribus said
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:05 PM |
|
|
@Joker:
You can increase the amount of sports in case your local school happens to not have many, but you still need participants to sign up. Gym class can only do so much, and while increasing it's time would help, you only have so much time to fit into the overall curriculum, so it becomes a bashing of interests. Fine arts programs like music classes are often the ones that get cut despite the immense benefits they offer to a developing kid as a well as offering intellectually engaging pastime.
Truck drivers can only drive for so long in the U.S. as well, in order to remain alert on the road. But the idea of high tables to force people to stand while working just sounds horrible. I worked at a hotel for a year and those standing desk jobs suck for the feet, plus they don't really offer hardly anything in terms of exercise. In order for real calories to be burned, you need to get your blood flowing. Besides, having a job like that for decades can lead to medical problems with bursting blood veins and such, not to mention that it's demoralizing to needlessly stand.
Quote:
Moreover, that's what a government is for, protecting people from themselves where necessary.
This is diabolical, and the government has no clue what is best for an individual.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:12 PM |
|
|
Not at all, blizzard, the government does it with tobacco as well I don't see any reason, why a Snickers shouldn't have a nice print on it that says something about your body, why a nice tax on it was bad and why a ban on cigarettes ads is good, but a ban on sugarbomb ads is not.
Now for tables, I happen to have one where you can stand and sit, and I tell you , after three hours of sitting it's just fine to stand 20 minutes and work standing. Also, the technical development allows extremely easy adjusting - you are not supposed to stand instead of sit, you are supposed to change your position.
@ DG
DG, you should know that sugar is habit forming as well.
Moreover, industrial sugar is extremely bad for your health as well, whether you like that or not.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
The government should not enforce anything on anybody.
But there should be an awareness program.
However, lobbyists from McDonalds and the like will probably force whichever party is in power at any time to quash said things. So no such program will ever exist and people will probably continue eating themselves to death.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
Not disagreeing with you there, jolly, and I'm not a big fan of big amounts of both, but to me limiting stuff on what is basically habit-forming poison is still a little different from limiting habit-forming stuff that the body needs in relatively small amounts. Now, I'm not a fan of taxing either, though a warning on it would be kind of fun.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 10:31 PM |
|
|
I really wish this forum labeled the author of quotes *sigh*.
----
@Joker:
But why tax something for being unhealthy? If your neighbor dumped their trash on your front lawn against your consent, should they be taxed for it, or prosecuted for it? I'm assuming you think they should be prosecuted for it. Candy bars have labels on them: they're called nutritional facts, with a nice table for daily value. Nobody is being duped when they buy a candy bar unless they choose to ignore it, so they are giving consent to the risks involved. If for some reason a company does mislead it's buyers, they should be promptly charged and sued.
I misunderstood what you meant by adjustable tables. That sounds like a nice tool for allowing people to change positions and such to stretch and move around every so often, but I don't think that's related to exercise.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 11:02 PM |
|
|
It's related to health - as is obesity. I mean you aren't having this thread because you find obesity unpleasant, are you?
Now, I ask again: What's so different with eating sweets than with smoking? The effect is not that different, at least in terms of cost, which is basically all which is relevant. It starts with teeth, it ends with heart failure.
So, if you do all that with cigarettes and tobacco, why wouldn't you do it with fat and sugar.
Think Marlbore County. Imagine this discussion 40 years ago, with cigarettes. All people has found just the same points NOT to do anything. It's just a matter of perspective.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
Well, I suppose to me it's different I guess, since I chock sweets down by the truckload and, though I am in horrible shape with a heart condition by birth, still I am very healthy. On the other hand, two close family members died of lung cancer. That is a personal and doesn't really count and it won't convince anyone.
THOUGH, the body still needs sugar and fat. A body without that tends to not live for a long period of time. A body without nicotine tends to not share that same problem. So sugar and fats are nutrients and smoke isn't, that's why I think it's different from eachother. yeah, sure, too much damages your health, but too much of anything damages your health. I mean, there's even such a thing as water poisoning and that's not poisoned water but people dying from too much water without having thrown up
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 14, 2009 11:09 PM |
|
|
Now, hold on. Obesity and smoking are not the same, because smokers do impose a cost on other people: second-hand smoke. But fat people don't impose "second-hand fat" on other people.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
