Post: #1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/stor...54791430/1

Nothing new, but here's the deal.

With public health care, these problems will only be exacerbated. If you know society will pay for your medicine, your fat-ass will just get fatter. The incentive to behave responsibly disappears.

If you care about Americans getting grotesquely fat, you will vote AGAINST public health initiatives and in favor of making people responsible for their own health. If they care about being fatsos, they can exercise. if they care about hormones in their food, the bitch can buy their food at Whole Foods for 3 times the alternative price.

Seriously. Pull the rug out from under these fatsos. Being fat is a choice. And don't vote for the clown Obama if you want it to stop.

Especially since the only advice/remedy the government offers is some stupid diet-workout routine that couldn't help a starving man lose weight. In massive government bureaucracies, there is no incentive for the truth to surface. You think any of the fat-fucks who say eat 1,800 calories a day and walk for an hour in shape?

They are soft and they are weak. Do us all a favor and put them out of a job. Crush them.

Vote for LESS government and MORE personal responsability.

The only way the government could help solve this problem would be to draft all these fatties into the military and then send them on a rampage in the Middle East. I'd vote for that.

Post: #2

^^ So basically the value of thin, attractive American women will go into the stratosphere, putting them out of reach of all but the top 5% of men. Man the lifeboats, we're on a sinking ship.

Check this out:

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/fitness...tion_N.htm

Quote:Many Americans have skewed perceptions when it comes to their weight, often believing they are thinner than they really are, even when the scales are shouting otherwise, a new poll finds.

As part of the Harris Interactive/HealthDay survey, respondents were asked to provide their height and weight, from which pollsters calculated their body-mass index (BMI), a ratio of weight to height. Respondents were then asked which category of weight they thought they fell into.

Thirty percent of those in the "overweight" class believed they were actually normal size, while 70% of those classified as obese felt they were simply overweight. Among the heaviest group, the morbidly obese, almost 60% pegged themselves as obese, while another 39% considered themselves merely overweight.

These findings may help to explain why overweight and obesity rates in the United States continue to go up, experts say.

Post: #3

(05-08-2012 04:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  ^^ So basically the value of thin, attractive American women will go into the stratosphere, putting them out of reach of all but the top 5% of men. Man the lifeboats, we're on a sinking ship.

I read that the adult obesity rate has stopped increasing for Western developed countries. I'm pretty sure it was on the Forum before or Roosh tweeted it or something. Now all we need to do is fight it still it declines and halt its spread in the developing world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/health/14obese.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/341349...-told.html

Post: #4

(05-08-2012 05:23 AM)P Dog Wrote:  I read that the adult obesity rate has stopped increasing for Western developed countries. I'm pretty sure it was on the Forum before or Roosh tweeted it or something. Now all we need to do is fight it still it declines and halt its spread in the developing world.

According to the report in the OP, it's still increasing, but at a slower rate. What's not mentioned is the proportion that is overweight but not obese. So if by 2030, they are expecting 42% obesity, probably another 40% will be overweight, leaving under 20% as non-overweight (as of now, it's ~30%).

And these are figures across both sexes, yet we know that obesity and 'overfatness' disproportionately affects women, so the figures for women are even worse than above.

For men in America, it's game or GTFO. And if too many guys learn game, it's just GTFO.

Post: #5

I'm always surprised at what average people think constitutes a healthy meal. Eg for breakfast, orange juice, toast, granola and fruit yogurt. Oh, and a cookie because everything else was so healthy. Of course, all of that was sugar and refined starches.

Anytime there are refreshments or there is breakfast served, there is nothing healthy - you either starve or stuff your face with sugar. Typically, it's bagels, cream cheese, pastries, sugary juice, coffee, maybe tea, and Yoplait. Everything is lined up to make you fat. And if you question it, people think you're a little weird.

I love how people will complain about being fat, as if it was just some bolt of lightning that struck them. Right as they're chowing down on a Big Gulp of Coke and a blueberry muffin. This one guy at work said "I'm definitely not FAT, maybe a little portly" and the dude was *obese.* DA FUCK? You blink and he just grew another chin.

The government has tons and tons of facilities where it's doling out food in one way or another. Government buildings, military mess halls, hospitals, school cafeterias... Is it really too much to ask to have one experiment with something besides the typical American diet?

Post: #6

It's a pretty well-known fact around these parts that I don't subscribe to this neo-conservative anti-government reasoning for everything (including obesity). If anything I think the problem lies with under-funding of health classes at public schools. If dumb-ass kids knew the difference between 18g of fat and 18g of sodium--from youth--it would make a difference. The woefully inadequate condition of health knowledge is absurd. Even my educated-ass doesn't know whether 18g of fat is a lot or not. It's the goddamn metric system!

Another problem is food deserts. If any of you guys have ever been to the hood--and tried to eat there--you quickly discovered that all there is is Burger King and shitty corner markets with canned food. Getting a decent meal is hard, even if you only have a vague idea of what's good for you. Try it out.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame big, bad, vague "government" for everything. Government can be the problem and can be the solution. It really depends on who's running the bitch. Put me in there and see what happens.

Post: #7

I'm with Tuth. I'm all for less government spending and VERY much for individual responsibility, but I'm also a proponent of strong public education. I'd love to put it in the hands of private enterprise, but it's very difficult for companies to sell actual health, because actual health takes effort and the lazy bastards that make up most of the population have no interest in effort... and companies are REAL good at selling soda and hamburgers.

You know what I'd like to see? A mix. Free government health care if you can pass a (real) fitness test, sliding scale of payments the worse you do. Trim, fit, making an effort to take care of yourself and accidentally break a leg? Sure, free cast for you. 300lbs, living off big macs, and wheezing up to the clinic to complain about the tingling in your toes because they're losing circulation? Best bring your wallet.

Post: #8

I'm all for small government, but there are some areas where it's blatantly in the public interest that the government stay involved. Up there with street lights and policing is public health and education. It simply doesn't work very well when left to markets; most people aren't rational enough to think through consequences and weigh up risk that far into the future. Hell, I know medical doctors who smoke (though none who are fat).

School meals are important. What they serve up in most schools is disgusting. See Jamie Oliver's school meals campaign: http://www.jamieoliver.com/school-dinners

It comes down to education. Almost everything I know about nutrition today I learned or extrapolated from high school biology. Supplemented that base information from popular science magazines, newspapers and the RVF.

Between that knowledge and learning how to cook from my parents, discipline as a kid (eg. only soft drinks on special occasions, sweets only on a set day of the week) I've been a reasonably healthy eater all my life.

What a lot of Americans don't understand is that healthy eating doesn't take any effort or willpower if you have the habit from childhood. I don't get obsessive about avoiding certain foods, but I rarely feel like having more than a single slice of pizza or half a donut or whatever junk is served up at events I go to.

Nowadays I see young relatives snacking at will. If they don't feel like eating what's for dinner they'll just crush a pack of Doritos and call it a day. At school they can get sugary drinks and snacks from a vending machine in the canteen whenever they feel like it. This will probably lead to poor eating habits for the rest of their lives and cause them problems delaying gratification and difficulty with impulse control.

I wouldn't be surprised if growing drug and alcohol addiction is partially caused by kids 'abusing' sugary / caffeinated / fatty foods to get a short term rush. Addiction probably has more to do with these patterns of behaviour than any specific substances.

Post: #9

Nah, I disagree.

Some kids grow up in homes where they aren't taught the value of thriftiness. Others grow in homes where they aren't taught the importance of home-cooking.

Sooner or later, everyone has to learn it for themselves. Government can't teach you personal responsibility.

Pull the government out of the equation. If you have a life-style disease, let the private insurance companies calculate that into the insurance premium they're going to require of you. Every time the government meddles in private markets, they make things worse, not better. Public education on health is a bad idea. Have you seen the shit they recommend? Most of the crack-pot health experts colleges crank out are dimwits who any amateur athlete who did his own research could crush in any contest, with lower BF percentages and better stats to boot. Fuck letting government tell you to walk an hour a day and eat 1,800 calories. Those bitches have no idea. And you want to let them dictate education policy? Are you insane?

Remove the incentive to ignore a healthy lifestyle and let those who don't perish. We live in an age of the internet, for Christ's sake. It's never been easier to be an informed citizen. You can find any argument for or against any theory on the net. Let the citizen decide where he'll place his bets, let him reap the rewards.

Post: #10

I think you're very idealistic about how well people respond to incentives. I sympathise with the view that people should bear the consequences of their choices. But because peoples' choices end up affecting society as a whole it's in society's best interest to do something to affect them. These people don't exist in an Austrian economist's dreamland where their choices only affect themselves.

The lost productivity of a worker who is obese, even if she is not on government disability, is a lose for the economy as a whole (not to mention the sexual market and the visual pollution!) A well-functioning, productive member of society benefits more than just himself and his employer.

That government public health education is poor today is not an argument to end ALL public health education. That would be like saying "government will never do a good job of sex education; we'll always have teens getting pregnant. Let's just let kids figure out contraceptives by themselves and not give poor kids access to free condoms. Let them pay for their own abortions if they get pregnant." It's making the best the enemy of the good.

There is no such thing as perfect policy, we have to muddle through and work with the reality on the ground. That the current solution is imperfect is not an argument to overthrow the whole order and re-engineer the whole thing. I guess I'm a Burkean conservative in that way.

If the real problem is that government is currently giving bad advice, why not lobby for better public health education? If we remove government from the equation the field is wide open for healthy eating programmes to be sponsored by the likes of McDonald's and Nestlé. Would that be preferable?

I see where you're coming from, but a lot of people do not have access to even half way decent information. Like Tuth pointed out, try driving through the hood and see if you can get a decent meal. Not everyone can simply exercise their free will go out and get themselves a decent meal. It comes down to bounded rationality. People should be rational and make good choices - but what if they don't even know what constitutes a good choice? What if they know what constitute a good choice but are constrained by poverty or lack of options to even make such a choice?

This is hardly controversial or even a big, dangerous exercise in social engineering. The government already pays for public education and school meals, why not use that channel to teach people skills and information that may save their lives? Or do you think we should scrap public education too?

Post: #11

(05-08-2012 08:53 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:23 AM)P Dog Wrote:  I read that the adult obesity rate has stopped increasing for Western developed countries. I'm pretty sure it was on the Forum before or Roosh tweeted it or something. Now all we need to do is fight it still it declines and halt its spread in the developing world.

According to the report in the OP, it's still increasing, but at a slower rate. What's not mentioned is the proportion that is overweight but not obese. So if by 2030, they are expecting 42% obesity, probably another 40% will be overweight, leaving under 20% as non-overweight (as of now, it's ~30%).

It is known that the obesity rate is stagnating across the developed world, and declining among some groups.

We have already hit rock bottom with this epidemic. There is nowhere to go but up right now.

Post: #12

ElJefe: You seem very idealistic about how well people respond to incentives. I sympathise with the view that people should bear the consequences of their choices. But because peoples' choices end up affecting society as a whole it's in society's best interest to do something to affect them. These people don't exist in an Austrian economist's dreamland where their choices only affect themselves.

The lost productivity of a worker who is obese, even if she is not on government disability, is a loss for the economy as a whole (not to mention the sexual market and the visual pollution!) A well-functioning, productive member of society brings social benefits beyond himself, his employer and the taxman.

That government public health education is poor today is not an argument to end ALL public health education. That would be like saying "government will never do a good job of sex education; we'll always have teens getting pregnant. Let kids figure out contraceptives by themselves and not give poor kids free condoms. Let them pay for their own abortions if they get pregnant." Stopping one unwanted pregnancy pays for a lot of free condoms in saved resources.

Your policy makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

There is no such thing as perfect policy, we have to muddle through. That the current solution is imperfect is not an argument to overthrow the whole order and re-engineer the whole thing because it might work better. In policy circles they call this kind of problem a Wicked Problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem - and it's naive to think that it can be solved with one stroke. I'm a pessimistic, traditional conservative in that respect.

If the real problem is that government currently gives poor advice, why not lobby for better public health education? If we remove government from the equation the field is left open for healthy eating programmes to be sponsored by the likes of McDonald's and Nestlé. Would that be preferable?

I see where you're coming from, but a lot of people do not have access to even half way decent information. Like Tuth pointed out, try getting a half decent meal in the hood. Not everyone can exercise their free will go out and get themselves a decent meal. As much as I love the free market, this is one of its dangers that has to be mitigated for the greater good.

It comes down to bounded rationality. People should be rational and make good choices - but what if they don't even know what a good choice is? What if they know what constitute a good choice but are constrained by poverty or lack of options to even make such a choice? Ignorance is no excuse and we shouldn't try to save everyone from bad decisions, but all society benefits if we try to curb the worst effects.

This is hardly a dangerous exercise in social engineering. The government already pays for public education and school meals, why not use that channel to teach people skills that may save their lives? Or should we scrap public education too?

Post: #13

PS. It's inevitable that healthcare costs get externalised to everyone, even under a strictly private regime. Consider that 62% of US personal bankruptcies in 2007 were caused by health problems. These are people who make use of healthcare and end up not paying for it when they go bankrupt. Those who pay for insurance end up shouldering that cost.

So how big of an impact will pulling government out of the equation really have?

Post: #14

I am amazed that guys here think government involvement is the answer. In theory, sure, government could do good here, but in reality, any government policy in the area of diet is effectively written by the large food conglomerates. Remember, it was the government who brought you the food pyramid, after it was approved by the likes of Monsanto, etc. What makes you think future government involvement in this area won't be similarly tainted?

Post: #15

I'm on my phone, so I don't have the means to write a response to Tuth et al, but the short story is that the 'food desert' theory is bogus. There was a piece in the NY Times saying as much.

Here's one example. Most people know that soda is not good for you. Yet they still drink it. The food desert theory might explain why you're at McDonald's, but not why you're buying soda specifically. People buy soda because it's tasty, mildly addictive, cheap, and ubiquitous. And, they just don't care about the health effects. Poor people are more likely just to not care as much as yuppies. Poverty can't explain why you're spending extra money for something that isn't filling or healthful. Class can, but people are too PC to talk about class honestly and openly. Paul Fussell in his classic book about class wrote that the sugar content of your fridge is as good a class indicator as any, IIRC.

I do favor the imposition of a sizable sugar tax, and a cut in taxes elsewhere. Put it this way - how much would you pay to live in an America where no one is fat? $1000 a year? $5000? You wouldn't actually be paying that of course, just making the point that the betas, pussies and autistic economists who run this country put no value on aesthetics, and act as if no one else would, when people actually would pay to live in a prettier country.

Post: #16

Agree with basil. Class and culture are big factors. Not all poverty looks the same and usually it's culture (or lack thereof) rather than the lack of money that leads people to bad decisions.

In London I noticed that a lot of poor immigrants kept the healthy eating habits of their home countries (from observing them shopping at markets), while the more established underclass subsisted off junk food. Both groups probably have similar income and education levels, but culture makes a difference.

Post: #17

Maybe it's just people in America who push the magic pill fat loss products too much, therefore making people think that it's ok to eat unhealthy and stay lean.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35hpvw/

Post: #18

What a ridiculous thing to say, "Obesity fight must shift from personal blame-US panel"

OK, fattest people I know:
1. Sits on his ass in front of a computer, playing WoW or other worthless shit. When not doing this works as a driver. WILL NOT walk two blocks down to the beach for minimal exercise. Eats TV dinners constantly.

2. Sits on his ass in front of a computer, surfing the web. He goes to the gym on occasion when I can drag his ass and will sometimes go to the beach -- still fat as fuck. Eats slightly healthy.

3. Sits on his ass in front of a computer, working on his own business. Never goes to gym, will on mighty rare occasions come roller blading on the beach. Only other exercise is banging his wife which he seems to do a lot -- somewhat fat, mostly just a belly. Eats out a lot, not very healthy.

4. Me. Sits on ass in front of computer all day for work. Go to gym nearly every day or as often as possible do some sort of exercise every day. Eats out every meal every day, relatively healthful IE salad + some meat for lunch, fruit for breakfast, not the most unhealthy dinner. Drinks nearly every day. Minimally fat, a minor belly from shit tons of beer.

In every case it is -OUR OWN FUCKING FAULT-

Post: #19

As much as I hate taxes and regulations, a sugar tax is pretty ingenious and honestly a small price to pay for the health and longterm improvement of American society (and work ethic). You eat too much sugar, you crash, and you're an unproductive blob, so this could be a real game-changer. If you haven't seen this already check it out, it's called Sugar: The Bitter Truth:

http://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM

In a nutshell, fructose (in its processed GMO form) is a poison.

Post: #20

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47324248/ns/...7kfLMWrGSo

The biggest predictors of obesity in an area are (in no particular order):
food prices
prevalence of fast-food restaurants
unemployment

These all affect people's access to healthy food since healthy food is more expensive, in wealthier areas, and is one of the first things cut when unemployed in developed countries.

The readjustments in the forecasts are due to increases in prices for oil, which is used to grow food (many fertilizers are oil based), and I'm assuming changes in the assumed length of the recession. Given that these economic factors are probably not going to get that much better in the developed world for a bit, I believe obesity is still going to climb a bit more.

I'm kind of leaning towards government intervention checking the private sector to solve the problem of obesity. I'm usually anti-gov but I feel like the private sector has been so effective at driving consumer behaviour I believe some entity that is working on behalf of the people needs to counter balance all the companies' interests.

If the government, NGO's, etc. want to reduce obesity. I would argue you need to look for ways to affect the access to healthy food versus just telling people shit they already know. This could be subsides/taxes, rules against fast-food places(a la San Fran)/promotion of healthy food places, etc. But these are factors at the macro level.

At the individual/micro level, It's about psychology and how humans make decisions which research has expanded beyond basic economics to a branch called behavioral economics. The book NUDGE speaks thoroughly about this topic and it has become popular in biz/gov lately because it's about getting people do things on their own "free will". This is about structuring choices in a way that people are free to decide if they want to do something but increases the likelihood you get the desired policy goal. Btw, many of these techniques are already used in game.

Think about the things you see in every store you go into. Everything is placed in a way to increase the likelihood you buy shit you do not need. Simple changes proposed such as putting healthy food at eye level and junk food out of easy reach or re-ranging how the menu displays items has been shown to reduce obesity in schools. I would like to see more of these NUDGE units outside of the federal level and into areas where they can have greater affect on local communities with high obesity.
http://www.horizons.gc.ca/doclib/2012-0097-eng.pdf

Post: #21

I don't like big government, but I don't agree with the OP's premise. Within Western countries anyway the ones with the biggest social safety nets (e.g. Scandinavia) have obesity rates much lower than the US. It seems it's a lot more complicated.

At the end of the day each person, man or women, either does the things they need to do to move ahead (learn game and make money for men, stay slim and care for their appearance for women) or they don't. Fat people, especially fat women, really don't need to be reminded of how their condiotion drags them down in life. It's apparent just when they leave their house or switch on their TV.

Post: #22

I think a fair assumption is that individuals want a healthy lifestyle as opposed to being fatasses. So the question is, if this is the case, why so many fatties, and why do you have more of them in the US than elsewhere?

I doubt there is a single explanation.

I think part is information (or lack thereof). In Nicaragua, this was clearly a problem. They have amazing mangos, passion fruits and could be enjoying world-class stuff, but they pour a pound of sugar into that shit when they make juice. Jugo fresca is more like jugo diabetes (they have very high rates of diabetes). For lower-class individuals, I think this is the case.

For middle-class Americans the problem is mainly work-loads and sedentary lifestyle (too much entertainment). It's simply vastly easier to eat take-away then prepare your own meal, and the default option is heavy in calories. This is especially due to having two working parents, since neither has the time to prepare home-cooked meals. I mean, it's not like these people all of sudden forget donuts make you fat or that they already are fat. The internet is awash with millions of people figuring out how to lose the weight. The desire is already there.

As for other countries being better: don't be so sure. They're quickly catching up or already worse. Scandinavians are getting fatter and fatter... the only reason they're not already fat is that they can't afford to go out all the time unlike Americans.

There has to be a clear incentive to educate yourself in the matter, and I think the most powerful incentive would be economic. Private insurers would be far more efficient at tackling these kinds of problems than a big-government solution.

Another solution is lower taxes so families can maintain a middle-class lifestyle with a single breadwinner, allowing the other parent more time for cooking, for instance.

Either way, government seems more part of the problem than the solution.

Post: #23

Does the Ukraine or any other EE country have government dictated food programs? Ones that tell people what to eat?

How many fat people are there?

I think it's been shown that the percentage of fat fucks goes up pretty much in line with the national standard of living. In other words, people get fat and lazy when life is cake and basically handed to them.

Interestingly, the well off have a much lower incidence of obesity. Probably because they actually earn their standard of living and have the motivation to not only keep earning it, but keeping themselves in decent shape to do so.

Post: #24

Neo-Conservatives aren't Anti-Government, Tuth. They're totalitarian war mongers.

Post: #25

(05-08-2012 11:22 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  It's a pretty well-known fact around these parts that I don't subscribe to this neo-conservative anti-government reasoning for everything (including obesity). If anything I think the problem lies with under-funding of health classes at public schools. If dumb-ass kids knew the difference between 18g of fat and 18g of sodium--from youth--it would make a difference. The woefully inadequate condition of health knowledge is absurd. Even my educated-ass doesn't know whether 18g of fat is a lot or not. It's the goddamn metric system!

Another problem is food deserts. If any of you guys have ever been to the hood--and tried to eat there--you quickly discovered that all there is is Burger King and shitty corner markets with canned food. Getting a decent meal is hard, even if you only have a vague idea of what's good for you. Try it out.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame big, bad, vague "government" for everything. Government can be the problem and can be the solution. It really depends on who's running the bitch. Put me in there and see what happens.

It is not just school is the problem it is government subsidizing corn, making unhealthy food way cheaper than healthy food. What is cheaper, an pound of apple or a liter of cola? Not just that, cheap high calorie food is way more accessible than healthy food. How many convenience stores are selling fruits and vegetables? How many convience stores you see opposing to fruit or healthy grocery stores? How many aisles they have for fruits and vegetable opposing to the how many aisles are they for junk food and snacks, creal, etc in a store? The farming and food consumer policy has been too lax, they need make make healthier food more affordable and accessible for the poor.