Obesity: Why are we getting fat? :epizza:

Nitack · 01-22-2009

I have given this a lot of thought over the last evening and must say I am disappointed in the hypo community and disheartened at the implications of what was posted here yesterday.

I get the feeling that there are some that are not satisfied with the answer we know to be true and are grasping for a different answer. Say that Calories in vs. Calories out is "oversimplified" if you want, but I think too many people are trying to complicate the issue because they don't like the implications of what we know to be true. If Calories in vs. Calories out is true, and the solution is "eat less, move more" then the responsibility falls to the individual to fix their situation, and people can not blame some condition or gene for their lot in life.

I put forward the notion of a walking desk as a part of the solution, and it was dismissed with the statement

Quote:

I think that is an entirely silly suggestion and not really all that helpful. Aside from the astounding cost and immense waste (as most overweight people would likely not accept forced exercise as a solution)

Offering individuals who normally would be sedentary 8 hours a day a way to be more active is not silly at all. At least you offer them the opportunity. In addition, if you are not going to coerce the overweight population to actually work hard to lose their weight, then how do you propose to do it? Will you restrict their food? Not likely. These people already have a solution, diet and exercise, but are not using it. And to say they need to be educated more is the real silly answer. You could stop any obese person on the street and I GUARANTEE you that they could tell you exactly what is needed in a healthy diet and the importance of exercise. People are bombarded with this information.

So what I read from that statement is that the only solution that some here find realistic is a salutation that does not require control of diet or exercise. So we are talking about a pill, gene therapy, or other kind of quick fix. This I find to be a sad notion. We are saying that the population in general needs to be chemically or genetically altered because they are defective as they are now.

Speaking of complex sociological factors and then being dismissive of a very real way to address at least one of the "complex sociological factors" I find to be very shortsighted. After all, complex sociological change requires many small changes as a part of the larger change. Like making sedentary activities more active.

Diet and exercise is the obvious solution to the Calories in vs. Calories out problem. If you dismiss the formula as oversimplified then you dismiss the solution as well. Diet and exercise can't change your genetics, it can't cause an under active thyroid to function normally. It can only change how many Calories go in and how many Calories you use (go out).

I hope that those who were so dismissive of me yesterday can please tell me what they would consider a real solution? Hard work, despite how much evidence we have that it actually works for practically everyone, has been called unrealistic and a simplistic answer. You can't force people to diet and exercise, so is the only answer considered to be realistic in this thread one that involves an easier way out?

I agree, that there are factors that can change how your body handles energy and that will affect weight, but I out of hand dismiss the idea that it can't be fixed through hard work in the form of diet and activity if you understand those complex factors. There is a simple answer and solution when you understand the complex contributing factors.

Obesity is an individual problem that we are seeing on an epidemic scale. In my opinion, each of those individuals needs to make individual changes to fix that problem. There will never be a macro solution that still preserves personal freedoms and the ability of individuals to run their own lives. Every pill will have a drawback and side effect. Every gene you find that relates to obesity and you fix can not compensate for the individual behaviors that actually cause the weight gain.

Perhaps it is just in the nature of science geeks to want a scientific solution...

Nitack · 01-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

Theres a guy at the Gym who hooked up a Treadmill to the TV. When his wife wants to watch TV, she has to move the treadmill.
an Hour or two of Soaps on a treadmill is a whole lot different than 2 hours on the couch.

Great call Nitack!
This conversion can be done by the scientific minds here rather easily in terms of engineering.

A little harder to Walk and Type on the computer than it is to simply watch TV; a treadmill to a TV is easier to hook up.

The solution is easy.
Watch TV, but you have to Treadmill the electricity! (or Bike it)

You know what, I actually found it no harder to walk and type. I have spend hours and hours (a lot playing computer games) walking along and completely forgot I was moving.

There is a reason why my solution is working for me, because I took the option to be more active away from myself. I use a desktop computer, and will not move the thing every time I want to use the computer but don't want to exercise. People are not sedentary because they don't have the option to exercise, we all have feet and plenty of space around us to walk. People are sedentary because it is in our nature to conserve energy. Japanese exercise programs work because the option is taken away from people by use of social and societal pressures. Those same factors don't exist here and never will.

Guess what, I see nothing wrong with an employer, who foots the bill for a lot of your medical care, to require you to walk while working for two hours a day. They have a financial stake in your health and as long as the practice is uniformly applied it is completely fair. You don't like that workplace policy, then leave. It is no different than a dress code in my mind.

pamela · 01-22-2009

As a reminder, the topic if this thread is "why", the reasoning behind why obesity has grown to epidemic proportions.
We all understand, eat less, exercise more; that is not the issue here.
The problem occurs when you treat this as if it was such an easy simple thing to do. For many people, this simplicity is all that is needed, but for others with complications as previously mentioned in this thread, it is infact, not so simple.
Your treadmill desk is a good idea for reading while walking, could'nt imagine typing and walking though, must be tricky

While I am not obese, I do understand how difficult it can be to lose weight.With the inevitable 10 pounds that always manages to find me, when the cold weather comes in, I have to work hard to remove it by Spring. Drinking plenty of water, avoiding bread( bread is evil

), and pushing myself beyond normal physical activity, does the trick. I feel better and have much more energy to accomplish more and subsequently burn more calories.
My biggest concern at this point, are the children. Obesity is starting at a very younge age now and setting the course for an overweight life. The health problems associated with this are horrific. I think it imperative that parents, follow the guidelines of a low fat diet starting at age 2. On well check visits to the pediatrician's office, parents are urged to do this. I have to wonder how much of this advice is followed. It is the parent's responsibility to provide healthy food, and may require thought, as Gerber is no longer handling that. We should want the best for our children, not what is the fastest or cheapest way to go in our busy lifestyles.

Nitack · 01-22-2009

I could not have said it better myself. It is so pertinent to the point I try to make here.

YouTube - Bill Maher - Anti-Pharma Rant

And started a new thread to discuss this too

Nitack · 01-22-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by pamela

My biggest concern at this point, are the children. Obesity is starting at a very younge age now and setting the course for an overweight life. The health problems associated with this are horrific. I think it imperative that parents, follow the guidelines of a low fat diet starting at age 2. On well check visits to the pediatrician's office, parents are urged to do this. I have to wonder how much of this advice is followed. It is the parent's responsibility to provide healthy food, and may require thought, as Gerber is no longer handling that. We should want the best for our children, not what is the fastest or cheapest way to go in our busy lifestyles.

I see your point, and can honestly say as some one who was a very fat child, I needed to get my ass kicked out of the house every afternoon to play instead of watching TV and playing video games.

I have a bodybugg. For those of you that don't know what it is, www.bodybugg.com, it is a measurement tool that is supposed to measure your caloric burn with up to 92% accuracy or higher. I have conducted plenty of tests with it. The difference between how many calories I burn just working around the house (comparable to play for a child) and what I burn sitting at a computer or watching TV is astounding. We're talking three times as many calories consumed when doing something even moderately active like just building my desk (using it is even more active).

Kick your kid out of the house. Don't let him watch TV except select shows. Make him spend his afternoons in the backyard or at the local playground (maybe a bit old for this at 12, but there are basketball courts).

pamela · 01-22-2009

yeah, when I was growing up, afterschool you got a piece of fruit, glass of water and don't show your face in this house until dinner

Big difference today, I am afraid. I have my son in an afterschool program as mentioned earlier in this thread. Not only does he enjoy the ps2 bike, they also have indoor basketball and baseball outside, weather permitting. From what I have seen, at least 1/2 of the kids there, have a weight problem. This program works very hard to ensure that they are getting plenty of exercise. They have regular exercise classes and programs designed to teach the kids proper health and eating habits. I find more is being done here for promoting healthy habits, than in the school system.

Kayra · 01-22-2009

Nitack: I can see from this response that your suggestion was not a joke, but a serious proposal.

Calling the concept silly was perhaps being dismissive of it, but giving serious consideration to an idea like forced exercise using equipment paid for by employers did not even occur to me. The entire notion is so fraught with issues (many unconstitutional) that it should be taken to another thread just to discuss them.

I had thought that the hypo community was making progress in making it clear to you that your notion of the issue being simply one of doing a caloric count was vastly oversimplifying a very complex issue. Sadly I was mistaken.

It does not address the fundamental question of why some countries are getting fat and others are not. You have presented no evidence or support your view, only repeatedly stating it as a fact and assuming we are all so thick for not understanding.

You continue to propose solutions to a problem that most here believe has not been properly identified. Indeed, that is the very focus of this thread.

We all "get it" that you believe the only thing that is necessary is for all these lazy people with no self control have to do is get off their ass and take control of their diet. You have made that abundantly clear. Most here have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe that to be a valid course of action.

Your understanding that this is a global issue for all first world countries is incorrect. While many are affected, some countries (like the US, Mexico, and GB) are drastically ahead of the curve, and the focus of this thread was to determine why.

Your proposal addresses the symptom, not the cause.. This is like a doctor proscribing blood clotting agent for a persistent bleeder without understanding the root cause.

What is the cause?

Since this is not a ubiquitous problem for all first world countries, my original suggestion that you discarded out of hand because it did not fit your view of the issue might be a starting point. At least a starting point for discussion of how to determine the source of the problem.

It may very well turn out that the source of the problem is purely cultural, and can be resolved with a programmed change of that culture. Or it may turn out that some chemical, hormone, or process involved in the food chain is at fault. How can we know until we search for the cause.

While it may be difficult to understand, we science geeks on this board do like to follow some semblance of the scientific process.

Kayra · 01-22-2009

Oops.
I meant to point to this comment, not my other post.

Quote: