Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

drkpower

PeakOutput wrote: »

i am sympathetic towards argggh's point(not that he cares either way im sure) dont get me wrong in the current system it costs us way too much and it is the personal irresponsibility of these people that is causing it and their refusal to change their behaviour(as a group not individually individuals get healthy all the time) that forces me to believe that goverment intervention and higher taxes for things like that is the only way forward.

I can accept that there is an argument that where someone is ill because of their own personal irresponsibility they should be forced to pay. Personally I dont agree with it (see below), but I can see how it can be argued. What Aargghh has failed to do is to show why disease caused by certain personal irresponsibility (smoking, drinking, obesity) warrants sanction, while other types of personal irresponsibility (excessive sun, low fibre diet etc) do not. That is the position he has adopted; yet which he has failed to demonstrate.

My own view is that taxation and education is the way forward. Rather than punishing people after they have engaged in 'irresponsible' behaviour and when they are vulnerable (when they get the disease), we should seek to encourage good choices by education (both in school and in public health campaigns) and by taxing irresponsible behaviour where that is possible (ie. bad food, alcohol, smoking etc..)

Prevention by behaviour modification is far better than punishment when someone falls ill.

Sapsorrow

PeakOutput wrote: »

i am sympathetic towards argggh's point(not that he cares either way im sure) dont get me wrong in the current system it costs us way too much and it is the personal irresponsibility of these people that is causing it and their refusal to change their behaviour(as a group not individually individuals get healthy all the time) that forces me to believe that goverment intervention and higher taxes for things like that is the only way forward.

I agree with what other posters have said though we need higher taxes on the food industry not the consumers to give them an incentive to branch into making healthier products.

I think advertising should be much more heavily regulated and sneaky practices such as placing sweet counters at checkouts and on lower down shelves so that they are at eye level with children should be banned.

Primary schools also need to shape up and start teaching basic healthy eating classes and maybe go so far as to incorporate home ec into the primary curriculum and start a national school veg garden project to try and get kids interested in their food. My sister works in a creche and she does projects like this and she gets the kids interested in fruit and veg and they understand where they come from unlike many. They grow sprouts, lettuces etc on the window sills it so sweet, she also teaches them about healthy eating and tries to encourage them to look at fruit and veg as something positive which you can be guaranteed most of their parents don;t nother doing..

Parents need to be forced to stop putting junk in their kids lunch boxes, my sister has to write letters out every year to all the parents telling them they aren't supposed to put junk in the lunch boxes (and these are toddlers now) and she writes up nutritional and healthy eating guidelines to include and every year they just ignore her!

I think a variant of home ec that is focused on healthy eating, cooking and exercise should be a mandatory part of the third level curriculum and the PE class hours should be drastically increased. Maybe some incentive to get teenagers into PE through a merit scheme would work?

Now we have obese adults who are that way because of how badly they were fed as kids and teenagers, thats not their fault, its the fault of their parents and the education system and we need to get to the root cause of the problem to stop it happening to future generations.

Jaxxy

While I can agree that education and certain taxation is a legitimate way forward, I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with the following:

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Parents need to be forced to stop putting junk in their kids lunch boxes, my sister has to write letters out every year to all the parents telling them they aren't supposed to put junk in the lunch boxes (and these are toddlers now) and she writes up nutritional and healthy eating guidelines to include and every year they just ignore her!

Everything in moderation is the key here. There is nothing wrong with a child having a treat with their lunch. You cannot force a parent to do anything. Your sister works in a crèche in fairness, she's not a qualified dietitian or nutritionist. This is one of the many problems I have with people working in childcare with young children. It isn't up to them to enforce healthy eating habits but rather encourage it.

You arm the people with the information. Not ram it down their throats.

Insisting that children only eat certain foods and depriving them of sweet snacks/chocolates/crisps/rubbish can in fact can give them a much more unhealthy attitude toward food than children who have their dessert once they've finished their dinner. You have to strike a balance. I had a chocolate bar with my lunch everyday when I was in school. I've never been over eight stone.

Again, moderation is the watchword here. You can still enjoy food without having to exist on rice cakes and couscous.

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

While I can agree that education and certain taxation is a legitimate way forward, I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with the following:



Everything in moderation is the key here. There is nothing wrong with a child having a treat with their lunch. You cannot force a parent to do anything. Your sister works in a crèche in fairness, she's not a qualified dietitian or nutritionist. This is one of the many problems I have with people working in childcare with young children. It isn't up to them to enforce healthy eating habits but rather encourage it.

You arm the people with the information. Not ram it down their throats.

Insisting that children only eat certain foods and depriving them of sweet snacks/chocolates/crisps/rubbish can in fact can give them a much more unhealthy attitude toward food than children who have their dessert once they've finished their dinner. You have to strike a balance. I had a chocolate bar with my lunch everyday when I was in school. I've never been over eight stone.

Again, moderation is the watchword here. You can still enjoy food without having to exist on rice cakes and couscous.

No shes not a dietician but she's following a governmental protocol that says she has to write to the parents advising them to follow a set of nutritional guidelines, it's not an incentive of her own I didn'tmean to give that impression.

Lots of the kids in there get a combintation of: cheese strings, mini bags of crisps, cheese dippers, biscuits, penguin bars or the likes, miwadi or ribena and a white bread sandwhich with jam or ham.

This isn't an occasional treat or small desert on the side of a proper lunch its every single day and comprises the whole meal! I don't think theres anythign majorly wrong with having a mini sized bar for a toddler the odd time but not when the whole meal is comprised of refined cereals, satuarated fat and refined sugars and completely devoid of fresh fruit, vegetables, fibre and fresh water.

Sapsorrow

I'm a 4th year nutritional science student and my sister although she may work in a creche is far far more clued up on nutrition that the vast majority of my classmates who are going to be qualified nutritionists in about a month, you can't assume that someone qualified knows what they're talking about or that someone whos not doesn't.

Jaxxy

khrystyna100 wrote: »

No shes not a dietician but she's following a governmental protocol that says she has to write to the parents advising them to follow a set of nutritional guidelines, it's not an incentive of her own I didn'tmean to give that impression.

Out of curiosity do you know if this government protocol is restricted only to pre-school crèches and facilities?

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Lots of the kids in there get a combintation of: cheese strings, mini bags of crisps, cheese dippers, biscuits, penguin bars or the likes, miwadi or ribena and a white bread sandwhich with jam or ham.

I must be dense, because I don't see a problem with a lunch containing any of the above. I used to have ham or jam sandwiches when I was in school. Sandwich + treat. Granted not always on white bread. And Miwadi/Ribena is diluted with water, correct?

khrystyna100 wrote: »

This isn't an occasional treat or small desert on the side of a proper lunch its every single day and comprises the whole meal! I don't think theres anythign majorly wrong with having a mini sized bar for a toddler the odd time but not when the whole meal is comprised of refined cereals, satuarated fat and refined sugars and completely devoid of fresh fruit, vegetables, fibre and fresh water.

I agree that the lunches should strike a balance. There should be at least one piece of fruit in there. And I realise that the rise in obesity is causing a lot of panic with regard to children's diets but I do think that adopting an alarmist attitude toward food isn't the healthiest way to go.

My nine year old cousin is not allowed to eat anything that can be construed as unhealthy. She now has a very limited diet and will only eat grilled chicken, plain pasta and sliced fruits. She is far too thin for her age and will often go an entire day without eating because she is "worried" that her mother will not approve. To me this is equally as dangerous (if not more so) than the alternative. Chances are if my aunt's behaviour and attitude toward food (that she is passing on to her daughter) isn't nipped in the bud my nine year old cousin will more than likely grow up with a complex. People can be neurotic about food in the sense that they overeat, and they can be neurotic about food in the sense that they are obsessed with eating only certain things.

We want to educate the children, not scare them.

sink

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

she's not a qualified dietitian or nutritionist.

FYI there is no such thing as a qualified nutritionist, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dietician is the legally protected term for someone qualified to advise on diet and nutrition; nutritionists are quacks. It's the difference between a Doctor and a Medicine Man.

Matt Holck

because people are fat

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Out of curiosity do you know if this government protocol is restricted only to pre-school crèches and facilities?



I must be dense, because I don't see a problem with a lunch containing any of the above. I used to have ham or jam sandwiches when I was in school. Sandwich + treat. Granted not always on white bread. And Miwadi/Ribena is diluted with water, correct?



I agree that the lunches should strike a balance. There should be at least one piece of fruit in there. And I realise that the rise in obesity is causing a lot of panic with regard to children's diets but I do think that adopting an alarmist attitude toward food isn't the healthiest way to go.

My nine year old cousin is not allowed to eat anything that can be construed as unhealthy. She now has a very limited diet and will only eat grilled chicken, plain pasta and sliced fruits. She is far too thin for her age and will often go an entire day without eating because she is "worried" that her mother will not approve. To me this is equally as dangerous (if not more so) than the alternative. Chances are if my aunt's behaviour and attitude toward food (that she is passing on to her daughter) isn't nipped in the bud my nine year old cousin will more than likely grow up with a complex. People can be neurotic about food in the sense that they overeat, and they can be neurotic about food in the sense that they are obsessed with eating only certain things.

We want to educate the children, not scare them.

The example of your cousin is going to another extreme though which isn't what I'm suggesting. They are obviously not feeding her a balanced diet if shes not thriving and needs to have her psychological attitudes addressed.

I don't think something every single day for lunch (and more than likely at home too) constitutes a treat anyway. A treat implies a special occasion, why is lunch everyday a special occasion?

All those foods are pure junk, just sugar salt, fat and sugar with no nutrition whatsoever barr a bit of protein in the ham and not in anyway suitable to support a rapidly growing child.

Not onyl are they devoid of nutrients but they are chockablock full of anti-nutrients which will draw on the resources of the body resulting in damage to the bones, tissues etc..

Just because you were fed them and don't know of any effects as of yet means nothing, trust me they undoubtedly have negative consequences when eaten regularly but sadly these take years to manifest in a clinical consequence.

Something a lot of people don't realise is that when you're a child (and even a foetus) your body is actaully 'imprintable' at that stage of life and you cause subtle permenant changes in your metabolism and gene expression through dietary habits that last for life and alter your risk for chronic disease years and years later.

Sapsorrow

sink wrote: »

FYI there is no such thing as a qualified nutritionist, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dietician is the legally protected term for someone qualified to advise on diet and nutrition; nutritionists are quacks. It's the difference between a Doctor and a Medicine Man.

Not quite true, I just spent 4 years studying nutritional science in UCC and am nearly eligable for registration as an associate nutritionist with the british nutrition society and there is no way a quack like holoford or mckeith could do that so there is a level of regulation through accreditation with highy respected societies that have very high entry requirements. The vast majority of nturitionists are quacks but not all. The difference between me and a dietician is that a dietician is educated to work in disease intervention clinically in a hospital (like someone who's had sudden renal failure and needs an extremely specific dietary protocol to prevent their condition worsening) whereas legally I can work in disease prevention and to a lesser extent rehabilitation for less severe conditions.

Fart

Degsy wrote: »

Yes,because they're fat of 10 course meal.

FYP.

kthnxbai

After reading this thread I find it actually sickening how some people think of overweight and obese people...

Firstly, anyone who thinks that thin people always exercise and eat properly I can tell you that that's a load of bollix.... Anyone who is quite slim, now I'm not talking average weight, I mean thin, is generally sorta just blessed like that. Or at least this is what I've found in my experience.
I'm not saying that all people are this lucky, I know there are some people who put a lot of effort into looking after their weight.

And anyone who says fat people should lose weight because of their appearance is so very very judgemental and shallow. I agree people should try to stay healthy, and if people aren't happy with their appearance they should do something about it, but what harm is it to you if someone else is overweight?

I personally prefer dark haired guys... oh maybe we should just make all blondes dye their hair to keep me happy, huh?

When it comes to healthcare... Say overweight people weren't entitled to free healthcare like EVERYONE ELSE.... What happens if they say, break their leg, or get cancer or some other illness unrelated to their weight?

Some of you people need to stop imposing your own thoughts and values on other people and just be happy with yourself!


But in regard to the question being asked, (bar possible arguements when it comes to healthcare), being overweight doesn't harm anyone but yourself.

A lot of alcoholics impact negatively on society as a whole, and there are problems with passive smoking.
Tell me how fat people negatively affect your, and most peoples lives and then yeah, maybe reticule them...

Jaxxy

sink wrote: »

FYI there is no such thing as a qualified nutritionist, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dietician is the legally protected term for someone qualified to advise on diet and nutrition; nutritionists are quacks. It's the difference between a Doctor and a Medicine Man.

I did say qualified dietitian or nutritionist, as opposed to qualified nutritionist. Though I didn't know anyone could call themselves a nutritionist, thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to remember that.

Anyway...

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I'm a 4th year nutritional science student and my sister although she may work in a creche is far far more clued up on nutrition that the vast majority of my classmates who are going to be qualified nutritionists in about a month, you can't assume that someone qualified knows what they're talking about or that someone whos not doesn't.

It's great that your sister knows her stuff and that you're well on your way to getting your degree. It's an interesting field and if everyone were to listen to the experts in these matters perhaps we wouldn't be having some of the problems we have in society today.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

The example of your cousin is going to another extreme though which isn't what I'm suggesting. They are obviously not feeding her a balanced diet if shes not thriving and needs to have her psychological attitudes addressed.

Yeah I couldn't agree more. She's a constant source of worry for me.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I don't think something every single day for lunch (and more than likely at home too) constitutes a treat anyway. A treat implies a special occasion, why is lunch everyday a special occasion?

Ah you see that depends on the individual's interpretation. For me a treat was something I got for being good (I realise I associated tasty food with being rewarded, the irony isn't lost on me!) For others it might mean something completely different. We used to call our treats after dinner "nicies" or "goodies". I still call them that actually.

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Just because you were fed them and don't know of any effects as of yet means nothing, trust me they undoubtedly have negative consequences when eaten regularly but sadly these take years to manifest in a clinical consequence.

I'm as healthy as a horse. I'm repeating myself now but moderation/balance. No point in depriving yourself of something you enjoy every now and then, it's important for the psyche.


I do completely agree with you that a healthy diet is important. I just think that promoting a healthy attitude toward food is more important than ensuring a parent follows a regimented list of what's okay for their children and what isn't. The healthier the attitude, the less likely they will be to binge on rubbish.

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I do completely agree with you that a healthy diet is important. I just think that promoting a healthy attitude toward food is more important than ensuring a parent follows a regimented list of what's okay for their children and what isn't. The healthier the attitude, the less likely they will be to binge on rubbish.

I couldn't agree more but this can be done so as to make kids view things like fruit as treats.

I made friends with a young girl a few years back, got pregnant at 18 with twins and has been raising them as a single mum.

I used to grow organic veg for a box scheme that she bought of us and I remember the first time dropping in a box, these 2 gorgeous little 4 year old girls rushing for me and dragging the box onto the ground, they grabbed a bunch of purple sprouting brocoli and starting munching on it raw happy out.

Anytime we dropped a box in they were really excited to see what veg they'd get and would be grabbing stuff out of the box the second it arrived and eating it whole (carrots, brocoli, tomatos, cucmber, peas etc)!

I stayed over for dinner once and she asked them what they wanted for dinner one said brocoli soup and the other said lentil salad.

These kids are not in anyway deprived, for treats they get really good quality chocolate or home baking but they have been raised to view healthy food as a pleasure and now they''ve even started their own little veg garden which I'm happy to say I had a hand in.

These kids are totally normal, go to a normal school now, do ballet, drama classes have lots of friends and are very healthy and energetic and the most well behaved kids I've ever met.

Saaying that kids won't be interested or will be deprived or 'treat's which is a highly subjective idea completely the result of conditioning and upbringing is making excuses for not doing the right thing by your kids.

Sapsorrow

This might interest some folks here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk4UKD00aOo


This is irrelevant to the topic of the thread but I feel a need to spread this particular information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

brianthebard

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

While I can agree that education and certain taxation is a legitimate way forward, I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with the following:



Everything in moderation is the key here. There is nothing wrong with a child having a treat with their lunch. You cannot force a parent to do anything. Your sister works in a crèche in fairness, she's not a qualified dietitian or nutritionist. This is one of the many problems I have with people working in childcare with young children. It isn't up to them to enforce healthy eating habits but rather encourage it.

You arm the people with the information. Not ram it down their throats.

Insisting that children only eat certain foods and depriving them of sweet snacks/chocolates/crisps/rubbish can in fact can give them a much more unhealthy attitude toward food than children who have their dessert once they've finished their dinner. You have to strike a balance. I had a chocolate bar with my lunch everyday when I was in school. I've never been over eight stone.

Again, moderation is the watchword here. You can still enjoy food without having to exist on rice cakes and couscous.

Do you think its more likely that the kids are eating even more junk at home, or eating an amazingly healthy diet and the only junk they eat is given to them in their lunch box?
The teacher in this case is the one providing moderation and a bit of a middle ground for these kids. btw rice cakes aren't good for you.

Sapsorrow

brianthebard wrote: »

btw rice cakes aren't good for you.

Neither is cous cous

Jaxxy

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you think its more likely that the kids are eating even more junk at home, or eating an amazingly healthy diet and the only junk they eat is given to them in their lunch box? The teacher in this case is the one providing moderation and a bit of a middle ground for these kids.

It's possible, but that's still the parents' prerogative, don't you think? Doesn't mean it's right or it's wrong, it just means that what parents feed their children is up to them. It's not decided by a committee of experts or the government. They can give guidelines but that's all. Not saying it should be one way or another I'm just being realistic. I know most parents wouldn't be too fond of the idea of a teacher telling them what they should be feeding their children. I can imagine most of them getting rather defensive over it actually.

brianthebard wrote: »

btw rice cakes aren't good for you.

Glad to hear it, I think they're awful things.

Jaxxy

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Neither is cous cous

Double whammy.

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

It's possible, but that's still the parents' prerogative, don't you think? Doesn't mean it's right or it's wrong, it just means that what parents feed their children is up to them. It's not decided by a committee of experts or the government. They can give guidelines but that's all. Not saying it should be one way or another I'm just being realistic. I know most parents wouldn't be too fond of the idea of a teacher telling them what they should be feeding their children. I can imagine most of them getting rather defensive over it actually.



Glad to hear it, I think they're awful things.

Assuming a parent has a normal mental capacity and they are being provided with adequate information and easy to understand and affordable guidelines and are still ignoring them and so setting their children up for disease in later life there is not doubt in my mind that is wrong and constitutes child cruelty. I don't think you appreciate the importance of real healthy food and the negative impact of junk foods on the long term health of a child. The teacher (my sister) isn't telling them anything personally she's relaying the government guidelines for pre-schools, she has no choice about it.

Sapsorrow

I don't think anyone can honestly say they don't consider this (I know extreme example but fits my point) child cruelty;

http://media.photobucket.com/image/obese%20toddler/lisalovesrobert/obese-chinese-toddler-1.jpg?t=1194482404

http://www.earlyedcoverage.org/fat%20toddler.jpg

Jaxxy

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Assuming a parent has a normal mental capacity and they are being provided with adequate information and easy to understand and affordable guidelines and are still ignoring them and so setting their children up for disease in later life there is not doubt in my mind that is wrong and constitutes child cruelty. I don't think you appreciate the importance of real healthy food and the negative impact of junk foods on the long term health of a child. The teacher (my sister) isn't telling them anything personally she's relaying the government guidelines for pre-schools, she has no choice about it.

That's a very unfair and personal assumption that you don't really have the authority to make. I never said regular consumption of junk food didn't have a negative impact on long term health. I said it's up to the parent(s) to decide what they feed their children. Not you. Or me. I said moderation is important. I don't know how many times I've said that but I guess you can only see your own point of view in this matter.

I also never singled out your sister. I was talking about teachers in general. You said your sister worked in a crèche.

I understand you're very passionate about this subject but it's sort of going around in circles now.

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

That's a very unfair and personal assumption that you don't really have the authority to make. I never said regular consumption of junk food didn't have a negative impact on long term health. I said it's up to the parent(s) to decide what they feed their children. Not you. Or me. I said moderation is important. I don't know how many times I've said that but I guess you can only see your own point of view in this matter.

I also never singled out your sister. I was talking about teachers in general. You said your sister worked in a crèche.

I understand you're very passionate about this subject but it's sort of going around in circles now.

Fair enough, I didn't mean to offend you I apologise. I was referring to the post in which you said that bars, crisps and ribena etc weren't inappropriate foods for toddlers, I misinterpreted you.

Kimono-Girl

brianthebard wrote: »

Do you think its more likely that the kids are eating even more junk at home, or eating an amazingly healthy diet and the only junk they eat is given to them in their lunch box?
The teacher in this case is the one providing moderation and a bit of a middle ground for these kids. btw rice cakes aren't good for you.

yes they probally are eating junk but you know what some kids CAN! god knows i grew up eating a 12pk of chocolate biscuit bars in one go, an entire madiera slab, a box of strawberries,i used eat daily lollipops, full sugar sherbits, chewy bars, crisps, chocolate...etc what ever i could buy in the shop, and my cereal for breakfast, packet noodles/crisps/cakes for lunch, and dinners varied from take away 3 mights a week to proper dinners...i never went above a size 10!


my brother practically lived on coco pops for breakfast nutella sandwiches for lunch with penguin bars, and would barely eat his dinner (but always managed to have ice cream after )

and he's not obese...

what suits some does not suit others and im sick of this healthy eating crap, we should be allowed choose to eat whatever we decide we want and stop enforcing this low fat, low sugar, crap on us just because some people cant handle food!

for me i cant order a supersized mc donalds meal anymore because some tubby couldnt say no! its like what if a group of idiots went out and couldnt tie shoe laces would we switch all shoes to velcro?

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

yes they probally are eating junk but you know what some kids CAN! god knows i grew up eating a 12pk of chocolate biscuit bars in one go, an entire madiera slab, a box of strawberries,i used eat daily lollipops, full sugar sherbits, chewy bars, crisps, chocolate...etc what ever i could buy in the shop, and my cereal for breakfast, packet noodles/crisps/cakes for lunch, and dinners varied from take away 3 mights a week to proper dinners...i never went above a size 10!


my brother practically lived on coco pops for breakfast nutella sandwiches for lunch with penguin bars, and would barely eat his dinner (but always managed to have ice cream after )

and he's not obese...

what suits some does not suit others and im sick of this healthy eating crap, we should be allowed choose to eat whatever we decide we want and stop enforcing this low fat, low sugar, crap on us just because some people cant handle food!

for me i cant order a supersized mc donalds meal anymore because some tubby couldnt say no! its like what if a group of idiots went out and couldnt tie shoe laces would we switch all shoes to velcro?

In fairness just because you're slim doesn't mean your arteries aren't full of plaque or you bones poorly formed. You probably won't see the effects of your choices till your middle aged.

Actually for the first time in medical history foetus's and new borns examined in post mortem studies are now showing plaque build up in their arteries as a result of the mothers diet while pregnant. You really don't get away with treating your body badly.

kthnxbai

candlelover wrote: »

for me i cant order a supersized mc donalds meal anymore because some tubby couldnt say no! its like what if a group of idiots went out and couldnt tie shoe laces would we switch all shoes to velcro?

That's a little bit unfair...

You should hardly be giving out about overweight people and calling them 'tubby' when you've obviously been lucky enough to never have had to struggle with your weight.

You just sound like a spoiled brat! Why are you more entitled to something than anyone else?

Jaxxy

kthnxbai wrote: »

That's a little bit unfair...

You should hardly be giving out about overweight people and calling them 'tubby' when you've obviously been lucky enough to never have had to struggle with your weight.

You just sound like a spoiled brat! Why are you more entitled to something than anyone else?

She never said she was entitled to something more than anyone else, she said she was entitled to eating whatever she wanted to without having to worry about backlash or getting attacked for not eating healthier.

Kimono-Girl

khrystyna100 wrote: »

In fairness just because you're slim doesn't mean your arteries aren't full of plaque or you bones poorly formed. You probably won't see the effects of your choices till your middle aged.

Actually for the first time in medical history foetus's and new borns examined in post mortem studies are now showing plaque build up in their arteries as a result of the mothers diet while pregnant. You really don't get away with treating your body badly.

thats funny actually for three reasons one i was checked for potential blockages etc and im perfectly fine,

2. my grand mother on one side smoked, drank, and eats like i do! since she was young and recently got herself tested and her lungs tested and the hospital told her you'd never know she smoked and shes perfectly fit other than arthritis.

3. my other grandmother never once smoked or drank she ate healthily never had chocolate or sweets etc...died two years ago of lung cancer and she had bad heart problems before she died.

kthnxbai

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

She never said she was entitled to something more than anyone else, she said she was entitled to eating whatever she wanted to without having to worry about backlash or getting attacked for not eating healthier.

Well, what I got from it, was that she thought it unfair that she isn't able to eat what she likes because of government regulations.

I agree she should be allowed to eat whatever she likes without being told to eat healthier.

But calling someone tubby is not very nice, and implying that they can't 'handle' food, and she can, is unfair as it's not their fault that she's lucky enough not to put on weight even if she eats junk food

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

what suits some does not suit others and im sick of this healthy eating crap, we should be allowed choose to eat whatever we decide we want and stop enforcing this low fat, low sugar, crap on us just because some people cant handle food!

for me i cant order a supersized mc donalds meal anymore because some tubby couldnt say no! its like what if a group of idiots went out and couldnt tie shoe laces would we switch all shoes to velcro?

Who's forcing you to eat healthily exactly? We were talking about feeding kids not forcing adults to eat a certain way. You're perfectly welcome to ignore the healthy eating guidelines and dig your own early grave if you so wish jsut as much as the person who chooses to smoke or drink heavily etc.

Personally I think the good health and long term happiness of the population as a whole is more important than satisfying your particular lust for junk food. I would happily never eat a pack of crisps again if tax on junk food went up to the extent that the cost was prohibitory if it was helping other people to not get diabetes, heart disease or cancer.