Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?

Sapsorrow

kthnxbai wrote: »

That's also part of my point... There's no need to say to kids oh you have to eat this because it's healthy, or you can't have that, that's unhealthy

Hang on so say hypothetically if everyday your kids says I want biscuits and coke for breakfast, at lunch they want crisps and a dairymilk and for dinner they want ice-cream theres no need for a parent to step in and say no thats not right and try to explain to them why?

Jaxxy

brianthebard wrote: »

Lol why even bother asking questions when you see only one acceptable answer? Have you looked into the role of a teacher and whether or not they are allowed tell the children or their parents what the child should eat? Doubt it.

I never asked a question pertaining to the boundaries of the teaching profession. Of course teachers aren't "allowed" to tell parents what their children can or cannot eat. What a ridiculous notion! Next they'll be telling them how to discipline or even dress their children and what bedtime stories have to be read to them.

I did ask earlier if it was common practice for all schools to encourage a healthy eating rule. It went unanswered. Encouraging children to be aware of the healthy foods is great, that was never the issue. My point was just that the control is in the home, not the school. And that's the way it should be. It's up to you to raise your children as you see fit, not your children's teachers.

kthnxbai

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Hang on so say hypothetically if everyday your kids says I want biscuits and coke for breakfast, at lunch they want crisps and a dairymilk and for dinner they want ice-cream theres no need for a parent to step in and say no thats not right and try to explain to them why?

Well yeah if there's a need to tell them not to eat certain foods...

But you'll also see in my post above that I think kids should be fed proper healthy meals at home.

But if a kid wants some ice cream after their healthy dinner, why shouldn't they have some?

Sapsorrow

kthnxbai wrote: »

Well yeah if there's a need to tell them not to eat certain foods...

But you'll also see in my post above that I think kids should be fed proper healthy meals at home.

But if a kid wants some ice cream after their healthy dinner, why shouldn't they have some?

Hang on you've changed your arguement now you're saying they should be told not to eat certain foods am I right? I don't think it's healthy to gratify a childs every want. If a kid asks you to buy them a new toy everytime you go to the shop do you do it? No because you don't want to raise a little brat who has you wrapped around their little finger and knows it, Kids need boundries and guidance thats the role of the parent because they aren't old or wise enough to make the best decisions for themselves yet. When I was a kid people couldn't afford to gratify their kids every whim generally and we (well I anyway) all turned out just fine and I certainly have no issues about food.

Kimono-Girl

khrystyna100 wrote: »

I meant the consequences from a childhood of bad eating like not reaching peak bone mass, increased risk of type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic plaque build up, fatty liver, metabolic alterations etc.

and she might get hit by a bus! she might develop asthma,breast cancer, she might break her leg falling off a swing and weaken it that way after drinking a litre of milk every day all her life, she might get arthritis (its in her genes) she might die in labour....all tragic, all possible regardless of her diet....

its not a case of if you eat this mc donalds you will get sick and yet i can't order a supersize,

i still have to put up with "low fat" "sugar free" crap... ITS not fair, but i have to put up with it all becuse as a 'population' we are getting obese...


i may be an exception on the obese scale but will product producers make an exception product for me? and put a full sugar product on the market along side the "sugar free" version? no and why because if its there the sugar free one won't sell and why?

no-one LIKES sugar free fizzy drinks! if you want a sugar free fizzy drink go buy a water! dont make them produce a "sugar free" version because ireland is getting obese!

hello look at the problems 7up had with diet 7up!

if you're fat drink water avoid coke! eat carrots avoid mc donalds, dont make them change what people like just because you can't handle it! its simple!

Jaxxy

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Hang on you've changed your arguement now you're saying they should be told not to eat certain foods am I right? I don't think it's healthy to gratify a childs every want. If a kid asks you to buy them a new toy everytime you go to the shop do you do it? No because you don't want to raise a little brat who has you wrapped around their little finger and knows it, Kids need boundries and guidance thats the role of the parent because they aren't old or wise enough to make the best decisions for themselves yet. When I was a kid people couldn't afford to gratify their kids every whim generally and we (well I anyway) all turned out just fine and I certainly have no issues about food.

She's not changing her argument, she's amending it to suit your hypothetical situation. Which is extreme too, by the way.

The whole point here is that sometimes it's okay for children to eat rubbish. It's not the end of the world and they're not going to die twenty years down the road because they had one chocolate bar a day. That's not what is causing our problem with obesity in society today.

brianthebard

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I never asked a question pertaining to the boundaries of the teaching profession. Of course teachers aren't "allowed" to tell parents what their children can or cannot eat. What a ridiculous notion! Next they'll be telling them how to discipline or even dress their children and what bedtime stories have to be read to them.

Its no more ridiculous than teaching them history, or a language, or how to count. Why do you think it needs to be sectioned off from the other roles of a teacher which are exactly the same?

I did ask earlier if it was common practice for all schools to encourage a healthy eating rule. It went unanswered.

It is a common practice. Congratulations you can rest easy now knowing that you were wrong about whether teachers are "allowed" teach children nutrition or not.

kthnxbai

candlelover wrote: »

if you're fat drink water avoid coke! eat carrots avoid mc donalds, dont make them change what people like just because you can't handle it! its simple!

If sugarfree is all you can get and it's being bought, don't make them change what people like just because you want sugar!

I personally prefer the taste of pepsi max to pepsi.... and it has no sugar...

Also, it's been a while since I've seen a sugarfree version of something without the sugarfull version right beside it.

You assume everyone wants the sugar version of things because you do!

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

and she might get hit by a bus! she might develop asthma,breast cancer, she might break her leg falling off a swing and weaken it that way after drinking a litre of milk every day all her life, she might get arthritis (its in her genes) she might die in labour....all tragic, all possible regardless of her diet....

its not a case of if you eat this mc donalds you will get sick and yet i can't order a supersize,

i still have to put up with "low fat" "sugar free" crap... ITS not fair, but i have to put up with it all becuse as a 'population' we are getting obese...


i may be an exception on the obese scale but will product producers make an exception product for me? and put a full sugar product on the market along side the "sugar free" version? no and why because if its there the sugar free one won't sell and why?

no-one LIKES sugar free fizzy drinks! if you want a sugar free fizzy drink go buy a water! dont make them produce a "sugar free" version because ireland is getting obese!

hello look at the problems 7up had with diet 7up!

if you're fat drink water avoid coke! eat carrots avoid mc donalds, dont make them change what people like just because you can't handle it! its simple!

Wow I'd love to know where you do your shopping, it'd make my life easier to not have to sift through the thousands of products laden with sugar in the supermarket in an attempt to find the small handfull of products that don't! Seriously are you for real? Shops and fast food joints are primarily stocked with processed junk and you feel that your life is being made unecessarily difficult because its hard for you to find sufficiently unhealthy products? Have you tried looking past the fresh fruit and veg section?

Sapsorrow

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

The whole point here is that sometimes it's okay for children to eat rubbish. It's not the end of the world and they're not going to die twenty years down the road because they had one chocolate bar a day. That's not what is causing our problem with obesity in society today.

No ones arguing with that so whats your point?

Jaxxy

brianthebard wrote: »

Its no more ridiculous than teaching them history, or a language, or how to count. Why do you think it needs to be sectioned off from the other roles of a teacher which are exactly the same?


It is a common practice. Congratulations you can rest easy now knowing that you were wrong about whether teachers are "allowed" teach children nutrition or not.

I never said teaching them nutrition was ridiculous. In fact if you'd read my posts at all you'd know I said it was a great idea and agreed that education in this matter was sorely needed. I never asked if teachers were "allowed" to teach nutrition. I merely stated that they should not be "allowed" to dictate what children eat for their lunches.

Education. Not enforcement. That was the crux of my point. You just took everything I said out of context to suit yourself. Pray tell, are you a teacher yourself brianthebard?

Kimono-Girl

khrystyna100 wrote: »

you feel that your life is being made unecessarily difficult because its hard for you to find sufficiently unhealthy products? Have you tried looking past the fresh fruit and veg section?

my life is being made difficult having to get someone to go to musgraves to pick up double dips that arent sugar free (sidenote to healthy eating people WHY did you have to make sugar free sherbits??? i still dont understand that one) because the new ones taste awful, or having to search cork looking for orignal marshmallows (flumps) because shops only stock sugar free ones...any of the old sweets i loved as a child have been ruined by healthy eating policies and its not fair, i want proper tasting sweets! if i want something sugar free and healthy ill head to the fruit section!

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

my life is being made difficult having to get someone to go to musgraves to pick up double dips that arent sugar free because the new ones taste awful, or having to search cork looking for orignal marshmallows (flumps) because shops only stock sugar free ones...any of the old sweets i loved as a child have been ruined by healthy eating policies and its not fair, i want proper tasting sweets! if i want something sugar free and healthy ill head to the fruit section!

You do realise there's no regulation or legislation saying food producers have to reduce sugar, saturated fat etc in their products? They are providing these products as a result of changing consumer demand to make more money not because they're being told they have to. The only obligation they have is to provide clear nutritional information and proper labels.

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

just letting you know im continuing to search directives but ones such as this were brought in by the EU meaning that yes they had to reduce sugars etc...

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:344:0037:0040:EN:PDF


[PDF]
DIRECTIVES
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Journal of the European Union. Article 4. This Directive is addressed to ... Reducing sugars. Not more than 0,3 % expressed as glucose on dry weight basis .

Ehm at what point does that say that producers need to reduce the sugar content of their products?

Sapsorrow

"This aim was to drastically lower the minimum guaranteed price for sugar from 600 to 400 €/ton in the period 2006-2010, in anticipation of the envisaged free global market for sugar (2014)."

This isn't a public health policy and as far as I can tell has nothing to do with EFSA so how is it relevant? That directive on sweetner has no relevance at all

Sapsorrow

'After consulting the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
Whereas:
(1) Directive 94/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1994 on sweeteners for use in foodstuffs ( 2 ) lays down a list of sweeteners that may be used in the Union and the conditions for their use.
(2) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated the safety of neotame as a sweetener and flavour enhancer and expressed its opinion of 27 September 2007 ( 3 ). After considering all the data on stability, degradation products and toxicology, EFSA concluded that neotame is not of safety concern with respect to the proposed uses as a sweetener and flavour enhancer and established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–2 mg/kg bw/day. EFSA also noted that conservative estimates of neotame dietary exposure both in adults and children suggest that it is very unlikely that the ADI would be exceeded at the proposed use levels. '

'It is necessary to amend the Annex of Directive 94/35/EC to permit the use of neotame in the same food applications as the other currently permitted intense sweeteners. Neotame should be assigned a new E number, namely E 961. '


What has this got to do with anything?

I would have thought my public health lecturer who's a chairperson in EFSA and Safefood might have mentioned new legislation on the obligatory reduction of sugar if it was given the go ahead.

Do you have any idea what a big deal that would be for the industry? Thats would require a huge overall of all the production lines, new product development/modification, sensory analysis, new labelling design, new plant equippment, safety analysis etc etc. It would cost phenomenal amounts of money and take many many years to come to fruition.

opinion guy

Ok thread is too long for me to read it all.

But on this general topic everyone should read these books:

Fast Food Nation
Fat Land: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World*
The Okinawa Way
The China Study

* This one is particular awesome (hmm actually they are all awesome, but this one reads more as a work of investigative journalism then the others)

brianthebard

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I never said teaching them nutrition was ridiculous. In fact if you'd read my posts at all you'd know I said it was a great idea and agreed that education in this matter was sorely needed. I never asked if teachers were "allowed" to teach nutrition. I merely stated that they should not be "allowed" to dictate what children eat for their lunches.

Education. Not enforcement. That was the crux of my point. You just took everything I said out of context to suit yourself. Pray tell, are you a teacher yourself brianthebard?

No I'm not a teacher, but I think its hilarious that you'd have to jump to such a conclusion just because you're challenged. Teaching kids about nutrition involves getting them to eat a certain way, that's how it works with kids. Its really not that complicated, but obviously if we're going to create fantasies about dictator-like teachers demanding that parents feed their kids a certain way then things are bound to get messy.

Jaxxy

brianthebard wrote: »

No I'm not a teacher, but I think its hilarious that you'd have to jump to such a conclusion just because you're challenged. Teaching kids about nutrition involves getting them to eat a certain way, that's how it works with kids. Its really not that complicated, but obviously if we're going to create fantasies about dictator-like teachers demanding that parents feed their kids a certain way then things are bound to get messy.

Not really. I didn't jump to a conclusion because I was challenged, I've always had a problem with teachers overstepping their boundaries. But that's just me

A fantasy involving teachers and nutrition? Boring! I assure you my imagination could conjure up a much more interesting scenario, but if that's all you've got, go right ahead!

/assumptions.

zenno

techdiver wrote: »

As the title says.

Society makes a big deal of advertising the dangers of smoking and alcohol abuse.

With the smoking ban and higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol, will it ever become acceptable to come out and say to someone who is obese that they are in fact fat and need to loose weight? I have read many articles etc that claim that obesity is set to move to top spot in the scale of biggest risk to health and the leading cause of death.

It is acceptable to tell some one to cut down on the smoking and drinking but not the eating....

Any thoughts?

the way i look at it is this. it starts off at a young age and if a kid is 5 and the family of this kid is how should i say, overweight and have a passion for food which a lot of people have, "except giants" but not to excess as this large family does. they will always feed them too many times a day every day and with all the wrong foodstufffs. as the kid is growing throughout the years they keep this up as the kid is used to eating so much and turn into large balloons. it's very simple really. if you drink too much water you can die, if you exercise too much you can die of a heart attack, if you do anything to excess you will have serious problems. a lot of people do not realize that intake of TOO MUCH can mess you up bad and the same with eating too much. "simple" it's all greed at the end of the day eat eat eat consume consume greedy f*ckers if you ask me. and yes it is acceptable to tell people to stop eating because try and sit beside a 28 stone man on an aircraft while he is eating a 12 pack of chipsticks and you will know. they would eat the god damn world if these people could. i think the government should charge extra taxes for all obese people for taking up too much space in the cities and transport situations imo. or depopulize the world of obese people as a matter of urgency.

why be like this.. get out there and walk or buy a threadmill you will feel better.

Piste

techdiver wrote: »

As the title says.

Society makes a big deal of advertising the dangers of smoking and alcohol abuse.

With the smoking ban and higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol, will it ever become acceptable to come out and say to someone who is obese that they are in fact fat and need to loose weight? I have read many articles etc that claim that obesity is set to move to top spot in the scale of biggest risk to health and the leading cause of death.

It is acceptable to tell some one to cut down on the smoking and drinking but not the eating....

Any thoughts?

Wait, since when has it been acceptable to go up to a smoker or drinker and lecture them on their health?! It's obnoxious and rude.

I wouldn't say anything to an obese stranger, but I do hear a little tuba playing in my head in time to fat people walking.

*durp-durp-durpity-durp*

Teddy Daniels

This thread makes me laugh. A parent's job is to instill good habits in thier kid: ie. don't swear, respect your elders, be nice to your peers, share with your friends etc etc. These are social rules that allow us to all get along.
They should also teach thier kids about diet and exercise and get them in the habit of eating well and enjoying exercise.

I have a very clear memory of in 1982 asking my mother why a friend of mine got to eat chips and nuggetts or burgers every day (you know the lovley sugar and salt ridden food) while all I ever got was fresh meat and potatos with two kinda of veg on the side day in day out. She told me it was because my mates mother didn't care about what her sons eat as long as they eat something. Sometime later we had a screaming fight about the fact i had to cycle 4 miles to school every day while the friend who lived nearer the school always got a lift.


Kids don't want whats good for them, I'm glad I have the bones, muscles and lungs of a person raised right and nothing could ever give me that start back if I'd missed it.

Sapsorrow

Teddy Daniels wrote: »

Kids don't want whats good for them, I'm glad I have the bones, muscles and lungs of a person raised right and nothing could ever give me that start back if I'd missed it.

Big time I feel the exact same especially know I know how important childohood diet is for bone formation and osteoperosis in particular, it's pretty much your one shot at protecting yourself from it. Given a choice kids will eat crap morning, noon and night I think its sick that any parent reckons that that desire should be gratified for no other reason that not wanting to be bothered arguing with the or not wanting to be over bearing. Putting your childs health and happiness at serious risk for the sake of not being 'over bearing' is a bum trade off and I pity the children tbh. If my mate as an inexperienced teenage mum of twins can pull it off so well anyone can and theres no excuse its just lazy parenting. No wonder so many kids are little brats these days if they get everything they want all the time because people are under the impression that that constitutes good parenting its laughable really.

Kimono-Girl

khrystyna100 wrote: »

No wonder so many kids are little brats these days if they get everything they want all the time because people are under the impression that that constitutes good parenting its laughable really.

first of all the 'brats' these days are down to parents who buy their children everything they want, who never say no, and think their child is the most perfect human being on the planet.

just because i am allowing my daughter to choose what foods she eats outside of the dinner i cook, doesn't mean she will be a spoiled brat, and i find it helps my point you class food as "everything they want" you make such a huge deal out of eating healthy foods that it obviously has ben turned into a food issue with yourself. thus proving my point, believe me if she starts demanding toys or thinks she can just do what she wants all the time she will be pulled into check, my point is i will allow her have a say in what she eats and im not going to push healthy eating on her or create this fear that if you eat junk you will be fat! truth is if your parents are fat you will probally be fat.

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

and i find it helps my point you class food as "everything they want" you make such a huge deal out of eating healthy foods that it obviously has ben turned into a food issue with yourself. thus proving my point.

This doesn't make any sense to me can you elaborate? Also you didn't respond to those 2 links you posted that supposidly showed new regulations for the suga rcontents of foods being brought in??

brianthebard

Denial is not just a river in Egypt...

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

truth is if your parents are fat you will probally be fat.

Ya your odds are higher but I still think nurture is a lot more important than nurture in that scenario. You may have inherited a genetic background that is more susceptible to an obesogenic environment or lifestlye but thats not to say that potential for obesity need be epxressed, 2 obese parents can raise a slim child by changing their lifestyle and dietary practices but odds are if the parents are overweight they are going to be feeding the kid the same foods in the wrong portions that mad they themselves overweight in the first place.

Kimono-Girl

khrystyna100 wrote: »

This doesn't make any sense to me can you elaborate? Also you didn't respond to those 2 links you posted that supposidly showed new regulations for the suga rcontents of foods being brought in??

look forget about the links im not going into EU laws and regulations it will take too long, and its off topic.

my point is from your posts healthy eating comes across as being a big issue for you, obviously created by the fact as you have mentioned you were brought up eating healthy foods, whereby i was raised being allowed choose to eat crisps or fruit, sweets or yogurt...etc deciding myself what to eat when i was hungry and thus i do not have issues with what i eat.

it doesn't matter to me if my daughter decides to eat a lollipop over an apple, or a carrot over a chocolate bar and yet you are determined your children will eat 'properly' which shows my "food is for eating" attitude will carry over to my child, and your "watch what you eat issue" will probally carry over to yours.

Sapsorrow

If your kid starts getting fat from your letting them decide what they eat, will you change your mind and start telling htem no then? Would it be the case that be fat is more important (and so warrents an intervention) compared to a debilitating, painful and life-shortening array of diseases in later life?

Sapsorrow

candlelover wrote: »

look forget about the links im not going into EU laws and regulations it will take too long,

Oh no really I'd like to know what the relevance was I've got plenty of time for you to explain

candlelover wrote: »

my point is from your posts healthy eating comes across as being a big issue for you, obviously created by the fact as you have mentioned you were brought up eating healthy foods, whereby i was raised being allowed choose to eat crisps or fruit, sweets or yogurt...etc deciding myself what to eat when i was hungry and thus i do not have issues with what i eat.

Well seeing as I'm going to be a qualified nutritionist in about a month, healthy eating really ought to be important to me no? I'd be fairly ****e at my job otherwise. I wasn;t raised on healthy foods exactly, but I wasn't in charge of my food, I ate three meals a day that my mum prepared and if I wanted anything in between I had to ask first. My mum didn't buy sweets and have them in then house so I didn't eat them very often but I got them on special occasions nothing extreme about that. I promise you I have no issues with what I eat and you don't even know me so how can you make that assumption?