The Truth about Obesity

meeeeh

learn_more wrote: »

The reason I did the tactic think was because I see the same invalid points made over and over again, not just on boards but in popular discourse. So much so that I felt I had to classify them.

The more ludicrous points, like yours, comes in the form of 'anyone who comments on the obesity crisis does so just to feel smug about themselves'. Etc etc.

---

Here is an admission about my (former) eating habits:

I love junk food. I could scoff a packet of biscuits in a matter of minutes, with a nice up of tea.

If I bought a bag of chips, I would laden it with ketchup, and mayo.

My favourite drink is Bulmers Cider, on a night out I could drink up to 8 or more pints of it without a bother.

My favourite junk food is Wagon Wheels, a sick pack, that I would devour in half an hour or less. Anything chunky chocolate rocks my boat too.

I have always had a voracious appetite that leaves anyone who I have dinner with thinking I'm some kind of monster, when I scoff it all in minutes.

---

But, at least if I put on the stones I don't pretend I don't know why.

I don't pretend that the body is somehow tuned in such a way that a desert after every meal every day and a crisp snack in the evening is something the body is designed to cope with, as if that level of junk food consumption is free, and anything after that is the reason one would put weight on.

---

I took measures to deal with my sugar addiction and if you think that I'm in no position to critique the obesity crisis and I'm only forwarding my views to feel smug about myself as if I'm naturally thin then I'm going to have to classify your view as TACTIC 19.

Well done if you changed your eating habbits but I also think they were a bit extreme. Frankly I would question where were your parents to allow someone to develop habits like that. Especially when you are older, work long hours it takes a lot less to put on weight than what you listed there.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? As far as I'm aware, US waistlines have expanded in the last 50 years. Are you saying they expanded because people 50 years ago accepted a few fat people more easily in the US than they did anywhere else globally, and consequently more people got fat becasue it was accepted?

Nope, hence I noted other influences(in the very post you've just quoted). Or we could go to the dafter end and consider that Americans en masse have picked up "eating disorders" because of "mental illness".

tomthetank

Eliana Gorgeous Microchip wrote: »

AFAIK more than half of Irish adults are overweight or obese. I'd say people's reading of what constitutes overweight has been changed by that. "Shur they're not overweight, they're the same size as most other people"

It's very easy to be a stone or two or even three overweight and not know it because you look like everyone else and no-one passes comment at all. You go clothes shopping and still fit into that size 12 or whatever because of vanity sizing and in photos you look just like everyone else.

The only time anyone has ever passed comment on my weight was when I actually got healthy and lost some. Then the "too skinny" and "don't lose any more weight now!" comments came out. At 5 1 and 8 stone I was nowhere near too skinny, but people generally preferred my 10.5 stone fat self because it was more comfortable for them, closer to what they themselves looked like

I think people think of obesity as that 40 stone dude from that Channel 4 doc who hasn't gotten out of bed in five years and needs a crane to get him out of the house, but the reality is that most obese people in Ireland are just a few too many stone above their optimum weight. It can be a progressive beer belly or too much of a muffin top. Most obese people live normal lives, they walk and talk and some exercise from time to time, they've just been sucked into a rut of eating too much crappy convenience foods and fast foods and drinking too much beer and not exercising any self control and suddenly they've got from a bit chubby to medical obesity.

Shenshen

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, hence I noted other influences(in the very post you've just quoted). Or we could go to the dafter end and consider that Americans en masse have picked up "eating disorders" because of "mental illness".

You're barking up the wrong tree, I've already said that mental health is unlikely to be a big factor in this at all.
But I don't think that treating obese people nicely is the cause, either.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

But I don't think that treating obese people nicely is the cause, either.

Not nicely, it has become more acceptable. Tomthetank's post nailed it down more IMH. Tubby is turning into the new "normal" and that's been very much the case in the US for longer. Sure the media ideal may be termed skinny, but that's seen in general as unobtainable for most, so largely ignored by most. The joke is outside of 16 year old glamorexics on Parisian catwalks most media types aren't particularly skinny by standards of old, just by standards of today, especially in the US.

There's a social status/class component to it too. The less well off, less well educated tend more towards obesity than their more well off cousins. In the US there'd be the added bonus of "Race" involved, so Hispanics and African Americans would also be more prone to weight gain than European or Asian Americans(both from a financial/educational/cultural difference and some genetics)

Hammer89

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, hence I noted other influences(in the very post you've just quoted). Or we could go to the dafter end and consider that Americans en masse have picked up "eating disorders" because of "mental illness".

It's only daft to people who don't understand the painfully simple concept that obesity is a symptom of something else. It is the effect of over-eating but compulsive eating IS an eating disorder and eating disorders DO fall under the umbrella of mental illness. That's because it's very serious, but you and your ilk would have people think that millions and millions people are eating themselves to death out of laziness, greed and convenience. Yes, that makes a lot of sense pal.

Hammer89

Wibbs wrote: »

I didn't say celebrate, I said acceptance and that's far more widespread. There is the media "ideal" which is thin, but fat is more an everyday sight that's accepted. What is seen as "normal" is very skewed.

Accepted by who? Society? The person? In both instances it's categorically untrue. You and the OP are literally just making sh*t up.

If, god forbid, you were to become obese in the next six months then you would see very clearly that society treats you very, very differently based on your weight. You would notice a tonne of little, yet powerful, things which make you feel inferior to them. But you want to pretend that it's okay to be obese now? That isn't the case.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? As far as I'm aware, US waistlines have expanded in the last 50 years. Are you saying they expanded because people 50 years ago accepted a few fat people more easily in the US than they did anywhere else globally, and consequently more people got fat becasue it was accepted?

I'd say food pyramid and injecting HFCS into everything couldn't have helped

Carlos Orange

Hammer89 wrote: »

If, god forbid, you were to become obese in the next six months then you would see very clearly that society treats you very, very differently based on your weight.

Such as?

Carlos Orange

Hammer89 wrote: »

It is the effect of over-eating but compulsive eating IS an eating disorder and eating disorders DO fall under the umbrella of mental illness.

At my height the difference between a normal weight and obese is a jacobs cracker a day for 9 years. Assuming you don't put anything on your cracker.

Hammer89

psinno wrote: »

Such as?

Hammer89 wrote: »

I'm not saying society is the problem, but it absolutely doesn't help. I can tell you, for a fact, that it's an absolute joke how differently we treat them compared to slim, normal-sized folk. It is. I used to be really big and the societal difference is massive: I was smiled at a lot more; people said hello or good morning to me out of courtesy; you get doors held open for you so much more and politeness, in general, improves drastically. How sad is it that you need to lose eight stone before people start treating you like a human being again?

.

Carlos Orange

Hammer89 wrote: »

.

Can't say I have noticed that but you have gone through a whole different level of weight loss. I only lost about 20kg not 50.

Boggy Turf

A nutritionist gave me 3 bits of advice which have served me very well.

1. Never eat Kelloggs

2. Watch the salt intake

3. Never eat microwaved food

Wibbs

Hammer89 wrote: »

It's only daft to people who don't understand the painfully simple concept that obesity is a symptom of something else. It is the effect of over-eating but compulsive eating IS an eating disorder and eating disorders DO fall under the umbrella of mental illness. That's because it's very serious, but you and your ilk would have people think that millions and millions people are eating themselves to death out of laziness, greed and convenience. Yes, that makes a lot of sense pal.

and that's lovely "pal", but you still haven't answered my question. Namely, if obesity is "a symptom of something else" and falling under the "umbrella of mental illness", then one must logically conclude that Americans who are obese have come down with a mental illness society wide in the last generation.

Hammer89 wrote: »

Accepted by who? Society? The person? In both instances it's categorically untrue. You and the OP are literally just making sh*t up.

It's pretty clear that what is seen as "normal" in the US is larger in size and more fat than it was 40 years ago. Sizes themselves have crept up across the board and people are larger and fatter across the board and as such someone who would have been seen as extremely fat 40 years ago barely registers in many quarters today. Fat Americans are too big a demographic, never mind market, to not be more accepted than they were.

Smoked Tuna

Is there any countries whereby mandatory health assessments are carried out, or indeed companies, where citizens or employees are advised if they are overweight and what to do about it?

Smoked Tuna

When you have the body coach posting nonsense testimonials:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=25prfjq&s=9

View My Video

Blatent photoshop if ever there was one, look at the faces on the after pictures

Hammer89

Wibbs wrote: »

and that's lovely "pal", but you still haven't answered my question. Namely, if obesity is "a symptom of something else" and falling under the "umbrella of mental illness", then one must logically conclude that Americans who are obese have come down with a mental illness society wide in the last generation.

Firstly, I said compulsive eating falls under the banner of mental illness, not obesity itself. Secondly, I didn't say a mental illness offsets the compulsive eating to begin with, did I? I said, 'You must consider the possibility that there is likely underlying mental health, confidence or self-esteem issues which prompt the over-eating in the first place'. Is that the same as saying 'Obese people are mentally ill to begin with'? Absolutely not, but there is something which led them down that path. You say convenience, laziness. Fair enough.

I'm saying that if you're over-eating, on a chronic basis (becasuse everybody over eats from time to time) then there's something majorly wrong, in the same way that if you drink alcohol, on a chronic basis, there is something not right with that person.

So no, obese Americans can't claim that a mental illness put them on the road to obesity - that's absolutely not what I said - but obese Americans can now lay claim to having an eating disorder, because they're chronically overeating. But caused it? As I said, mental health - as in trauma, neglect, stress, emotional loss, not mental illnesses like schizophrenia and panic disorders - confidence and self-esteem issues. Problem is, they can now self-medicate on these dopamine-rich foods which are far more accessible now compared to 30 years ago.

There is a reason why people eat a lot more than you and a lot more regularly, but when you realise it's probably determined by their own background life experience then it gives you less grounds to judge them negatively for doing so.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's pretty clear that what is seen as "normal" in the US is larger in size and more fat than it was 40 years ago. Sizes themselves have crept up across the board and people are larger and fatter across the board and as such someone who would have been seen as extremely fat 40 years ago barely registers in many quarters today. Fat Americans are too big a demographic, never mind market, to not be more accepted than they were.

....Clothing sizes? So what, obesity is accepted by clothing manafacuters? I'd suggest they're merely capitalising on the crisis by making bigger sizes, but even still, I suspect fashion designers account for less than one percent of any society. So who is obesity accepted by mate? Nobody, except people who make clothes apparently. For everyone else, obese people are a stain on their society.

Mountainsandh

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

Is there any countries whereby mandatory health assessments are carried out, or indeed companies, where citizens or employees are advised if they are overweight and what to do about it?

I know in France everyday life is much more medicalised. There are nurses measuring children in schools at intervals. They have a pretty strict chart, and when a child goes over they tell the parents very bluntly.
Same with the GPs, who are very blunt about telling parents.

It's not good either in my opinion. I find, anecdotically (just my experience of going back frequently and having family over there), that there is a very large proportion of people suffering from the opposite disorders : anorexia, and malnutrition.

Wibbs it's interesting that the "larger frame" acceptance does not seem to have happened there, except for older men maybe, and so people are a lot more intransigent with themselves and others. As a result girls in the ads are ridiculously, and I mean worryingly, thin, and women in real life are aiming for this. It's pretty hard to find larger sizes in the shops too, all that.
What's strange is that again, in my anecdotal experience, it's more from new mother age to middle age that women fall prey to anorexia and malnutrition, in France.

Maybe they're more receptive to the message. Often these women's children are very skinny as they follow on the example, or are overtly told that they have to eat lean. I think often little girls are educated "with" the disorder iyswim. (I'm not talking about "healthy thin" children, but about young girls who actively avoid eating)

Don't get me wrong, I like the availibility of healthy foods everywhere in France, and smaller portions. I used to be much thinner over there than I have been since I moved to Ireland. But the opposite of the problem being discussed here is just as worrying imo.

I agree with Wibbs about convenience and acceptance, and I have a lot of weight to lose. In France I would often feel crap about my weight, and people seem a lot more judgmental. In Ireland... it doesn't feel as bad.

There's some good and some bad in both attitudes.

meeeeh

Hammer89 wrote: »

There is a reason why people eat a lot more than you and a lot more regularly, but when you realise it's probably determined by their own background life experience then it gives you less grounds to judge them negatively for doing so..

I think you overestimate overeating underestimating eating wrong foods. A Chinese take out with prawn crackers could ad up clise to the average female calorie intake. I think breaded chicken roll can have around to 1000 calories. Add to that a bag of crisps and lucozade and even if you eat healthy breakfast you used your calorie allowance by lunch time. We got used to bigger portions but more importantly we eat all the wrong foods. It's not so much overeating or even compulsory overeating that is making us fat. It's the convenience food. I could easily eat breaded chicken roll, breakfast and dinner without feeling I am overeating but my calorie intake would be way more than what I need. (Btw I am not saying that I do that but as someone with quite healthy appetite I notice that type of food makes way more difference for me than quantity).

Smoked Tuna

Smoked Tuna wrote: »

When you have the body coach posting nonsense testimonials:

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=25prfjq&s=9

View My Video

Blatent photoshop if ever there was one, look at the faces on the after pictures

Another cog in that insidious industry whereby gym instructors suddenly become experts on nutrition, lifestyle, mindfulness etc. etc. Most just possess a brass neck and a gullible audience that is willing to part with cash in the belief that they'll get better abs and the answer to all their problems. The golden rule is that if they have a site on Facebook where they refer to themselves as "public figures" then they probably have no qualifications or expertise in anything other than how to do burpees.

_Jamie_

Mountainsandh wrote: »

It's not good either in my opinion. I find, anecdotically (just my experience of going back frequently and having family over there), that there is a very large proportion of people suffering from the opposite disorders : anorexia, and malnutrition.

Just a small point here as I have seen malnourishment mentioned throughout the thread as synonymous with being underweight: many overweight and obese people are also malnourished. If a lot of the huge amounts of food you eat are nutrient-poor, you can be severely malnourished whilst carrying a lot of weight.

Advbrd

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Just a small point here as I have seen malnourishment mentioned throughout the thread as synonymous with being underweight: many overweight and obese people are also malnourished. If a lot of the huge amounts of food you eat are nutrient-poor, you can be severely malnourished whilst carrying a lot of weight.

That is very true in the true sense of malnourishment.

Hammer89

The striking and frankly annoying conflict between our ability quickly and safely to reduce a person's weight and what patients appeared capable of tolerating emotionally led us to detailed exploration of the life histories of 286 of our patients. Here, we unexpectedly discovered that histories of childhood sexual abuse were common, as were histories of growing up in markedly dysfunctional households.

It became evident that traumatic life experiences during childhood and adolescence were far more common in an obese population than was comfortably recognized.

We slowly discovered that major weight loss is often sexually or physically threatening and that obesity, whatever its health risks, is protective emotionally.

The antecedent life experiences of the obese are quite different from those of the always-slender.

Like a child's footprints in wet cement, the consequences [of obesity] are lifelong. Putting it plainly in regard to obesity, we have seen that obesity is not the core problem. Obesity is the marker for the problem and sometimes is a solution. This is a profoundly important realization because none of us expects to cure a problem by treating its symptom.

The frequent reference to “the disease of obesity” is grossly in error, diagnostically destitute, and apparently made by those with little understanding of the antecedent lives of their patients. Obesity, like tachycardia or jaundice, is a physical sign, not a disease.

Slowly, we have come to recognize that overeating is not the basic problem. It is an attempted solution, and people are not eager to give up their solutions, particularly at the behest of those who have no idea of what is going on. Nor is obesity the problem. Obesity is the consequence, the marker for the problem, much in the way that smoke is the marker for a house fire.

Often enough, obesity is even the solution—to problems that are buried in time and further protected by shame, by secrecy, and by social taboos against exploring certain areas of human experience. A memorable response comes to mind from 1985 when a patient, going with us through a timeline of her life in which weight, age, and events were matched, told us that at age 23 she was raped and that in the subsequent year she gained 105 lb (48 kg). Looking down at the carpet, she then muttered to herself, “Overweight is overlooked, and that's the way I need to be.” Not knowing how to respond at the time, we said nothing. A few weeks later when she had lost 35 lb (16 kg), enough to be noticeable, she abruptly disappeared for 2.5 years, quickly regaining the weight. When she attempted to rejoin the Program after that hiatus, we discovered that she had no recollection of this conversation. Prompted by this to look into the issue of amnesia, we found in a sample of 300 consecutive obesity program patients that 12% acknowledged a history of focal amnesia, typically for the few years antecedent to the onset of weight gain. Amnesia is a high-grade marker for dissociation, which is a high-grade marker for abuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912711/

==============================================================================================

One hundred significantly overweight patients sequentially applying to a very low calorie diet (VLCD) program were interviewed to learn how the onset of obesity correlated with other life events. By comparison with a control group of 100 always-slender adults, the obese applicants were found to be different at a highly significant level in the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, nonsexual childhood abuse, early parental loss, parental alcoholism, chronic depression, and marital family dysfunction in their own adult lives.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8322078/

==============================================================================================

Tactic 1: Pretend the above only applies to the minority of obese people and assume that the rest of them are just greedy, lazy, gross pigs who lack the willpower to change their eating habits.

Mountainsandh

It's a mixture Hammer I'd say.
I don't think the 2 clash really tbh. In this thread we feel like they clash because some people like to be judgmental and point fingers.

In real life it's not as clear cut.
I grew up with a bit of dysfunction in my family alright, and early parental loss, I got depressed but I got over it. Maybe I'm not fully over it, but I feel I am !!!
In a way I'd love to say I put on the weight because this and that, but I know that I probably did more because it was easy, I hate exercise, and the general atmosphere in Ireland is that it's grand, "you'll be grand, just walk a bit more, you look fine".

I'm comfortable talking about it now cos' today's the day I start my diet.
Again

Hammer89

It's just food for thought; an attempt to make people - especially the OP - question and perhaps modify their hostile beliefs about obesity. That's all. If OP reads the study and it has no effect on him whatsoever then that's okay. Personally, I just think it's a bit sad.

Good luck on your diet

learn_more

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, that explains the tone of your posts and your aggressive dismissal of those who differ. None so pure as the reformed hoor and all that? You sound like those who took stock, went to the gym, and became an expert on diet, lifestyle, psychology etc. Go on, tell me about the paleo diet and mindfulness...:)

Ah, I knew there was a TACTIC 20 coming, thanks for reminding me.

---

TACTIC 20

People who have personal experience of educating themselves re food content, can't comment on the obesity crisis because the reason they do so is just to brag about their achievements.

---

What really offends me about your comment is not your sarcastic dig at me but your suggestion that somehow learning about food content is something really complicated and only an 'expert' could understand such things.That is one of the all time excuses for obesity I ever heard.

Go on, tell me about the paleo diet and mindfulness...:)

You obviously didn't take on board what I said to you last time. You are the one who is obfuscating the issues of mindfulness, diet fads, and obesity.

This thread is about obesity and the massively high calorific foods that ppl eat that make them so.

It is absolutely clear to me, that ppl don't want to hear the hard truth about this issue and your comments are a shining example of that for me.

learn_more

Deleted User wrote: »

Another cog in that insidious industry whereby gym instructors suddenly become experts on nutrition, lifestyle, mindfulness etc. etc. Most just possess a brass neck and a gullible audience that is willing to part with cash in the belief that they'll get better abs and the answer to all their problems. The golden rule is that if they have a site on Facebook where they refer to themselves as "public figures" then they probably have no qualifications or expertise in anything other than how to do burpees.

Once again you are harping on about Gyms and Gym Instructors.

The existence of Gyms, or Gym instructors, or Personal Trainers, has no bearing at all on the obesity crisis. The way you talk you'd think gyms cause the obesity crisis.

You inadvertently reveal one hard truth though you didn't intend, and that is that ppl are willing to part with hard earned cash instead of educating themselves about what they eat.

It is much harder to change what you eat than it is to go to a gym every day for an hour or so.

I want ppl to understand that. I want ppl to understand you don't have to be a gym freak to loose and maintain a healthy weight. I don't want ppl to think they have to spend money to loose weight. You don't have to spend a penny.

You would think that ppl would be happy to learn that but oh no, let's make it more complicated, make it much harder than it need be. Perhaps preparing to fail.

drdeadlift

You would be amazed what happens to your body when you give up alcohol.

This whole obesity epidemic is nothing more than survival of the fittest,people are well aware of the amount and quality of what they put into their bodys.ignorance is bliss...until they have to get married or go on a sun holiday.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote:

This whole obesity epidemic is nothing more than survival of the fittest,people are well aware of the amount and quality of what they put into their bodys.ignorance is bliss...until they have to get married or go on a sun holiday.

A lot more complicated than that as explained very well by many posters

drdeadlift

Wanderer78 wrote: »

A lot more complicated than that as explained very well by many posters

Can you quote which posts explain the complication.

Not Propaganda

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's not the Governments job to get people to eat healthy, we're all adults and if someone wants to stuff their face with the wrong foods and do no exercise and die young then let them off.

Public health absolutely is the concern of the government. And if food corporations are being dishonest about what is put in our foods and the impact these ingredients or additives have on public health, again, that is the government's responsibility to monitor and regulate.

Personal responsibility is a big factor, but if people are being misled then how can you be responsible if you don't have all of the facts?

The govt are the problem when them and their safefoods are the ones promoting incorrect info

Jelle1880

screamer wrote: »

Obesity is a complex and multi faceted issue. One factor you forgot is time - good takes time to prepare and cook. Time is a precious commodity that a lot of people don't have between huge work schedules and commuting etc so it's quicker to pickups takeaway or something that can be thrown in the oven or fryer...... but sure keep tarring everyone there with that ould brush......

I don't really agree with the time aspect.

There is a reason why meal preps are becoming quite popular. Spend your Sunday afternoon preparing food for the rest of the week, done.

Then you also have things like slowcookers which are about as easy as it comes for creating good, healthy meals.

Hande hoche!

bluewolf wrote: »

The govt are the problem when them and their safefoods are the ones promoting incorrect info

The food pyramid is fairly shocking.

pumpkin4life

Have conflicting views on this.

On one hand: I hate this "the government should tell us what to say/think and do" bollox. If I want to smoke fags, eat a big pile of burgers, what is some cùnt in the Department of Health or whatever to tell me otherwise? It's my life en aw. That's the libertarian "muh freedom" part of the pumpkin talking.

On the other hand, from empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence, the vast majority of people are utterly incapable of losing/sustaining weight loss and eating right. I posted some studies here before; results being that only about 1% of people, with a certain kind of personality were able to succeed in long term diet weight loss.

So most people won't be able to succeed.

Second: obesity has massive repercussions; knock-on effects on society at large. Obesity increase costs, messes up families and dating, drives lads into an early grave, all of that lovely stuff. Maybe the government should take more extreme measures?

Whatever you think, it will never go away and the obesity problem will continue to grow, unless something extreme happens, like a ban on all sugary food or some magic happy pill or gene therapy.

The Operation Transformations/kids should exercise more/half assed government programs/calories on food/ban advertising, anything like that won't make a single bit of difference. People's time preferences don't work like that.

Glenster

"someone critiques use of the term macro as unhelpful and unscientific"

learn_more wrote: »

Tactic 1 again. Playing Dumb.

The word macros has only 5 letters, and it has a very simple meaning in terms of food content. But I wil try use sht r wds frm now on.

I don't have an issue with the length of the word macro, though you seem to as you've already reduced it from macromolecule,.

I have an issue with the use of the word by the facebook/snapchat crowd and their hordes of ignorant followers looking for easy answers.

It is a very simple way of looking at a very complex issue, nutrition, that misses out on quite a lot of important detail.

The people who use it tend to be dogmatic, ignorant of nuance, and fiercely defensive of their position.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote:

Can you quote which posts explain the complication.

Probably a large portion of the thread at this stage, don't wanna 're-hash stuff. It is a complicated issue though, with multiple root causes

drdeadlift

Not Propaganda wrote: »

Public health absolutely is the concern of the government. And if food corporations are being dishonest about what is put in our foods and the impact these ingredients or additives have on public health, again, that is the government's responsibility to monitor and regulate.

Personal responsibility is a big factor, but if people are being misled then how can you be responsible if you don't have all of the facts?

If you can not educate yourself on the free information available on the net then your a lost cause,the government aint gona look after you.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote: »

If you can not educate yourself on the free information available on the net then your a lost cause,the government aint gona look after you.

the only problem is, theres a lot of misinformation on the ould interiwebs. id have to agree that the government have a duty of care to look after its citizens, unfortunately largely due to free(deregulation) market ethics, this isnt the case

Not Propaganda

drdeadlift wrote: »

If you can not educate yourself on the free information available on the net then your a lost cause,the government aint gona look after you.

What are parents supposed to believe when they are peddled a message through advertising on certain nutritional value of the likes of cereal for their kids, only to find online that maybe those cereals are not nutritious at all and actually have negative effects on their children? What about the kids themselves who don't really have a choice in what they're eating yet may end up developing diabetes or childhood obesity?

But no you're right, leave them to it, they deserve all they get.

drdeadlift

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the only problem is, theres a lot of misinformation on the ould interiwebs. id have to agree that the government have a duty of care to look after its citizens, unfortunately largely due to free(deregulation) market ethics, this isnt the case

I really have zero idea how people can include the government in this topic.
You cant use misinformation on the internet as an excuse,oh i am finding it hard to get the right info on the web doesn't wash.

Right here on boards we have a health and fitness section,off hand i can think of more than five regular posters who are very well educated successful pt/
strength and conditioning coaches.They answer peoples questions on how to train,what to eat and how to lift.

There are so many programs in running,weight lifting designed for beginners that are proven to work(that takes the work out of it).

Then there is the food,how long does it take to understand calorie intake(effort in tracking numbers is needed)
Learn about sugars fats carbs protein..

When you research the above you will come across people on the same track as you with the same questions.

The internet rules.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote: »

I really have zero idea how people can include the government in this topic.
You cant use misinformation on the internet as an excuse,oh i am finding it hard to get the right info on the web doesn't wash.

Right here on boards we have a health and fitness section,off hand i can think of more than five regular posters who are very well educated successful pt/
strength and conditioning coaches.They answer peoples questions on how to train,what to eat and how to lift.

There are so many programs in running,weight lifting designed for beginners that are proven to work(that takes the work out of it).

Then there is the food,how long does it take to understand calorie intake(effort in tracking numbers is needed)
Learn about sugars fats carbs protein..

When you research the above you will come across people on the same track as you with the same questions.

The internet rules.

strangely enough, some people just dont know how to research just like you, i will agree, theres some very well informed people regarding these issues on boards but misinformation can confuse. i think noam chomsky perfectly explains the marketing industry, i.e. misinforming people and they in turn make irrational decisions regarding all purchases including food.

drdeadlift

Not Propaganda wrote: »

What are parents supposed to believe when they are peddled a message through advertising on certain nutritional value of the likes of cereal for their kids, only to find online that maybe those cereals are not nutritious at all and actually have negative effects on their children? What about the kids themselves who don't really have a choice in what they're eating yet may end up developing diabetes or childhood obesity?

But no you're right, leave them to it, they deserve all they get.

They do,its up to them to look after their children not the government.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote: »

They do,its up to them to look after their children not the government.

a government's duty is to prioritise the wellbeing of its citizens and not the interest of profiteers.

drdeadlift

Wanderer78 wrote: »

a government's duty is to prioritise the wellbeing of its citizens and not the interest of profiteers.

That is true in black and white.

Wanderer78

drdeadlift wrote: »

That is true in black and white.

its just true, sadly largely due to the drive fundamentally flawed economic theories and principles such as neoliberalism and (deregulation) markets etc, this a lot of the time isnt the case.

liamo

learn_more wrote: »

This thread is about obesity and the massively high calorific foods that ppl eat that make them so.

Frankly, it seems to me that this thread is more about lecturing everyone in a smug, condescending manner. Any vague link to obesity has been lost in a storm of "Tactics" and put-downs.

It is absolutely clear to me, that ppl don't want to hear the hard truth about this issue and your comments are a shining example of that for me.

What people really don't want is to be slapped in the face with another one of your "Tactics" whenever they express an opinion that isn't 100% in line with yours.

There is a very strong theme of intolerance in your posts which I find very off-putting.

It may be that there were good intentions behind your original post but the way you went about it was all wrong and I find it very hard to absorb your message when it's presented as a sermon in an offensively superior way followed up by some more screeching about "Tactics".

kunst nugget

liamo wrote: »

Frankly, it seems to me that this thread is more about lecturing everyone in a smug, condescending manner. Any vague link to obesity has been lost in a storm of "Tactics" and put-downs.



What people really don't want is to be slapped in the face with another one of your "Tactics" whenever they express an opinion that isn't 100% in line with yours.

There is a very strong theme of intolerance in your posts which I find very off-putting.

It may be that there were good intentions behind your original post but the way you went about it was all wrong and I find it very hard to absorb your message when it's presented as a sermon in an offensively superior way followed up by some more screeching about "Tactics".

Tactic Twelfthy: Trying to discombobulate my asdute arguments on the interwebs when you should be exercising and macrosizing your nutrients and stuff. That's why your so fat, fatty. Don't shoot the messenger, the truth hurts and a bird in the hand is worth two on the scales.

Galwayguy35

bluewolf wrote: »

The govt are the problem when them and their safefoods are the ones promoting incorrect info

Are you seriously suggesting that people can't tell what foods are healthy for them without it being pointed out to them?

Are people that stupid?

Galwayguy35

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that people can't tell what foods are healthy for them without it being pointed out to them?

Are people that stupid?

It's not about stupid, it's about the govt, who should be unbiased but aren't, feeding propaganda nonsense to people and telling them they HAVE to eat more bread and pasta to be healthy, they HAVE to eat low fat everything, etc etc
And because it's the govt, they're treated as a more credible source

And yes, a lot of foods do market themselves as healthy when they aren't, we all know that much. Not everyone has time to sit around on the net reading up on things

I'm not making excuses for people - just laughing at the "the govt should help" idea