Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What If Being Fat Is Not Your Fault?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:01 AM
Original message
What If Being Fat Is Not Your Fault?
Edited on Sat Oct-03-09 10:01 AM by Joanne98
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet
Posted on October 3, 2009, Printed on October 3, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/143036/

It's hard to escape the image of Americans as slothful and overweight. But what if being fat weren't totally our fault?

The narrative we pound into our heads everyday is that we live in a country where fast food rules, where morning coffee drinks can provide nearly one-quarter of your daily calories before you even get to breakfast, and where you can have pizza topped with Oreos.

And there's the issue that less than a quarter of us exercise regularly, and on average we spend 142 hours a month lounging on our couches, our eyes glued to a TV.

So it's no wonder that the Centers for Disease Control report that more than a staggering 60 percent of adults and 16 percent of children are obese. In the last three decades, obesity has doubled among adults and tripled among children. And experts say there are a range of issues that contribute to it -- the most obvious is of course diet and exercise.

But there is also sleep deprivation (we're sleeping less these days), drugs such as anti-depressants and anti-diabetics, as well as genes, metabolism, culture and socioeconomic status (and I would add advertising, although that hasn't made it to any CDC list).

And there is another factor that has only started gaining attention lately, but may be a hugely important factor, especially in helping to explain why some people who exercise and eat well still can't keep off the pounds. It has to do with chemicals in our environment, particularly in many of the products we come in contact with each day -- from our food to our floors.

There is a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility when it comes to weight, but the prevalence of something scientists are now calling "obesogens" may put a crinkle in that posturing.

Sharon Begley of Newsweek reported:

Evidence has been steadily accumulating that certain hormone-mimicking pollutants, ubiquitous in the food chain, have two previously unsuspected effects. They act on genes in the developing fetus and newborn to turn more precursor cells into fat cells, which stay with you for life. And they may alter metabolic rate, so that the body hoards calories rather than burning them, like a physiological Scrooge.

In addition to the plague of Big Macs, we now also have to figure exposure to chemical pollutants as a contributor to the obesity epidemic.

How Did We Get So Big?

Since studying obesity in adults is tricky due to the high number of factors, the most compelling research on the subject has come from a study from the Harvard School of Public Health in 2006 that looked at medical records of more that 120,000 kids over a 22-year period.

What the researchers found was that "the prevalence of overweight children less than 6 years old jumped 59 percent, from 6.3 to 10 percent." And even more shocking, "The results show surprising increases in the number of overweight children up to 6 months old. From 1980 to 2001, the increase in overweight infants ballooned 74 percent."

This is bad news for these kids later in life because "accelerated weight gain in the first few months after birth is associated with obesity later in life," said Matthew Gillman, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and one of the study's authors.

So what's the connection between chubby babies, the obesity epidemic and chemical pollutants? Actually, significantly more research. (Warning: A lot of mice were harmed to write this story.)

In 2002, an unknown Scottish academic published a paper about the link between obesity and synthetic chemicals, the Newsweek article explains. This eventually triggered some interest from others in the field.

Already in Japan, scientists were finding that bisphenol A (a chemical compound used to make plastic drinking bottles and baby bottles, among other things) pushed certain cells to become fat cells in experiments performed in the lab and also acelerated the growth of existing fat cells. If their results held true outside the lab in people, it would mean that BPA, and potentially other synthetic chemicals, were in fact contributing to obesity.

So researchers kept plugging away.

The next break came from a study done in the U.S on mice that were given low doses of estrogen-micking chemicals, and they were found to gain weight even when given the same amount of food and exercise as other mice.

Then in 2006, Bruce Bloomberg at the University of California, Irvine exposed pregnant mice to a chemical called tributyltin, which is found in marine paints and plastics and often ends up in people through drinking water. Begley writes that he found that, "The offspring were born with more fat already stored, more fat cells, and became 5 to 20 percent fatter by adulthood."

She explained:

The tributyltin activated a receptor called PPAR gamma, which acts like a switch for cells' fate: in one position it allows cells to remain fibroblasts, in another it guides them to become fat cells. (It is because the diabetes drugs Actos and Avandia activate PPAR gamma that one of their major side effects is obesity.) The effect was so strong and so reliable that Blumberg thought compounds that reprogram cells' fate like this deserved a name of their own: obesogens.

As later tests would show, tributyltin is not the only obesogen that acts on the PPAR pathway, leading to more fat cells. So do some phthalates (used to make vinyl plastics, such as those used in shower curtains and, until the 1990s, plastic food wrap), bisphenol A and perfluoroalkyl compounds (used in stain repellents and nonstick-cooking surfaces).

And more studies confirm the affect on actual people. Begley again:

In 2005, scientists in Spain reported that the more pesticides children were exposed to as fetuses, the greater their risk of being overweight as toddlers. And last January, scientists in Belgium found that children exposed to higher levels of PCBs and DDE (the breakdown product of the pesticide DDT) before birth were fatter than those exposed to lower levels.

Neither study proves causation, but they "support the findings in experimental animals," says . They "show a link between exposure to environmental chemicals ... and the development of obesity."

Since then, the research from other areas has been trickling in as well, such as a recent study in Michigan that found prenatal exposure to DDT may be contributing to obesity in women.

It's Not You, It's Everything Around You

Certainly this research doesn't mean that all cases of obesity are the result of chemicals and that factors like diet and exercise aren't important. They still are. But especially for younger kids who are growing up in an increasingly more toxic environment, these chemicals may be all around them (and their moms during pregnancy).

Let's take a look at some of these chemicals.

The "plasticizer" phthalates for instance, are so ubiqutous that an estimated 1 billion pounds are produced each year worldwide. The Environmental Working Group reports that phthalates are found in "toys, food packaging, hoses, raincoats, shower curtains, vinyl flooring, wall coverings, lubricants, adhesives, detergents, nail polish, hair spray and shampoo."

PCBs were used as coolants and lubricants in electric equipment and have also been added to plastics, inks, adhesives, paints, and flame retardants. PCBs are not only into the products we buy but is in the air and water, and many people are exposed to them through eating certain kinds of fish -- especially the ones highest on the food chain.

Bisphenol A (or BPA) is often found in hard plastics, including baby bottles, food-storage containers, water coolers, dental fillings, the lining inside canned goods, sports equipment, CDs, sunglasses ... the list goes on.

All of these are among the much-maligned class of chemicals known as "endocrine disruptors," which responsible for other such feats in nature as sex-changing fish. In humans, we are learning that they are a frightening menace. Joan Melcher of Miller-McCune reports:

In June, the Endocrine Society, a nearly century-old international association of endocrinologists, issued a statement in which its position was clear. In a 50-page paper, the first scientific statement issued by the society, authors wrote: "We present evidence that endocrine disruptors have effects on male and female reproduction, breast development and cancer, prostate cancer, neuroendocrinology, thyroid, metabolism and obesity and cardiovascular endocrinology. Results from animal models, human clinical observations and epidemiology studies converge to implicate EDCs as a significant concern to public health.

Not only are these chemicals everywhere, but are contributing to much more than obesity, as well.

A Public Health Issue

It turns out that being overweight is costly. The CDC reports that in 2000, obesity related health care costs came to $117 billion. And there has been a surge in spending as we are getting more obese and health care costs are skyrocketing.

Begley reports that health care costs are higher for those who are overweight or obese compared to other adults -- about $1,470 more annually.

"If those outsize costs inspire greater efforts to prevent and treat obesity, fine. But if they lead to demonizing the obese -- caricaturing them as indolent pigs raising insurance premiums for the rest of us -- that's a problem, and not only for ethical reasons: It threatens to obscure that one potent cause of weight gain may be largely beyond an individual's control."

And these chemicals that are contributing to obesity are the nexus of environmental and health concerns. The more dangerous chemicals are allowed to proliferate in our air, water, food and the products around our homes, the greater the threat to our own health, and the more of a burden it places on a health care system teetering at the edge of catastrophe.

So what do we do?

Continued>>>
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/143036/what_if_being_fat_is_not_your_fault_america%27s_obesity_epidemic_may_be_fueled_by_chemicals_in_everyday_products

This would explain why the French can eat anything they want without getting fat. It's our corporate food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. What if being fat is your fault?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. What if eating donuts is not your fault?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting.. However I'm skinny and it's not my fault
and I eat the same food overweight people eat, just much less.

I've cut down on dairy and HFCS during the past few years and didn't lose or gain a pound. I still eat the same amount of calories, 2000-2500/day.

Maybe I'm just a freak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. dang yer gonna make all the apologists' arguments sound invalid lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm overweight and eat about 1600 calories a day.
Those who say a calorie is a calorie is a calorie is full of crap. I eat low fat, low sugar and still can't loose a pound. Exercise doesn't seem to budge the scales either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. I thought the "low fat" craze died after teh 90's.
At least it should have. Getting healthy fats into your diet (from fish, flax, raw nuts and extra virgin olive oil) not only means better health in general, but it actually helps you burn more fat for a variety of reasons.

Add some fish or flax oil into your diet along with 1-2 tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil (note: you can't cook at high temps with it) and see what happens after a few months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. When I say low fat I am actually meaning trans fat and not the older type of diet.
I don't have the fish of flax oil, but I do cook with virgin olive oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. My metabolism changed when I hit fifty and I hear
What you are saying.

I really do. I used to keep weight off by fasting for 48 hours. I could count on losing five pounds that way. Did it two or three times a year and I kept to a size ten. (Sometimes eight and even six.)

Now I can fast for two days and actually put on weight. Water weight or soemthing, I don't know.

I did recently manage to lose weight by doing raw foods for two weeks. About eight pounds. Haven't decided if in order to be my ideal weight, that it will be my lifestyle or not.

It worked, but it is RAW FOOD.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuvuj Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Historically...people...
...mostly ate raw food? Best bet is a combo of raw food and steamed or lightly cooked food. And avoiding the processed stuff. Buy the basics and make your own?

Most people are hooked on family foods...traditional foods...and the processed stuff that is advertised over and over.

...............

http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/blogspot/mnKK/%7E3/KM9FgiQefEA/unexpected-effects-of-wheat-free-diet.html


Unexpected effects of a wheat-free diet


Wheat elimination continues to yield explosive and unexpected health benefits.

I initially asked patients in the office to eliminate wheat because I wanted to help them reduce blood sugar and pre-diabetic tendencies.

A patient would come to the office, for example, with a blood sugar of 118 mg/dl (in the pre-diabetic range) and the other phenomena of pre-diabetes or metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high inflammation/c-reactive protein, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL), and the characteristic wheat belly. Eliminate wheat and, within three months, they lose 30 lbs, blood sugar drops to normal, blood pressure drops, triglycerides drop by several hundred milligrams, HDL goes up, small LDL plummets, c-reactive protein drops.

People also felt better, with flat tummies and more energy. But they also developed benefits I did not anticipate:

--Improved rheumatoid arthritis--I have seen this time and time again. Eliminate wheat and the painful thumbs, fingers, and other joints clear up dramatically. Many former rheumatoid sufferers people tell me that one cracker or pretzel will trigger a painful throbbing reminder that lasts a couple of hours.

--Improved ulcerative colitis--People incapacitated with pain, cramping, and diarrhea of ulcerative colitis (who are negative for the antibodies for celiac disease) can experience marked improvement. I've seen people be able to stop all their nasty colitis medications just by eliminating wheat.

--Reduction or elimination of irritable bowel syndrome

--Reduction or elimination of gastroesophageal reflux

--Better mood--Eliminating wheat makes you happier and experience more stable moods. Just as wheat is responsible for a subset of schizophrenia and bipolar illness (this is fact), and wheat elimination generates dramatic improvement, when you or I eliminate wheat, we also experience a "smoothing" of mood swings.

--Better libido--I'm not sure whether this is a consequence of losing a belly the size of a watermelon or improvement in sex hormones (esp. testosterone) or endothelial responses, but more interest in sex typically develops.

--Better complexion--I'm not entirely sure why, but various rashes will often dissipate, bags under the eyes are reduced, itching in funny places stops.


It's also peculiar how, after someone eliminates wheat for several months, re-exposure of an errant cracker or sandwich results in cramping and diarrhea in about 30% of people.

Obviously, people with celiac disease, who can even die of exposure to wheat, are even worse. What other common food do you know of that makes us sick so often, even occasionally with fatal outcome?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Eating raw foods is expensive.
I can see how raw foods are more healthy, but I don't have access to enough to live on without paying high prices which I can't afford. Also I assume you have to supplement with at least fish products (or sushi - yum) to get all the vitamins, minerals, oils ans such you need.

Wheat free is something I have thought about.

At one time I had a roommate that was a Vietnamese chef. She cooked the best food. It was mostly from fresh ingredients. But something about it caused me over time to swell up like a balloon. It took 3 months of not eating that to loose the puffiness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Thank you for the kind advice.
Edited on Sun Oct-04-09 05:11 PM by truedelphi
I will keep your remrks at hand (They are now on my hard drive.)

We already RARELY have any processed food - we try and avoid MSG and anything in a jar, can or box usually has some MSG in it. (MSG makes me extremely depreesed)

So if we have bread it is fresh baked with just flour and some oil and a bit of yeast.

I taught M. how to bake our own bread, & now he considers it fun, just as I do.

But I do know I'd be better off without bread. And in fact I doubt that I have more than three or four pieces in a week. (He loves bread so that is not true of him.)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Fat is not the enemy -- watch the simple/processed carbs . . .
Edited on Sat Oct-03-09 03:10 PM by emulatorloo
And you may not be eating enough!

I have been where you are.

Get one of Dr. Sears ZONE DIET books. It changed my life. . .

5 small meals a day, protein, fat and low-glycemic carbs at every meal. Easy once you get the hang of it. You will feel amazing too.

http://www.zonediet.com/

PM me if you want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I'll give it a shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
37. Do you eat more than 2 meals a day?
And do you start eating after 11:00 AM...

Because I work with a number of individuals, who have weight issues.. and some of them are extremely over weight.

And most are not over eaters at this stage.

But the one thing they all have in common is that they eat only one or two meals a day.. and those usually start later in the day.

Contrary to popular myth, my participants are not hungry at all when they get up.. and it is like breaking bricks to get them to eat breakfast because they have no appetite for it.

So I know for sure you can eat fewer than 1600 calories (which by the way for those who do not know is a Big Mac fries and coke.. 1610 calories), and have a very difficult time losing weight.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
6. Apparently, you missed the memo
If the insurance companies have to pay out for claims, it reduces profits thus reducing CEO salaries, therefore it's our fault.

It doesn't matter that affordable food is made of plastic & corn syrup. It doesn't matter that we're saturated hourly with chemicals that are harming us. It doesn't matter that when employed we work 60 hour weeks without OT and commute 15 hours per week sucking up exhaust fumes.

The only scientific results that are valid are the ones that prove we brought it all on ourselves & we're whiny wastoids dreaming about living on welfare or SSI.

You missed the memo. I'm going out to the yard to dig up my organic chickweed for lunch now. Have a great day!

:tinfoilhat: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
7. your snippit does NOT explain anything about the French
the endocrine precursors/disruptors discussed in your post are ubiquitous in the environment, not really about "corporate" food.

The difference in the eating "cultures" between the US and France, more than even the contents of those meals is so huge that there is plenty of room to explain differences in body size!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. You cannot gain weight if the number of calories burned are equal to
the number of calories taken in.

It is impossible for the human body to make fat out of nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Speck Tater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
10. Many many years ago I owned a small store in a downtown location.
At slow times I used to watch people walking by outside the shop window. What I observed was that, almost without exception, the fat people that walked by had food and/or drinks in their hands (usually street-vendor high-fat food) and the slim people had no food or drinks in their hands.

It is physically impossible to increase the mass of a body without shoveling mass INTO that body. Fat people, according to my objective observation of their actual behavior on the sidewalks in front of my store, have made the shoveling of fat-producing mass into their bodies an almost full-time occupation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Anecdote does not = data.
Besides, your memory may well be selective. You may only remember the fat people as always eating when they walked by your shop and the thin people as not eating.

We oftentimes believe what we want to believe. If we want to believe all fat people are fat only because they spend every livelong minute of the day cramming their faces with food, we will. If we want to believe thin people are thin because they never overeat, we will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enid602 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. corn
How can an article discuss obesity in America so exhaustingly without mentioning high fructose corn syrup. This reasearch must have been paid by ´Big Corn.´
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. What if being fat is a socio-economic problem...
Good food costs too much for those with limited incomes.


Just saying... :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. That doesn't explain the many fat, wealthy people I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fearless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Of course it does.... it's SOCIO-economic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. The wealthiest income quintile is also the leanest n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. That's not at all surprising considering that people with money are generally better-educated
than those without money, hence, they have probably been exposed to better nutritional practices throughout their lives.

That said, the wealthy people that I know who are fat are people who either 1) overeat and do not exercise at all, 2) overeat and do limited exercise but also consume lots of high-calorie snack foods, or 3) have diets full of sweets, sodas, fast foods, and which are generally lacking in what would be termed "balanced" meals.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Education is less relevant than class privilege
Control over one's work hours, incomes high enough to buy the best food and to hire personal trainers--even just living in neighborhoods where is is safe to walk most of the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
13. I just can't tell you how glad I am to know that I'm not overweight because I eat
Edited on Sat Oct-03-09 11:41 AM by bertman
a bacon, egg, and cheese biscuit for breakfast, eat chicken and rice and beans for lunch, have six Fig Newmans for snack (instead of two), drink coffee with three teaspoons of sugar in it (two cups x 3 tspns), nosh on a malted milk ball (or two or three or four), then don't go to the gym but spend four hours on DU exercising my digits and my brain (sometimes); then have a large pork chop, potatoes and chard for dinner, followed by a bowl of choc chip ice cream while I sit on the couch and watch KO and Rachel.

I am so relieved to know that it's some weird-ass chemical in my environment that's making me fat.

Thank goodness that I now have something else to blame instead of my own piss-poor lifestyle choices.

Ain't science wonderful?!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. It's all about the personal responsibility!
:spank:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
16. "Maybe" is the right word in the title.
Without numbers, it shows nothing. Of course, with numbers I'd suspect most of the people who read it would have glazed-over eyes.

Phthalates cause obesity? Ok, increased phthalate concentrations in the diet are correlated with increased rates of obesity. How much of each? How strong's the correlation? (Let's ignore the idea that things can be correlated and that the correlation can be *negative*.)

What are the assumptions in the study? Did the studies looking at chemicals just look at the chemical and any correlation with obesity? Other health, cultural, SES issues?

It doesn't so much illuminate as make people feel outraged and victimized. Now, that sells, but it doesn't really help anybody except the seller very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. It is difficult and expensive to eat right.
Chain restaurants and fast food joints are dishonest about the fat content and calories in their meals. They DELIBERATELY make it difficult for you to find this information. It is usually posted in some obscure, hard to find part of their websites. They should be required BY LAW to post that information in bold type right next to the listing on the menu. People cannot make good choices if they do not have the information right at hand.

Fuck these evil fucking corporations. Just fuck them all. They suck. I completely blame corporations for the obesity epidemic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Everybody knows fast good is crap and makes you fat
Its hard to see how better information would help.

I'm one of the "I've never had a weight problem because I just don't eat that much" crowd. I don't like fast food because its more or less indigestible and I don't like that slow-swollen stomach feeling. I wouldn't say that I eat especially well - there's empty carbs and refined sugar and too much salt - and I probably spend way less than average on food, but I keep an active lifestyle and don't eat too much.

I think its more a matter of lifestyle and habits, and its a matter of the will to change that most people lack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. Hey sin scolder! Unless you cook well, you cannot eat well, for almost any price.
Fast food is what you eat, if you dont or cant cook. I you eat out, it is too burdensome to eat all your meals at a restaurant. And too expensive. And the MSG equivalents used in ALL junk foods, is addictive, like nicotine. I too have always been thin to built. Cuz I was skinny as hell when young. My fat cells are few. Yours too. Stop lording that over others as if you are more moral. You are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. No, not more moral - agreed there
That has nothing to do with it.

But if I ate more and exercised less, I am pretty sure I would be fat.

I do admit that the reason I don't eat too much and I do get a lot of physical activity is more that I enjoy the way it feels than some difficult life decision involving weight and appearance. I am happy with my lifestyle I feel good, but when I read that people with weight problems are miserable and don't exercise enough, I can't help but think that they would be happier, feel better and weigh less if they ate less and exercised more.

There's no other way to do that than to make a decision to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
35. alarimer, it is LESS expensive to eat right than to eat fast food. It is not difficult to eat
right either.

When eating at a fast-food "restaurant" there are few good choices to make. That's the problem. All the nutritional information in the world will not help you when your choices are Quarter pounders or Chicken McNuggets.

You are bitching about no nutritional information when you can Google and find out what's in almost any fast food. Use your computer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-03-09 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
25. Like most health issues, the focus we have is likely too narrow
Chemicals may add to the problem, no doubt. Food quality is certainly an issue. Quantity is a problem, also. However, the rampant fat prejudice/phobia I think may actually contribute to the health problem itself. To be a little heavy is one thing, and mostly genetic. Our ancestors who could store a little more lived longer when we were still chasing down food the hard way :)

OTOH, many people are dangerously overweight - this condition, which must be self-imposed, violates the basic instinct for survival. It's like slow suicide. The negative community reaction to this condition reinforces the condition itself. When people are treated as if their lives have less value they engage in behaviors that shorten their lives, as a rule. You can see this condition in many places. It's both a medical condition and a psychological one.

You can say "personal responsibility" and "self control" all you like, but it's not going to help anyone get healthy. I think the "tough love" approach has proven not to work in this area. We've been at it for a decade and our average weight has actually increased.

My mother was French - naturalized to US. I've never understood why people say the French diet should put weight on a body. Reasonable portions, plenty of fresh vegetables, no pre-made industrial boxed and shelf-stable food, no requirement for meat at every meal... maybe it's a southern French thing. Lunch is the big meal over there FWIW. I think genuinely enjoying, appreciating, and perhaps even celebrating the cooking and eating process would lead to a healthier and leaner population. Many of us have forgotten what real food is and where it really comes from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillDU Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
28. Please.
Cmon now. You are responsible for your diet, not some corporation.
I thought dems and progressives were beyond this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerpetuallyDazed Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-04-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Please.
"You are responsible for your diet, not some corporation"...

See "The Future of Food" (it's on hulu.com) and get back to me on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC