BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Obesity - a suitable case for treatment

  
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
11:59 / 08.10.03
Obesity in children - Guardian.

Is this an area for legislation? Should there be regulations on the fat/nutrition content of fast food? Should schools be required to avoid high-fat foods and serve nutritious ones?

You might say this is a matter of choice - except that children aren't deemed to be able to make their own choices, and the taxpayer will eventually pick up the tab in terms of heart disease and other obesity-related problems.

Liberty vs. legislation, health vs. economics...
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
14:06 / 08.10.03
I don't believe that legislation is the best way to go about fixing this. However, information does not appear to be working. Here in the states, most schools have a nutritionalist on staff. Each hot meal that is served by the cafeteria is planned at the central school district headquarters to meet certain minimum nutrition requirements. It appears to be largely ineffective as we have the same obesity problem. The children, by and large, spend much of their after school hours in sedentary pursuits. Not to mention the intake of junk and fast foods outside of school hours.

It boils down, in my mind, to parental example. Unfortunately, a lot of the parents are setting a bad example.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
14:43 / 08.10.03
Agreed. Unfortunately, that creates problems for society as a whole, and generates a loop of negative incentivs for individuals and corporations alike. It diverts healthcare resources and decreases productivity etc. - so what do you do? You can't afford to leave it alone, yet you also can't legislated directly to prevent your population porking out...

Drugs, then? Anti-obesity meds?

A hard-hitting campaign against the evils of fat? (Can you imagine the row...)
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
15:27 / 08.10.03
Drugs are an interesting idea for a solution. I think that at some point it would require legislation to ensure that people took their meds. Then you are on a very slippery slope. Once the precedent is set, the government can legislate the mandatory ingestion of other drugs.

I don't know if you have heard of the lawsuit that was brought against McDonalds. This article raises some interesting points. The case invokes mixed feelings in me. On one hand, it seems to perpetuate the idea that one is not ultimately responsible for one's own health and well-being. On the other hand, it promotes corporate responsibility. If a corporation is scared of large lawsuits, they will be more likely to inform the consumer of the risks involved with the consumption of their product. They will also be encouraged to make a healthier product.

The hard-hitting campaign against the evils of fat is an interesting idea. The Ad Council here in the states has started a program of TV adverts promoting physical excercise. It is rather amusing that right in the middle of a childrens program, an advert will appear that promotes getting off one's bum, turning off the telly, and going outside to play. The campaign is called the verb campaign, it starts out with a flurry of verbs across the screen, the camera pans out and the verbs become more numerous. As more and more verbs (active verbs like: run, jump, hop, and throw) appear, they form a 3-D rendering of a child playing actively. I don't know how effective these ads have been, but at least they are trying.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
17:48 / 08.10.03
I think that's a good point, Steelwelder, that we need to breed in kids some awareness that they should take responsibility for their own health, diet, welfare, whatever. Problem is, of course, that the playing field is never level for kids, who are not in control of their nutritional choices in any real way. There's also the problem of immature taste buds to consider. I barely ate a vegetable till I left home and then ate nothing but for twenty years. Kids like to eat crap which is why parents end up rationing it or forbidding it.

This article too was in the Guardian today. Research shows that British schools spend 31p on each kid's midday meal. As the expert foodies interviewed point out, you're not going to provide healthy food on that budget nor inculcate awareness of sensible eating.

More than food to consider in childhood obesity though. A lot of it will be due to our sedentary modern lives, as with obese grown ups.
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
19:27 / 08.10.03
Concerning the sedentary lifestyles: Do you think that the metabolic rates of humans will change as our lifestyles become more sedentary? More to the point, how long do you think it will take, if it happens at all?

I think that the evolutionary pace has slowed. The conscious effort we put into birth control and keeping our environment at a constant level has obviated our ability to adapt. I think we may all end up being a bunch of fat gits.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
08:52 / 09.10.03
I think it's possible that the changes we make to ourselves over the next generations will be more substantial than anything evolution will contribute. It seems likely to me that, assuming we survive the next hundred years, we will be in change of our own physical evolution, and may add more machinery into the mix. It's also plausible to me that physical evolution in hand, the next chapter will be one of memetic change.
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
15:17 / 09.10.03
I just read this atricle, it attests that socio-economic factors are to blame, not food and excercise. The author of the article makes the connection between poverty and depression, saying that it is the depression that causes the obesity.
 
 
gingerbop
20:05 / 09.10.03
I dont buy that at all, steelwelder.

Information has been done and done again. Every kid knows that an apple would be better for them than a packet of crisps, they're not that stupid. Free fruit and milk may do a bit of good; not enough to cure obesity, but still improves their diet somewhat, and reducing stuff like osteoperosis in later life.

As for reducing obesity, its gotta be more leisure facilities, and making them cheaper or free to attend. Nobody's gonna convince me that kids hate sport, unless so much has changed in the past 10 years. As a hell of a lot of young boys, and they want to be football players. I wanted to be a gymnast, and have no doubt that if i didnt have the opportunity and facilities, I'd be plonked in front of the TV for 17 years, and 17 stone. But half of these kids arent getting the chance.

And if you do things that way, it sorts a lot of other problems later on: crime, drugs, possibly racism. Or perhaps Im being a little simplistic. But I know I'd rather be out doing sport with other people, that on the playstation on my own. But try getting me to eat wholemeal pasta, and you're looking at a whole different struggle.
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
20:42 / 09.10.03
I concur, gingerbop, I don't buy it either. I was just tossing that into the mix.

I grew up in a monetarily poor, single-parent household. We were below the poverty level every year. I never had any problems with obesity or depression. Of course, that could have been due to the absence of a television in my home. I spent all of my growing up years playing outdoors and reading voraciously.
 
 
spidermonkey
11:04 / 10.10.03
I agree with Gingerbop that excercise is the answer.

In my job touring schools I get to see the quality of education, facilities and menus all over the country. Whilst it must be admitted the menus can be atrocious (and that does have trends in differant areas) that does not mean more of the children will be obese.

I recently visited an inner London school whose menu consisted of chips, sticky toffee pudding, hamburgers with cheese etc. None of the children I saw were even overweight, let alone obese. I believe the reason is that this school was in one of the mausoleum-style old victorian school buildings. There were twelve flights of stairs to get to the school hall (where an assembly was held daily) and no lifts.
 
 
illmatic
12:05 / 10.10.03
Exercise is defintely the way, not just for kids but adults too. I mean, I've been sitting in the same chair all morning apart from two trips to the loo. My back aches and it makes me feel shit and lethargic. One reason why I want to get out of this career.

Going slightly o/t, with the kids and exercise thing, a related point would be access to open spaces. In the urban environment, space is pretty much shut off to kids because of trafic and a fear of imaginary padeophiles = less opportunities to play and exercise.
 
 
SMS
14:21 / 11.10.03
Do insurance companies raise their rates for the overweight or is there some law prohibiting this?
 
 
SMS
02:26 / 23.12.03
Ah. I've found an answer to my question. In most cases (group health insurance plans), it is illegal for a health insurance company to charge overweight people more.

It would make sense to change this. The government wouldn't have to spend a nickle, it would probably create a greater incentive for people to lose weight, and those who would not or could not lose weight would no longer be a harm to others.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:35 / 23.12.03
Shall we charge anorexics more for insurance as well?
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
12:20 / 23.12.03
I find the law against rasing rates for obese people to be a bit frustrating. I had a bad fall while rock climbing back in college, when the insurance company found out about it, they raised the rates for my father. They lump rock climbers in the same group as sky divers (which I also am). The auto insurance companies are no better. Until I turned 25, I was penalized heavily for the fact that I was young, single, and male. I understand that statistically that is a very risky combination, but they should go on a case by case basis. My driving record, barring a few minor infractions, is quite clean.

Should insurance companies be able to charge obese people more? I think it might be a good idea for the morbidly obese, the same could be said for the anorexics. I read a statistic the other day that less than 5% of obese people have a valid physical medical reason to be that way. It is risky behavior, just like jumping out of airplanes. The risk is not quite as spectacularly obvious, but is is just as real.

Then again, one could argue that it is a psychological illness that causes these conditions (obesity, anorexia). Then it becomes an insurance claim again.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:29 / 23.12.03
I don't agree with you, realistically charging case by case would raise the rates for everyone no matter whether they had done anything because the cost of assessment would rocket. If insurance companies are going to charge people than they have to do it within the system and right across the board. Health and life insurance for cancer patients is pretty high for the rest of their lives despite their valid illness so if we want that kind of system than it should be applied to absolutely everything. I don't think that weight is any different from anything else, obesity in particular is a health risk whether you have the possibility of control over it or not so economically people should be charged for it.

At least that's what I'd believe if I was a capitalist.
 
 
Sax
13:30 / 23.12.03
On a similar note... Michelle McManus wins Pop Idol.

Positive role model to obese kids OR sends out the wrong message that it's okay to be overweight because you can be famous, too?
 
 
ibis the being
14:29 / 23.12.03
I'm a bit disgusted with a lot of what I'm reading in this thread. While obesity can entail real health problems, I think the examination of issues relating to obesity are densely clouded by an all-too-culturally-sanctioned fixation on being thin.

Unlike with a risky behavior like, say, smoking cigarettes, "obesity" is frought with subjectivity. I realize the medical community has specified what constitutes "obese" and "morbidly obese" and so on - but these are merely widely agreed upon guidelines. Once you start talking about insurance rates for the obese, and whether or not to approve of an obese role model, you have to consider how an overweight person who exercises and simply can't lose that double chin and love handles measures up to a skinny girl blessed with the enviable metabolism who chows solely on junk food and sits around watching tv.

Also, despite there being medical standards for who is and isn't obese, all this grand-scale obsession with the dangers of obesity feeds into a cultural demonization of "fat people" that is just loathsome to me. I myself am thin, but am dating someone who's overweight - he can't eat a slice of pizza without hearing a few fat jokes. And I wouldn't even call him fat - he's a big guy with a beer gut, that's all. Making fun of fat is pretty much the final frontier in "okay" derision and discrimination against a group of people.

Pointing fingers at the obese for raising insurance rates is similar to pointing fingers at smokers, who are also a much-maligned demographic around here. But it's the proverbial slippery slope - are we going to start rooting out alcoholics? After all, they have their set of health risks. What then, the sexually promiscuous? Where are you going to draw that line?
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
16:04 / 23.12.03
Where are you going to draw that line?

Exactly. I was just taking the piss with my last post. It is a very slippery slope when you begin to penalize people for "undesirable" behavior choices. It all sounds nice until your particular vice is targeted.

Back on topic, the problem with obese children is not going to be easily fixed. I don't think that legislation is the panacea, but education is not working. It will take a concerted effort on the part of parents to set an example for their children and teach them the proper nutrition. How do we get there? I don't know.
 
 
SMS
16:22 / 23.12.03
Where are you going to draw that line?

All that I would have the government do right now is to get out of the way. This only applies to the U.S., not the U.K. or Canada who have an NHS. I'm not an expert on government regulations, so I can't say what insurance companies are forbidden to do, right now. Thus, I don't know how high this slope is that we could slide down. For all I know, insurance companies already may discriminate against alcoholics. Insurance discrimination against the sexually promiscuous is not likely even under the most capitalistic system, because most people would be unwilling to let the insurance companies confirm information about their sex lives, regardless of, say, a ten percent discount in rates.

all this grand-scale obsession with the dangers of obesity feeds into a cultural demonization of "fat people" that is just loathsome ... Making fun of fat is pretty much the final frontier in "okay" derision and discrimination against a group of people.


I agree that demonizing fat people is loathsome, and I think that, in a very literal sense, that's what these government regulations are doing. They are making fat people the source of harm of slender people. I'm not claiming that the source of laughter and derision against the overweight is in the knowledge that they contribute to increased health insurance rates and decreased services for those without the problem. But I do believe it helps to justify their laughter and derision. I means that my overeating hurts you. My body becomes your concern because how I treat my body affects the level of medical treatment you will be able to receive for your insurance dollars.

Insurance companies cannot judge the inherent worth of different people or decide whether one person deserves better treatment than another. Doing so would require God-like powers, and would completely miss the point of having insurance companies in the first place. Their job is to protect us from the unforeseen problems. Most people receive much much less money from insurance companies than they ever pay in. So why don't they just put that money into a bank account and only use it for emergencies? The reason is that there's a small chance that some disaster occur, and it is better to give away a certain amount of money than to risk losing it all. Insurance wasn't designed to address the problem that some people are so disadvantaged, they cannot afford medical treatment at all, and, consequently, it does nothing for it.

That's a welfare question, really, and when it comes to those who are both indigent and overweight, I absolutely support non-discrimination based on weight.
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
18:25 / 23.12.03
I think this discussion is missing the underlying question here in the US, which is:

Why has obesity grown so much over the last 20 years?

I don't think we can blame fast food places by themselves, as we had them in the 60's and 70's, but starting in the 80's, people's weights started shooting up at an alarming rate. Diabetes is fast on its way to becoming the most prevelent disease in the US. What changed in the mid 80's? Until we find THAT, we can talk all we want about increasing exercise and such, but it won't get at the root of the problem.

My belief is that it is a combination of the "overwork" sydrome added to processed food (and I don't think that the fact that soft drinks shifted from sugar to corn syrup has been explored enough in the whole question). People in the US are working more hours, and while TV watching on average has stayed about the same, studies show that people in the US are working more, have less lesiure time and instead of "home cooked meals" rely more and more on processed foods and restaurants.

Add to that that portion size with processed food and restaurants is getting larger, you have people eating more bad food. It is also MUCH more expensive to eat healthy and when budgets are strained, people will buy what is cheap so that their food dollar goes a bit father.

I don't know the stats, but I would guess that the lower on the economic scale you are, the better the odds are that you are overweight.

There are probably also other factors that have to with the KIND of jobs we are doing, and the trend in schools to treat PE as a course that you are required to do, so you do it half-assed so that you can get by with the bare minimums.

I don't think that this problem is as much an individual problem as a societal shift that is done for economic reasons without thinking of the actual cost in terms of health problems. And, with health care costs going out of control, I can just see it getting worse in the US (and the world, as we export our shitty food to drive profits).
 
 
Brigade du jour
09:22 / 24.12.03
"Making fun of fat is pretty much the final frontier in "okay" derision and discrimination against a group of people."

You're forgetting the Welsh. I should know, I'm overweight and my mum is from Swansea.

However, rather than complain about how 'fat' one is (and believe me, I have had that particular argument with myself for each of the twenty-eight years of my life) I think the ultimate goal is not to feel like a victim or that you need to be protected from your own appetites or lifestyle by crudely-drawn legislation (that's not to say legislation suggested here would be crude, but that instigated by the government probably would be).

Far better (for me I know, but for many people I suspect) to be encouraged to accept certain things about yourself, like maybe you're never going to have a 26 inch waist, maybe you just don't like salad very much, and maybe not quite so many people are going to fancy you because you're a bit porky. And if you really don't like something about yourself, change it. It really is possible, even if that does make me sound like Oprah Winfrey.

I would like to add as a disclaimer, however, that what I've just said has nothing to do with the health issues, because I know little or nothing about them, but I do know what it's like to be the Fat Kid so please allow me a little latitude on the social issues.

PS I just realised the noisy lady upstairs from the flat is listening to Meat Loaf. Spooky.
 
 
Linus Dunce
14:54 / 24.12.03
Maybe people are putting on weight because they are giving up smoking ... the solution would be to tax food like cigarettes. It's for your own good, the tax profits are merely coincidental.

Seriously though, is obesity really that bad for you? Bad enough to warrant giving up our free will and letting the government decide what we eat? Really? It seems to me there are plenty of middle-aged beer-bellies wandering around, so we can conclude the effects of over-eating aren't immediate. How long does it take to kill yourself by this method? Are we likely to die before our kids are old enough to look after themselves? Or is it just more twenty-first-century hypochondria, induced to make us feel unworthy for anything except to be ruled?
 
  
Add Your Reply