BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

Obesity

  
 
JOY NO WRY
08:14 / 31.05.05
I know a similar topic on obesity in children has been covered in the Lab., but I'd like to look at a slightly different take on this.

The Blood Pressure Association website gives some disturbing statistics, but we've all heard them before. One in five adults obese, and maybe 15% of children.

I've always taken this onboard and subconsciously watched my weight, and have never really questioned it. However, in a recent discussion somebody suggested that the problem isn't growing in the way statistics indicate, but rather that the detection of the issue is becoming easier over time. The support for this view was that historical images (paintings and sketches) tend to show reasonably heavy people.

Obviously the diet industry has an interest in promoting the idea that we're all fatties, but is there really a basis for the modern hysteria that seems to surround the problem? Do you think that there is a comparable risk to health from the various people starving themselves in imitation of their idols as to the amount of people over eating? Are we making ourselves over body-conscious for no good reason?
 
 
lord henry strikes back
11:53 / 31.05.05
That is a lot of questions with which to start a topic.

You mention that a lot of historical art depicts heavy people. I assume that you are referring to Botticelli's nudes and the like. What needs to be remembered here is that for a long time it was fashionable to be heavy. It showed to the world how rich you were. Not only could you afford so much food, but you did not burn it off working all day long in the fields. This lifestyle was only lead by the top few percent of society, the majority were under fed and over worked. However, it was precisely this top few that artists choose to represent because they were the height of fashion. To claim that a few hundred years ago the Botticelli nude was the norm would be the same as claiming today that Nicole Kidman is the norm.

As to whether we are getting too worked up about this whole obesity think, it depends upon how you look at it. In the UK, and I imagine (though I don't know) in the rest of the western world, obesity is second only to smoking as a cause of preventable death. Do with that information what you will. I smoke, and I don't have a problem with it. Frankly I'd rather live a more enjoyable, shorter life than simply strive to live for as many years as possible. I can see why for others the same may be true of eating.

As to the flip side of this, people starving themselves into poor health in search of the perfect body, I think this can be a massive problem for certain individuals but I do not think that it could ever become a problem on the same scale as obesity. We seem to be much more given to excess that to denial. This may just be a feature of our society, but not one that I see changing any time soon.

Posting from work. More later when I have the time.
 
 
Axolotl
12:54 / 31.05.05
I think it might be interesting to connect the current obesity hysteria with class conflict in today's society. In direct contrast to previous cultures obesity is now often linked with poverty and therefore could the anti-obesity drive be seen as another stick to beat the poor with?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:18 / 31.05.05
obesity is a problem because we perceive it as one.

as the awareness grows, so does the scope of the problem.

want to solve obesity? De-emphasize the availability of automobiles, sugar-fat, salt-fat and "labour-saving devices."

really...

ta
pablo
 
 
JOY NO WRY
19:01 / 31.05.05
obesity is a problem because we perceive it as one.

So you're saying that if we don't percieve people dying of obesity as a bad thing, than it isn't a problem? I suppose thats kind of true, but it does seem to rather skirt the issue.

De-emphasize the availability of automobiles, sugar-fat, salt-fat and "labour-saving devices."

What exactly are you suggesting? Banning advertising of these products? Stricter regulation of their use? Do we really want exterior control of what we're allowed to eat? It would seem there is already quite a large emphasis on the availibility of healthier foods, both from the government and any number of charities, as well as a pukka chef I could mention.

De-emphasis of this kind sounds a lot easier than it would probably be. Are you implying that a move away from labour saving machinery in general is a good idea? What kind of labour saving devices are you thinking of? It does seem interesting that the rise in obesity seems to correlate with the shift from manual labour to white collar work, but I can't really see any viable way of that kind of process being reversed.
 
 
Mirror
22:33 / 31.05.05
I think that "fast" food and the use of preprocessed ingredients, whether at home or in restaurants, probably has more to do with the current rise of obesity than anything.

It's easier today to ingest a lot of calories in a hurry than it has ever been in the past, and as a consequence people are getting fatter. Compare the number of calories one takes in eating a candy bar to those obtained by nibbling on an apple or some nuts or jerky or something. Preservatives and refrigeration have made it convenient to have something to eat, that requires little or no preparation, on hand all the time.

If you avoid preprepared foods entirely, it's not even really necessary to exercise to maintain a healthy body shape.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:44 / 31.05.05
Are you implying that a move away from labour saving machinery in general is a good idea?

Actually I think it would be a good thing to generally discourage electric lawnmowers, leaf hoovers, chainsaws, cars, they're are all objects that save time but also take a significant level of exercise away from you. You spend all week in an office sitting in front of a screen, what better than mowing the lawn with an old-fashioned manual metal mower? Raking the lawn, cycling to work, grating potatoes by hand. Sounds healthy to me.
 
 
fuckbaked
22:52 / 31.05.05
You can't really lump all prepared foods into the McDonalds/junk food category, just most of it. And as I was reading this, I was thinking that if there were more inexpensive, healthy prepared foods, people would probably eat them. I live off of prepared foods, but I mostly only eat healthy foods, and it's very expensive. If I couldn't afford to spend as much money as I do, but also couldn't/didn't want to cook, I wouldn't really be able to avoid the really fattening stuff like McDonalds.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:16 / 01.06.05
De-emphasize the availability of automobiles, sugar-fat, salt-fat and "labour-saving devices."

I used the term "de-emphasize" to avoid suggesting bans, or mandatory shifts in policy. However, there's nothing stopping manufacturers from making automobiles, marketeers advertising them, lots selling them, and drivers purchasing and using them. nor for power washers, leaf blowers, etc etc etc. however, these particular devices are used more often than necessary. They don't save energy. They use our infrastructural sources (coal & nuclear & hydro electricity, gasoline, oil, etc) instead of our biological source.

I think we rely too heavily on labour-saving devices to do work of which we are perfectly capable. I think that growing trends in obesity go along with trends in deferring our physical capabilities to machines.

In some cases, mechanization is helpful, and useful. In other cases, its not-

automobiles designed to feel like mobile living rooms contribute to the problem.

I watched a neighbour drive their car half a block to use a payphone, then drive home.

how to solve the problem? it's way to large (sorry) to answer with a few speculative quips from the likes of me. It requires more of an emergent response.

ta
pablo
 
 
astrojax69
23:31 / 01.06.05
but is obesity actually a mortality problem? the mortality rates of underweight, average and overweight people doesn't seem to correlate with the media frenzy on 'fat = bad, you gonna die'... sure, there are some added stresses to carrying more weight, but a healthy diet and exercise may not decrease your weight significantly though will rendert you less susceptible to health issues...

all seems a bit like the climate change debate - the media seem to think all experts agree, but that is not the case; same here.

actually, being underweight seems more detrimental to your health!

(that said, i am on a long term project to shed 17 kilos [about 40lbs] and have just reached half way - go me!)
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
22:27 / 03.06.05
all seems a bit like the climate change debate - the media seem to think all experts agree, but that is not the case; same here.

Having argued this with a better informed individual and eventually admitting my inaccuracy, I have to say that the climate change debate is a bit obscured by money. On one hand, there are experts saying that it is happening. On the other, we have oil-company funded companies and researchers telling us that it isn't happening. This was brought home to me when, while researching this to prove that global warming doesn't happen, I stumbled upon an organization (name unremembered) that had loads of scientific information about how Global Warming is caused by the sun. However, after further research, I discovered that organization was funded by Exxon. So.

Apart from that psuedo-hijack (and apologies for it) I do believe that our society over-emphasizes the dangers of obesity, especially in a society that seems to willfully ignore the fact that some of the actresses and models being held up as scions of fitness are so thin they are incapable of processing nutrients properly, and have to recieve vitamin injections. Fucked up.

I tend to think things like this are responsible for the fact that I know an 11-year-old with an eating disorder.

I think health is a good thing, something to be strived for, but to campaign for health by showing "disgusting" images of the obese is not only poor taste, but is adding to the problem. Many overweight people never work on losing weight or eating healthy due to poverty and low self-esteem. Are these campaigns going to help their poor self-image?
 
 
lord henry strikes back
14:30 / 04.06.05
Tom mentions this above, and it is something I keep hearing and just don't understand: what is this supposed link between poverty and obesity?

When it comes to eating right it is true that the fad diets where you only eat foods that are an anagram of your mother's maiden name or whatever can be expensive to keep up with. They are also a load of toss. Five pieces of fruit and veg a day costs next to nothing, an apple costing about 20p. Not snacking actually saves you money, as does drinking water, milk, or fruit juices as opposed to Coke, Tango, whatever. The single most important point in eating healthily is to stear away from the salt-sugar-fat packed ready meals and take aways. Just cook for yourself, it's cheaper, healthier, and it tastes better. This point was really brought home to me the other day in the supermarket when I noticed that a one person spaghetti bolognese cost £2.50. That's £5 for two people. To make at home the same two person meal would cost less than £2.

And you do not need to go to a gym to exercise. Going for a run is free. Walking and cycling are not only free but if you use them as a form of locomotion, instead of staying in one place listening to appalling music, they can save you money that you would have spent on the car or bus. If you have a little spare change kicking about you can, in most public pools, swim for as long as you like for about £1. Football in the park, sit-ups, gardening, there's loads of stuff you can do.

Sorry, I know I'm preaching a bit but this one really does wind me up.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
15:40 / 04.06.05
So I don't have to post everything...

Basically it boils down to poor-quality foods (refined, sugary, fatty) being cheaper. This is very much the case in the USA, and is also the case in the UK, although not to such a striking degree.

You can read an article here. It's from the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition, and is excellent.

Another one, which is not quite as good, is here.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
19:11 / 04.06.05
Basically it boils down to poor-quality foods (refined, sugary, fatty) being cheaper. This is very much the case in the USA, and is also the case in the UK, although not to such a striking degree.

To begin with, the above statement is in part massively wrong. A home made curry is cheaper than a bought one, and apple is cheaper than a chocolate bar, etc. at least in the UK. Having not been to the US I don't know about there. Maybe thay have found a way to skew the basic laws of economics and have made meals cheaper than the ingredients that made them.

The articles were interesting. They appear to make two points. First, that (to use the words of the articles) 'the poor' are too ill-educated to know how to eat well. This I find interesting as goverenment leaflets on a good diet are avaliable free at every doctors, dentists, and town hall in this country. Second, that they eat to make up for being poor. Well, what are you supposed to do with that? 'I'm poor and therefore I have the right to eat badly'. Sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for that.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
22:39 / 04.06.05
To begin with, the above statement is in part massively wrong. A home made curry is cheaper than a bought one, and apple is cheaper than a chocolate bar, etc. at least in the UK. Having not been to the US I don't know about there. Maybe thay have found a way to skew the basic laws of economics and have made meals cheaper than the ingredients that made them.

Is this "Ignore Statistical Evidence Week" at Barbelith or what?

"To achieve a healthy diet it may be necessary to spend more money (77, 79, 84). The UK Women's Cohort Study (89) is one of the few observational studies to have explored food costs, perceived and actual, in a study cohort of 15 191 women aged 35–69 y. Women in the healthiest diet group spent an additional 617 pounds sterling ({approx}US$1000) per year on food relative to the least-healthy diet group, with vegetables and fruit accounting for the largest amount of the cost. Yet almost 71% in the healthiest diet group and 60% in the least-healthy group did not agree that it was more expensive to eat a healthier diet, contrary to evidence obtained from the study itself." from my previous link.

This point was really brought home to me the other day in the supermarket when I noticed that a one person spaghetti bolognese cost £2.50. That's £5 for two people. To make at home the same two person meal would cost less than £2.

Apart from two poor examples not being as weighty as a study and statistical evidence, you're also wrong about prices here. Let's break it down...

Homemade Spaghetti Bolognese - 2.10

Beef Mince 250g - 80p

Spaghetti 500g - 50p

Tomato Puree 142g - 20p

Parsley - 60p

Spices - we'll assume you've already purchased these, if you're lucky.

Or, there's the...

400g Can of Heinz Spaghetti Bolognese - 89p

All of these prices are from Tesco.com, and I see where you got your price of 2.49. Tesco's Finest brand. Tesco's finest is the "posh ready-made" option. I, having been quite poor in the recent past, should know that no poor person on the planet makes a habit of eating the Finest range of hideously expensive foods.

Proof enough?

Besides all the above proof that you're wrong about the prices you cited as evidence, there's also the fact that poverty tends to run in families, causing an inter-generational habit of poor eating. I won't go into that, apart from pointing it out. There are a number of factors at play here, just one of which is the fact that eating badly is cheaper, unfortunately.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
22:56 / 04.06.05
Second, that they eat to make up for being poor. Well, what are you supposed to do with that? 'I'm poor and therefore I have the right to eat badly'. Sorry, I just don't have any sympathy for that.

Are you sincerely this naive about issues of class and deprivation, nutritional or otherwise?

Read how poverty exascerbates mental illness here.

Read how women in poverty are twice as likely to be obese here.

Read how poverty contributes to avoidable winter death of the elderly here.

Poverty and poor eating habits are not a choice these people make, but rather the unsurprising result of a pattern continued generationally and the general inequality of people's lives. Blaming the poor for being obese is irresponsible and thoughtless.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
02:20 / 05.06.05
Tom mentions this above, and it is something I keep hearing and just don't understand: what is this supposed link between poverty and obesity?

In addition to what Tom says, purely observationally, you walk into Iceland or a variety of other shops and there are always two for one deals on freezer food while fresh vegetables are marked up. Greengrocers, which are invariably cheaper are few and far between and time consuming. A lot of people who are poverty stricken are supporting families on low wages so the option to go to a small shop in addition to the supermarket is reduced if not impossible.

Henry Wooton, I feel a need to point out that a proportion of the ill-educated in this country can't read, I don't know the statistic but the idea that someone can pick up a leaflet and understand it isn't necessarily an absolute. Then take into account the possible levels of undiagnosed dyslexia in Britain etc. This site holds key statistics for adult literacy in the UK as of 1996. 22% of women aged 16-24 had a level 1 (the lowest) literacy rate. Unfortunately I can't find an explanation of what that specifically entails but I also don't know the contents of the leaflets that you describe.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
19:42 / 06.06.05
OK, I admit that bits of my last post went a bit far. I was getting quite het up.

My above estimate of the price of a spaghetti bolognese was just that: an estimate. I have now checked my figures on the Tescos website and this is what I have found:

Beef Mince 500g - £1.38. If you have a fridge you can store half of this for a later date. Alternatively, if you are cooking for two it is simply split in half. Either way it comes to 69p for a 250g serving.

Value Spaghetti 500g - 16p. No-one eats 500g of pasta in one sitting. The recomended individual serving is 75g dry weight (which is 250g cooked). Pasta will keep for months in the cupboard, so it will not go to waste. One serving = 3p.

Tomato Puree 142g - 20p. Again it keeps and you will not use it all. One quarter is a generous helping for one meal, but let's go with that. 5p.

Dried Parsley 10g - 48p. You only need a taste of this. 1g is plenty. 5p.

Total cost: 82p. And that is for 500g of food, 25% more than in the tin. Weight for weight, cooking at home comes out even cheaper.

I did not mean to suggest that the £2.49 spaghetti bolognese was the cheapest option. I just couldn't believe that anyone would pay that, no matter how rich.

I think two issues are becoming conflated here: obesity and healthy eating. Healthy eating, which is about getting the right balance of vitamins, minerals, trace elements etc. is expensive. This thread is about obesity which is caused by consuming more calories than you burn off. My problem is bags of crisps (not eating them is both healthier and cheaper). It's people driving half a mile to the shops (walking is both healthier and cheaper). And it's 250g of mince per person (125g is not only healthier and cheaper but also enough for one person for one meal). In western societies people eat too much and don't take enough exercise. Eating less and walking more saves you money.

This is what I meant when I said that I didn't understand the link between poverty and obesity. Sorry that I was not clearer.
 
 
Unconditional Love
15:54 / 07.06.05
well people have to die you know to keep the wheels of culture oiled.

shit food is just another way to make that happen, like legal drugs, prescription drugs and illegal drugs, not that i think society wants to kill all of us, but i do think it makes allowances for human weakness and those that wish to kill themselves very slowly.

not to be pessimistic but the air is poisoned, the tap water very dubious in places, the additves in food...... make it culturally acceptable to rebel by poisoning yourself to death with a variety of drugs.

obesity is just another layer in the choose your own poison world we live in.

if you compare that to what regualtory bodies ie governments do to there proclaimed enemies, our slow boring death is paradise.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:34 / 07.06.05
Transport may also be a factor... if you live somewhere, e.g. on a large estate, and can't drive (or can't afford a car) and you don't have good transport links which you can use to get to your nearest large supermarket, you're likely to be dependent on your nearest corner shop or mini-market... I'm lucky, I live in east London, all the corner shops near me usually have at least onions and peppers, but that isn't the case everywhere, and so people who rely on those shops have much fewer opportunities to buy decent produce.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
17:36 / 07.06.05
Right, I went to my local shop today.

Beef Mince 500g - £1.38. If you have a fridge you can store half of this for a later date. Alternatively, if you are cooking for two it is simply split in half. Either way it comes to 69p for a 250g serving.

Beef Mince is actually not healthy when compared to Lean Steak Mince, but Lean Steak Mince is around double the cost. So, at my local shop 500g Lean Steak Mince is 2.70 while 500g Beef Mince is 1.40. Because it's cheaper to eat unhealthily.

Value Spaghetti 500g - 16p. No-one eats 500g of pasta in one sitting. The recomended individual serving is 75g dry weight (which is 250g cooked). Pasta will keep for months in the cupboard, so it will not go to waste. One serving = 3p.

Value brand stuff uses highly-processed wheats and "reconstituted" wheats (swept from the floor, perhaps?) and is either way, not as healthy as the other.

Dried Parsley 10g - 48p. You only need a taste of this. 1g is plenty. 5p.

But not nearly as healthy and full of vitamins as Fresh Parsley, is it?

Do you see what you did? You made the food cheaper by making it LESS HEALTHY and MORE FATTENING (Particularly with the Mince, although I made the mistake of using Beef Mince as well, but still...). Not to mention that using dried parsley is sacrilege, but I'm half Italian and the idea of using dried herbs in Spaghetti makes me want to cry.

I did not mean to suggest that the £2.49 spaghetti bolognese was the cheapest option. I just couldn't believe that anyone would pay that, no matter how rich.

Sadly, people do.

My local shop sells 400g canned Spaghetti in Tomato Sauce for 13p. Of course, it's the disgusting Somerfield "Makes Sense" cheap stuff for the poor, but still, it's cheaper.

Of course, we could argue cost of various recipes all day, but in the end it is more expensive to eat well, particularly when it comes to meat, milk, and eggs - these are all much more expensive when purchased as Organic, but are very important to buy organic if you're concerned about the healthiness of your food.

Also, my previous link that involves mental illness and poverty is a good example of why the poor, particularly those with depression, don't just "pull themselves out of it" or some other patronising statement.
 
 
HCE
18:49 / 07.06.05
Just to clarify, are we talking about American adults? Or Europeans? Not Asian or African, I'm assuming?
 
 
passer
20:50 / 07.06.05
Prices aside, another key factor is time. Time = money. Cooking is a time consuming pursuit, particularly if you're avoiding processed foods. Add to the mix the demands of raising a family on top of the demands of your job, and cooking from scratch is a luxury most people can't afford even if the prices are reasonable.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:18 / 07.06.05
Certainly cooking food that nervous children will eat.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:50 / 07.06.05
cooking from scratch is a luxury most people can't afford even if the prices are reasonable.

I'm not sure that is true. I think there is something of a myth - this strikes me as very much an Anglo-Saxon thing - that food is a huge amount of effort. Food preparation takes a little time, to be sure, but one can put together a good meal in half an hour easily. The more pressing concern for the poor are the facilities and space in which to cook. It is challenging to do very much on a hotplate, for instance. "Most" people, on the other hand aren't so restricted.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:30 / 08.06.05
apologies for the previous comment, bad day.

lamb mince is ment to be very healthy as most sheep graze on naturalish grass and dont get shot full of hormones in my understanding, depending on country of origin. but lamb is a little more expensive.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:32 / 08.06.05
also theres an added something to making food yourself, i cant put my finger exactly on what but some time and care put into making food for yourself and others adds a flavour to it that prepackaged meals just dont have.
 
  
Add Your Reply