Dopey scientist: You can’t be blamed for your own weight
posted at 8:38 am on February 18, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Personal responsibility is officially dead. That’s not opinion, it’s science!
Towns and cities need to be radically redesigned to help to tackle the obesity epidemic, scientists were told —yesterday. Professor Philip James, chairman of the International Obesity Task Force, a London-based think-tank, called for a revolution in urban planning to encourage people to use cars less and public transport more.
He told a conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston that it was naive to expect people to lose weight by making better choices about diet and exercise when their surroundings encouraged inactivity.
This thinking goes hand in hand with Barack Obama’s economic plan, which takes retirement decisions out of people’s hands because it’s too much work for them to figure things out for themselves. Between the technocrats and the politicians who listen to them, pretty soon people won’t be responsible for a single thing in their own lives.
He also blamed the rise of desk-bound office work and sedentary leisure activities such as watching television, surfing the internet and playing computer games. Lifts and escalators, and even labour-saving devices such as electric toothbrushes and can-openers added to the problem.
Who is responsible for my decision to surf the net, er, besides you people who want a new post every 10 minutes? Why, urban designers, of course. It’s science!
You want to know where this is going? Nanny totalitarianism, naturally.
“Blaming individuals for their personal vulnerability to weight gain is no longer acceptable in a world where the majority is already overweight and obesity is rising everywhere,” said Professor James, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “It is naive of ill-informed politicians and food industry executives to place the onus on individuals making ‘healthier choices’ whilst the environment in which we live is the overwhelming factor amplifying the epidemic.
“It is even more naive to tell people that they just need to make a little change in their eating habits or their daily activity and suddenly the obesity problem will be remarkably easily solved.” Rather than pouring billions into creating more car-filled town centres and motorway networks, it was now necessary to curtail car use.
So let’s redesign the world, and set limits on net use and TV watching. It’s all for your own good.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
No. I blame Bush.
NoFanofLibs on February 18, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I think we should set limits on the oxygen use of nanny statists. Well below the level necessary to sustain vital signs.
Then we should enforce them.
Vigorously.
Misha I on February 18, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Global Warming.
Wade on February 18, 2008 at 8:46 AM
So how much weight will I lose if I go back to a manual can opener and a regular toothbrush?
Quisp on February 18, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Um, yes it is that simple. Speaking as someone who has lost 34 pounds since last May – with a goal to lose a total of 50 by this May – I can certainly attest to the fact that a change in eating habits and an increase in daily physical activity is all that is needed to lose weight and become more healthy.
Has it be easy to stop eating the foods I love? To eat less of everything? Hell no – it’s been hard work. But incredibly rewarding.
And I submit that is the larger problem. People just don’t want to work hard, give things up or change their own habits to lose weight and be healthy. That’s not society’s fault, it’s not the fault of urban planning or the Internet.
It is about personal responsibility – 2 words that rarely appear together in any meaningful way anymore.
KrisinNE on February 18, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Can’t walk to work, or walk a lot…global warming and the increase of ultraviolet light causing skin cancer prevents me from doing that. Can’t afford carbon offsets, so I have to work at a desk job, preventing me from exercising.
Also, the increase in temp. makes it dangerous to exercise.
*
I am over 60 years old, run two businesses, have time to post, am a ranked (state and national) 4.5 tennis player, spend 10-20 hours a week on the tennis courts, am a little over weight, but I exercise and eat right (which is cheaper then eating “wrong”).
*
An Indian writer once was asked why she wanted to visit the United states so much. She responded by saying “She always wanted to go to a country where the poor people were overweight”. That says it all about our culture.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Personal responsibility has been dead for a long time. Gambling, alcoholism, and drug use used to be considered vices. There was a personal stigma and failing attached those activities. Not any more. Now they’re a “disease” which apparently can be quit.
If only stage IV cancer patients were able to quit their disease.
Mike Honcho on February 18, 2008 at 8:59 AM
This whole thing reeks of political correctness and discrimination. I can never seem to gain a pound, no matter what I do. I’ve tried twinkies with every meal, and big macs before bedtime. Make me walk upstairs, or open a can, or brush my own teeth would only cause me to lose more weight. What is my government gonna do about that? I’m a person too. Why doesn’t Barak hear my voice?
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Way to go, keep it up…it is a great life when you are healthy, and your loved ones want that more then you. There are too many others ways our health is affected, this one you can (and are) control(ing).
34 lbs. is awesome…it’s amazing, not only the loss, but the mental attitude to do it…you are a winner.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Just because we can’t blame them anymore, doesn’t mean we can’t still heckle them.
Dusty on February 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
So why do I run 20+ miles a week, lift weights 4 times a week, and eat well, if I don’t have control over my weight? Oh, because this guy’s a total moron. There’s a lot of terms that most people would consider empty ten dollar words these days that meant a lot when I was growing up. Self discipline. Internal motivation. Personal responsibility. No one has to work for anything anymore. No one has to be better, look better, act better, in order to succeed. College used to be difficult to attend, and even harder to succeed in. Now it’s just what you do after high school. The military is no longer thought of as adventurously joining an elite organization, it’s what to do when you screw up and have to pay for college or knocking your girlfriend up.
But this joker would have you believe it’s not a lack of integrity, or standards. It’s just science, perpetuated by society. What a load of garbage. Last time I checked homo sapiens just like you and me ran up Omaha Beach, raised a flag on Iwo Jima, and split the atom. So what’s happened in 60 years?
Spc Steve on February 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
What a pile of elephant dung! Before too long we’ll just have to put these irresponsible slugs on life support and sustain them into their old age.
Sorry I don’t buy this garbage.
rplat on February 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Liberalism reached America. It’s a virus. It does what it does. Destroys the host and moves on.
JiangxiDad on February 18, 2008 at 9:06 AM
So I wonder how much wood the good Professor chops each day?
conservnut on February 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM
I THOUGHT I had control over my weight… I quit smoking over a year ago, and now after a life time of being thin, or down right underweight, I’ve got a beer belly…
I suppose I could exercise, and cut down on junk food and empty beer calories, but now thanks to Science I know I’m simply a victim, or something….
darkpixel on February 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
The way food is engineered these days and with TV and video games and the internet, it IS tougher to get and stay in shape then back on the farm days. However, the demand for better, more natural food is causing that to be more available. “Dance Dance Revolution” is helping on the video game front. Market forces are already providing healthy choices. Now if I, er people, would choose them. It’s just down to hard work and discipline. Man, I hate that :-)
As for this new world where you would have to ride the train to work, etc. It would only have a marginal affect. Unless they are planning on FORCING everyone into intense workouts and strict diets. Global Warming, Socialized Medicine, Anti-Obese Society Design = all designed to take control from the individual and place it with the world government.
FINALLY! A world where I don’t have to worry about anything!!! Please pass the government sanctioned fiber biscuits. Thanx.
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Thank you Bryan.
Yesterday I was an undisciplined fat slob. Today I am a cultural victim.
This is just the ammunition I needed to get my wife and doctor to shut their yaps.
Rod on February 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Either that or make entire rooms full of TV screens where we can just sit and be stimulated visually and aurally all day long and never have to think for ourselves. Meanwhile, the fireman will lovingly take all books off of our hands. Sounds great, yeah?!
Eclectic on February 18, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Well I think there’s a healthy :) balance point that can be reached here. Obviously we are all responsible for ourselves, but living in a society that encourages health can certainly help. I’m motivated to stay healthy. I go to the gym several times a week and I eat quite healthfully. Still, being physically fit is really hard when you live in an area where it’s impractical to walk to the store because it’s too far away. The point is that you have to go against the grain to stay healthy nowadays.
firefoxy on February 18, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Yeah right. Tell that to Japan, where being physically active is very much a lifestyle for all ages and, coincidentally enough, very few people are obese (or fat for that matter). Is there a correlation? Not sure… Maybe science could chime in here.
Gotta get ‘em when they’re young, folks. Why are liberals so eager to indoctrinate our kids with all the wrong things?
amkun on February 18, 2008 at 9:37 AM
You know,obesity is not a problem in the forced labor camps that Socialist and Communist are so fond of. I can see a day when people are forced into such camps ‘for their own good’.
c3ichief on February 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Take a look at people living in suburban and rural areas, and compare them to people living in urban locations. I don’t think you can make the argument that there aren’t fewer overweight people in the urban areas…it’s a simple matter of them spending a whole lot more time walking than those in suburban and rural locations, where you don’t have any choice but to drive everywhere.
So, what’s the government gonna do about people outside the cities? Make them move? Take away their cars so that they have to walk three miles to the nearest convenience store for a gallon of milk? How about supplying each of them with a treadmill and a trainer to make sure they spend 40 minutes a day on it?
flipflop on February 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Nah, just do what I did and go back on the Philip Morris diet. You’ll lose 15 pounds in no time.
flipflop on February 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM
The problem has always been the Education system. Since the unions and the Dems have taken control of our federal education system all these issues have serviced. If people are not taught how to handle money, if they are not taught how to read labels, are not taught health and hygenie, are not taught about compounding interest and compounding calories. If on the other hand they are taught lies like global warming, pc correctness, and multiculturism then they can not be expected to know better.
What do people expect? That people will just evolve intelligence?
This is not about personal reponsibility, it is not about nanny statism. It is about society deciding 40 years ago that reading, writing, basic math, and science were no longer as important as being nice, colorblind, not offending, and feeling good about themselves.
When you raise a majority of stupid people for the sake of retaining power, you get alot of stupid policies, thoughts, and actions.
Retirement planning is not hard unless you never learned how to add, multiply, subtract, divide, plan, think long term and understand the law of compounding interest.
In the same vain, weight control is not hard unless you never learned about protein, carbs, fats, vits, minerals, addition, subtraction, multiplication, planning, etc.
It is not that it is too hard for people it is that it is with their present education level impossible for people to understand. When only 20% of your population goes to higher education, when the other 80% of your population majors in lies, halftruths and feel good education then you have peoblems. When you factor in that out of the 20% that does go to higher education a majority of those continue their education in the areas of lies, half truths, and feel good education instead of learning, then you have major problems.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM
That is the thought process that moved these guys to their inane belief. YOU are starting the excuses. It is not “tougher” to stay in shape. Working a farm 12 hours a day is much tougher then going to a gym, or walking 2 miles a day (and you were wearing out your body, not keeping it in shape). You can get in a fitness class for pennies a day, and stay in shape. And you aren’t in 90 degree, 90% humidity, plowing a field (with the flu, because you have to plant this week). Food is much more plentiful now, fresh greens are found year around (organic if you want). There is no excuse for not getting in shape, and staying in shape…once you make the commitment, it is done.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 9:49 AM
That lead to the state having more power. Good point indeed.
Plus, it’s hard having “self-esteem” when you can’t climb the rope in gym class, so lets just cancel PE.
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM
You got me :-) Busted again! I better go hiking this afternoon like I planned.
Ordinary1 on February 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Mommy,my soylent green is stringy and chewey, can we get the brand from an overwieght country again,it’s so much yummier.
bbz123 on February 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM
There’s a lot of terms that most people would consider empty ten dollar words these days that meant a lot when I was growing up. Self discipline. Internal motivation. Personal responsibility
Spc Steve on February 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
All those terms were taught. Maybe not in a classroom setting, but thru personal observation, parents, society at large. They are traits that are learned. It is not a basic human function. the laws of science says that all states of matter will seek the steady state that uses the least energy. This is the basic law that describes all chemical reactions. To think Humans will be above this law is wishful thinking. We must teach our children that it is wrong to follow this law. Over the generations we as a society did this by making outcasts of those that allowed themselves to fail to fight that basic law. We admired a strong work ethic, a strong male speciman, a good mother that provided, a star athlete in high school, generals and leaders that WON wars. We looked up to employers that worked 90, 100hrs a week, that provided for their community etc. Now sadly we are making hero’s out of beta males, whoreish women, CEO’s that move jobs overseas to pad their pockets and bottom lines. While at the same time we are making losers out of stay at home mothers, alpha males, winning armies and generals, CEO’s that sacrifice profit for the good of the community. thus as a society we are teaching our young to embrace instead of fight the law of the path of least resistence.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM
IS THIS A CONSENSUS ??? Debate over?? I remember a line from the old Sopranos series. Tony and “Fat” Vito in a parking lot, as Vito gets ready to leave Tony pats his belly and says “try the salad bar for a change”. Good advice along with push yourself away from the table sooner.
pueblo1032 on February 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Don’t eat the Soylent Brown. Trust me.
ronsfi on February 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I’m actually a fan of the urban design movement (or more accurately suburban design) that insists on making room for car-free or mixed-use zones so that people have the option of biking, roller-blading, or walking as much as possible. There is no other way to carve up public space except by the use of government authority. Even a conservative can see that the free market never built a bike-lane down a public road.
That being said, the idea that some urban planner is going to fix the obesity problem is laughable. And I’m no fan of the food-nazis and video-game police.
Anton on February 18, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Heck all these years I thought I was over weight because I ate too much. Glad to know that it isn’t my fault…. Now if I can just find where I put that box of doughnuts everything would be fine.
appst38 on February 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM
So I lost 120 pounds accidentally? Crud.
Darin on February 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Deconstruct their culture and traditional values. Replace parents with villages to raise their children. Take away their guns. Take away their cars. Then outlaw large spoons.
petefrt on February 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
No, you lost weight by riding the bus instead of driving- taking the bus apparently burns calories much faster than driving:
Maybe he wants to use pedal-powered buses and subways or something.
Hollowpoint on February 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Between my 65, Darin’s 120 and KrisinNE 34, we’ve lost a whole person. Anybody see where they went?
michaelo on February 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
We need “Food Acquisition Permits”
Prove a need
Select from pre-approved ‘reasonable’ food
Consume in designated areas
Thank your masters
LimeyGeek on February 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Quick! Somebody order me a pizza! It’s not my fault!!!
bloggless on February 18, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Actually, this may be a hit on conservative blogs. They will shut down the blogs for our good.
bloggless on February 18, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Calorie offsets…
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Ride some of the public trans. and your heart rate jumps up, you heart is in your throat. Your muscles are twitching…flight or fight, is a mantra you often repeat. Eyes are darting, briefcase clutched, ever alert…know wonder you lose weight on public transportation.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Are we supposed to swallow such stupidity?
What a fathead!
If the mouth doesn’t open, the person doesn’t gain weight.
How is the opening of their mouth someone else’s fault?
Although OPTIONAL stationary cycle-powered TV’s and PC’s wouldn’t be a bad idea for the morbidly-couch potato generation.
profitsbeard on February 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
So much for binge and purge
Kini on February 18, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I think they’re probably right that people will continue to be overweight. Where they’re wrong is in assuming that, every time there’s a negative outcome, the government can and must step in and engineer a “solution.” How about we just let people be fat, and deal with the consequences themselves?
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Um… November 2006, I weighed 252lbs. I made the decision to stop drinking Pop completely, and stop/reduce snacking late at night. In the first 6 months, I lost 52lbs, and I hadn’t even begun to exercise consistently yet. If this so-called scientist thinks that a little change won’t do anything, he’s very undeserving of his degrees. Talk about complete crap. My goal is to get my weight down to around 180lbs by summer. I gained back about 5lbs over the holidays, but I’m getting back into my new habits again. (it was all the snacking and eating, but I’m still soda-free and loving it. Coffee? Can’t kick that habit yet.)
DakRoland on February 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM
think they’re probably right that people will continue to be overweight. Where they’re wrong is in assuming that, every time there’s a negative outcome, the government can and must step in and engineer a “solution.” How about we just let people be fat, and deal with the consequences themselves?
Blacklake on February 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Sounds good to me. but see government knows that the common sense approach like yours will not give them anymore power so they use a hook. Like with seatbelt laws they say that personal behaviors is affecting the insurance premiums. thus they pass laws saying you must wear a seatbelt. People’s freedoms are taken away, government now has a reason to make you a crimnal for not doing anything that affects anyone else. and while all this goes on I’m still waiting for a reduction in my insurance premuim. It hasn’t happened. In fact the insurance industry has simply pocketed what savings it got (if it got any at all) and added it to their bottomline.
So the majority allowed their freedoms to be taken away because the government/insurance industry played on the some people’s greed, on others need to control people, and still others’ fears. Thus when the government lines up the argument so that “everyone” gets the promise of something the freedom’s get taken away. It will be no different with the food police.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Whether or not anyone is at fault for something and the limits of guult and blame are ethical and value questions. Ethics is outside the scope of science. So this “scientist’s” judgements about who’s at fault for my fat are nonscientific judgements. And there is no reason to believe the glorious “scientist” is more capable of making this judgement than anyone else.
This always kills me about liberals. They say they are the people of science and in the same breath prove they’re not too clear about exactly what science is.
snaggletoothie on February 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM
ahh, another advocate of the UN-designed “sustainable” village…
Claire on February 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
That’s very encouraging! I got tired of my blogger spread and lost 13 pounds in three weeks on the South Beach diet. Making the decision and the implementation has been tough, but seeing such quick results–like having to wear belts with all my jeans–keeps the cookies out of my hands. (Plus I’ve been doing some sit-ups and push-ups.) Thirty more to go.
Best of luck to you.
baldilocks on February 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM
My first thought was: unbelievable.
But its not unbelievable. It’s entirely predictable and inevitable. This is a peek at the endgame of liberalism.
We frankly owe Western Europe a debt of gratitude, because they are showing us – in advance – exactly what will happen to our own society if we follow a similar path.
It’s a blessing. Maybe it will open eyes and we can choose a different course.
If not … well, the irony is that this type of soft, weak society, in which personal responsibility is not only abdicated but discouraged … cannot last.
History proves it. Real life will intrude. The next great global crisis will serve as a tool of social Darwinism and wipe some of these societies off the map – or force them to change and adapt.
The bad news is, if we follow a similar path, a lot of us may have to die to learn the message.
And then we’ll repeat it again in a few centuries. Human beings never seem to learn obvious lessons.
Professor Blather on February 18, 2008 at 12:42 PM
While you may not agree with the magnitude of these opinions and recommendations, argue against them categorically, and you’ll have to allow for the legalization of all drugs (from the softest to the hardest), prostitution, and obscene content on broadcast television. Surely these recommendations can be considered without demanding onerous limits on private industry. If the government is designing roads and selectively allowing building permits, why can’t health be one of many factors they use in doing so? If people don’t like it, private industry can design their own competing neighborhoods, a la Celebration, Florida. Honestly, I think this is more of a mistake of phrasing and degree than of ideas. And considering that health care is going to bankrupt us all unless we take serious action, perhaps we should do more than mock those who are trying to solve this problem. This fellow is an academic, not a politician, so I really don’t think we should fear or dismiss his ideas. Yes, personal responsibility is what things come down to in the end, but calls for a modification in city design should not be ignored just because we dislike the politics of those calling for them.
calbear on February 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM
And considering that health care is going to bankrupt us all unless we take serious action,
calbear on February 18, 2008 at 1:18 PM
That is a false statement that has been promoted by liberals. Health care cost have gone up not because of personal behavior but because of governmental actions. It is not the obesse that is driving helathcare costs up it is the FACT that the government is covering more and more people for longer amounts of time.
You want to take serious action to solve healthcare costs fine let’s attack the costs from the supply side instead of the demand side. Increase hospitals, increase doctors,decrase the FDA wait times on drugs, decrease the payout in federal funds, reduce the tarrifs on importation of drugs, decrase the cost of becoming a doctor. If the federal government paid for a doctors education instead of for the sick people the supply of doctors would be large. they would not have to charge huge amounts to pay for their education loans and the price of doctor vists should come down. With more doctors and hospitals chasing a smaller pie of federal dollars, prices will decrease to attract the most patients. As long as you have the price of healthcare being paid by a faceless, bottomless pit of politicians the prices will continue to go up. why cut prices if you don’t have too? why not raise prices if you can?
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Totally agree.
To those of you who posted that you are working hard to keep in shape or lose weight, that’s really great. However, a large amount of the population lacks that motivation, and our society has changed such that these people end up much more overweight than they would have 50 years ago. And who pays? The taxpayers, since one of the largest drains on our medical system is obesity-induced diabetics. For example.
There is little or no free market force that curtails this phenomenon of obesity-related illness leading to rising health care costs. The free market forces are from people who care enough about their own health to buy exercise and diet products, but this apparently hasn’t been enough. Since the government ends up paying for a good amount of this, it makes sense that the government would want to create an environment in which this is less of a problem.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
See the link I posted above. Or just google health care costs and obesity.
I agree with you that there are many problem with the way the government handles health care. But how can you deny that rising obesity is contributing a large amount to health care costs? Do you deny that obesity has risen enormously over the past 50 years? Do you deny that obesity greatly increases the risk of illness? Do you deny that treating illness costs money?
Yes, there are ways that the health care system can be improved, and ways to reduce the cost of health care. But the fact remains that rising obesity hurts society as a whole, so it seems completely reasonable for the government to try to curtail it. As calbear said, you may disagree with the extent to which this is done, you shouldn’t dismiss it categorically.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Solution: Replace “carbon life” with “silicon life”….{insert your favorite robot link here}
landlines on February 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Okay calbear and tneloms, how are you going to redesign LA without spending more than it costs for health care of all of California? This idea may have some value for some communities, but the cost for any large, established urban area is a joke.
Make the people who are getting diabetes and such from poor eating and exercise habits pay for their own medical care from their own pocket and pretty soon you’ll see some motivated people.
Snidely Whiplash on February 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Exactly why I said that you should argue with the *extent* rather than the idea of doing this at all. Yes, you definitely shouldn’t spend more on this endeavor than you would save on health care. You shouldn’t redesign all of LA. But what’s wrong with the government taking this into account when considering issues of urban development?
I agree with that too. But the fact is that right now hospitals are obligated by federal law to treat anyone who walks in, even if they are uninsured. So either change that law, or mandate health insurance. And whichever you do, you also have to allow insurance companies to charge extra to those who don’t take care of their own health. Until all of these changes are made, it makes sense for the government to try to curtail obesity.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Don’t worry – Tricare, at least in MTF around here, is referring all of us fatties to Weight Watchers to lose weight. I was in making sure there was nothing else wrong with me (other than my weight, duh) and checking that my exercise plan would further destroy my knee, and my doc told me WW is the only proven way to lose weight.
I’ll be honest – I have no solutions to this problem. I agree that people who have no personal responsibility deserve what’s coming to them, but I’m going to go off on the next punk that tells me to stop stuffing my face full of food in public. Even with people that simply overeat, there’s more than just ONE factor behind their weight gain. It does no good to anybody involved to paint all of us who are overweight/obese with a broad brush.
the goddess anna on February 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Wow, typos suck. *MTFs *exercise plan would NOT further destroy my knee…
I need to go back to sleep.
the goddess anna on February 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM
As someone who has lost 40 lbs with Weight Watchers I can say that this guy is full of crap. You simply are what you eat. Exercise is about 20% and diet is 80% if you want to lose weight.
the goddess anna – Sorry you have joint problems as that makes exercise much tougher. You’re stuck on ellipticals or swimming if you do want to exercise. I can tell you that my knees and ankles feel much better after the weight loss.
¡Sí se puede!
Mojave Mark on February 18, 2008 at 2:51 PM
“Professor” Philip James is, as Mr. Spock would say, and I paraphrase, a veritable fountain of incoherence and illogic.
MB4 on February 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM
“Professor” Philip James is a man educated way beyond his intelligence.
MB4 on February 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM
That’s the amazing part, most people (unless with a medical condition) can lose weight easily (or at least steadily). It is pure physics, you gain weight if your caloric and fat intake is more than you burn. You can’t gain 5 lbs. unless you take in 5 lbs. more than you need.
I need about 2200-2400 calories per day to maintain my weight for my height and age. If I want to lose lbs. I increase my activity a little and take in 1400-1800 calories (500 to 1000 less per day). I have cut most of the excess fat and carbs out of my diet, so I just have to calorie count.
It’s physics folks, just plain physics. You need to burn 500 more calories per day than you take in to lose 1 lb. per week. And 1 lb. per week is plenty for most people. Increase your muscle mass and you can lose 1.5-2 lb. per week.
*
You can’t change the law of physics.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Ok, now I understand where Hillary is coming from.
So to add to this, how long till some whacked scientist claims that it’s not pedophile’s faults that they molest and harm children, it’s just a disease that is brought on by the way our society is… Christ, that almost sounds familiar, I think someone may have already said that.
4shoes on February 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I totally agree, exercise is the key.
4shoes on February 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Um, so you advocate making pedophiles take personal responsibility for their actions and keeping the government out of it? Or should the government arrest and punish pedophiles, take actions to prevent them from getting near children, and provide resources for both the abuser and the abused to avoid future incidents?
Yes, everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. But when they don’t, and this adversely affects the rest of society, the government should provide incentives and punishments to fix the problem, and create and environment in which the problem can be more easily curtailed.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Are talking about immigration? Or carbon emissions? Or teen-age child birth? Or sex in middle school? Or smoking in the home? How about the lunches you make for your children? Maybe driving SUV’s?
Now do you get it???
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 3:35 PM
No – how about attacking it from both sides? I seriously doubt either one alone is enough to solve the problem. Also, my “false statement that has been promoted by liberals” was promoted by Bryan on Friday. I never said that obesity was the primary or only cause of our health care crisis, but it’s one of many causes that we would be wise not to ignore.
calbear on February 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Once again, you are for open borders?
You see, you can’t legislate personal responsibility. That has been tried, and it has failed time and time again. Peer pressure, like overweight people have to pay more for an airline ticket…higher insurance premiums…not allowed to sit next to me in a theater…that kind of stuff.
*
Instead we insult them by saying stuff like, “she would be so pretty if she lost weight”, or “well, she has a great personlality”, “he is reminds me of…”. The fact is, she/he should lose the weight because that’s what they want to do…or keep it because they are comfortable with it. But never the government (which bureaucrat do you want in charge of this?)to give any incentive (read hand in pocket for a program to expand…pun alert)or create a punishment for being overweight (you vill be skinny, ve vill demand it!!!)
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Then let the health providers charge appropriately. It is not up to the government to determine the risk to the insurance companies.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 3:50 PM
This is how the Mommy State (gives you stuff) empowers the Daddy State (kicks your butt when you get out of line). The whole thing got messed up when wage and price controls were imposed during WWII, and employers started offering fringe benefits to attract and/or retain good workers.
Once you believe that “someone else is paying”, your incentive to control the costs goes away. Despite all efforts to reengage the patient in the cost control loop, so long as health care is not purchased directly by the patient, the problem will persist. Look to the ridiculous waiting lists north of the border for where we’ll go once Nationalized Health Care is a reality.
And then there’s this: I know people who don’t have my “lifestyle”. What they do in their bedrooms is none of my business… right up to the point where I am coerced into paying for it. Then suddenly their promiscuous behavior is costing me money.
Either NHC will force people like me to pay for others’ bad choices, or will start interfering with their freedom to make those choices. Or more likely, a little of both.
The Monster on February 18, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Aw shucks, thank you! And kudos to you Baldilocks, and Darin & Michealo.
Losing weight is hard work. I’ve done it on my own without any formal plan. Just put common sense to work with portion control and what I eat. Cut out those things that I know are bad for me, added in things that are healthy and voila! 34 pounds lost in 9 months. Slow and steady wins the race.
Ultimately you have to be personally motivated to do this – and therein lies the problem. Motivation and hard work don’t really go together much anymore, sadly.
Oh yeah, and my Hubby has lost 25 pounds the same way as me.
KrisinNE on February 18, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Oh yeah, and I also post my weight loss on my blog every other week (used to be weekly at first). Keeps me honest!
KrisinNE on February 18, 2008 at 4:09 PM
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Which problems? Who decides?
I would like to remind people that much of the support for gun control laws was engendered by arguments from academics and health care professionals who falsely branded gun violence as an “epidemic” like tuberculosis in order to justify government intervention.
Let’s see how this works:
Or should the government arrest and punish
pedophilesthose who abuse public health resources with unhealthy lifestyle choices, take actions to prevent them from getting nearchildrenprocessed foods, cigarettes, firearms, alcohol, and provide resources (re-education?) for both the abuser(an adult exercising his or her capacity for free-will) and the abused (the welfare state) to avoid future incidents?Deety on February 18, 2008 at 4:14 PM
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Yes I deny it. The fact is that obesity did not become a problem until the government interfered in our diet and started to promote low fat alterniatives “to protect society from “heart diesease”. By cutting out fat and protein we increased our intake of sugars and carb which is more a cause of diabeties that weight add into that the school lunch and breakfast programs for the “poor” that are promoting this diet of low fat, low protein and high carbs and you get the nations poorest citizens eating the worst deits. So what does the liberals and government control freaks do with the problem they created well they decide to shift the blame.
Let me repeat the reason that healthcare costs are increasing is because at the present time the healthcare industry has a customer with an unlimited supply of money. Namely the Federal and State governments. If you own a business and one of your customers comes in and says he wants something and money is no problem that he will pay any price are you going to raise your prices or give him a deep discount? Add into the mix that healthcare’s other biggest customer is big business also with very deep pockets and you get smart people on the supply side raising prices. Throw in the increased demand by people that do not pay for any healthcare out of their pockets and you set up a scenrio of hyper price inflation.
the obesse is no more burden on the system than the old, or pregent mothers, newborn /premature babies, or the handicapped and in many regards they are less of a burden. Should we next decide how long a person can live? Who can have a baby, how many babies they can have? that no premature baby can be left to live?
gaining weight or being fat is a natural body defense mechinism to ensure our species survival during times when food is not available, the people that you sneer at that are now obeese, it was their genes that enabled our species to survive. And if anyone is stupid enough to think that those times can not/will not come again you do not know natural history, nor human history. Go ask some in Africa why they find large women attractive.
Macroeconomics states that supply and demand will dictate price. The government wants to decrease demand for helathcare by targeting the groups that use more of it, yet at the same time they want to increase demand by bringing in another 45 million people that are now uninsured. If less and less people are being treated or insured why does price keep going up? If 45 million people no longer have health insurance and therefore should not be able to recieve healthcare why does the price go up? The prices should be coming down not up in a normal world. It is because the government is stepping in a artifically keeping prices up by creating artifical demand. If something is free you will have unlimited demand. (as a side note this is why music companies can not compete with downloading, they have the opposite problem of unlimited supply)
It is NOT a coincidence that the two industries having the highest price inflation: higher education and healthcare just happen to be the two industries that the government continues to fund at higher and higher rates. You want college expenses to come down shut off federal aid, you want healthcare costs to come down shut off federal aid. As the pie of available funds shrink colleges and healthcare workers will reduce their prices and increase their quality to compete for customers.
Will this mean less people go to college? Or less people get healthcare? Maybe. It is just as likely that as the price for these things come down MORE people will be able to afford these services on their own therby increasing the amount of people being covered or enrolled.
The liberals always want to attack the demand side of the equation in everything and the rep want to attack the supply side when the answer is to attack both. Gas prices are another issue. You want to decrease gas prices you can decrease demand or increase supply. The rep want to increase supply by more drilling, more refineries while the liberasl want to decrease the demand by hybrids, solar, wind, fuel cells, bio fuels, etc. You want to make gas very cheap do both. attacking demand will keep gas prices because the supply is limited. increasing supply will only make demand higher. If you increase the supply at the same time you decrease demand than you will have gas prices close to $1.00/gallon. Same goes for healthcare and college. Increase supply and decrease demand.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Right on!
Only one quibble though. If (formerly) Great Britain is any indication, I suspect that NHC will mean a lot of both.
Deety on February 18, 2008 at 4:18 PM
calbear on February 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I agree about attacking both sides. I’m saying that it is not a specific group that is driving the increase it is the total of the entire group. I would wager we could decrease demand more by targeting illegals than the fat people. That’s not the point. Even if we removed both from healthcare we would not reduce costs because we are not attacking the right supply/demand and that is the supply and demand created by government. The government pumps in basically an unlimted demand from new customers in their search for more votes. While at the same time they pump in unlimited funds thereby increasing the price.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Oh, I already know 99% of them are unable/unwilling to take personal responsibility for their actions. And yes, for them I totally advocate government taking action to keep them out of public. My point was in reference to the “scientist” making excuses for a group of people. There is no basis for a scientist to make a statement like the one we’re commenting on, it says that no one must take responsibility for their own actions. I guess my comparison
was not a great one, it’s just that in the past people have made excuses for pedophiles, when I believe regardless of why they’ve done it, they should be forced to take responsibility, one way or another.
4shoes on February 18, 2008 at 4:42 PM
There is little or no free market force that curtails this phenomenon of obesity-related illness leading to rising health care costs
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Hmmm…lets see if we did away with food stamps, and healthcare for the poor than they would: 1)not be able to buy as much food and 2) would not be able to seek healthcare. Of course then we might go back to having some starve to death and have famine in America again which would increase the healthcare costs more as the government launches more programs to deal with the lack of eating willpower of the poor. But that free market worked well back then….I will state again obesity is not the cause leading to a rise in healthcare costs just like a sudden evolutionary trend of higher intelligence is not the cause leading to higher college costs. The problem is the governmental programs put in place by demand side economics during the liberal control of our government from 1930-2008.
For a free market to be free you have to have rules and regulations or the free market quickly becomes unfree as those that make the most use the power and wealth they acquired to quickly stack the deck increasingly in their favor.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Government is already what’s in charge of city planning, etc., and has gotten into other things for the benefit of society – the G.I. Bill, government-sponsored research into the sciences (from disease cures to the Internet), pro-growth tax incentives. They should not ignore health when they’re doing what they’re doing already. And it will lower per-capita health care costs, since the health costs associated with obesity are fairly large; it’s a problem with manifestations that kill slowly. People who really want to will still refuse to exercise and eat like pigs, but we can easily improve on a culture in which, for example, bicycling is both dangerous (due to street design) and mocked (which I don’t want government to directly address, but it still irks me).
calbear on February 18, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Huge straw man. A pedophile who acts upon his urges is forcing himself onto someone who isn’t remotely able to form consent. The only moral justification for the institution of government is to defend against those who do harm to others, so if it fails to act in this area, what good is it?
(However, I strenuously oppose Sex Offender Registries that place any additional restrictions on the liberties of people who committed their offense before the law establishing these restrictions was passed. They are unconstitutional on their face. What part of “no ex post facto law” is so hard to understand?)
When I give into my urge to have a pint of Edy’s Grand Ice Cream, I’m a consenting adult engaging in a personal vice, and if I don’t pay for it at the health club, I’ll surely pay for it with a lower quality of life, and higher cost of the health care I’ll need for being a lardass. It is only because government has taken upon itself the payment of health care costs (thereby forcing those costs onto all taxpayers) that the lawsuits against tobacco companies have finally been successful. When it was about an individual adult making choices and bearing the costs thereof, they never got anywere.
People like John Edwards will try to take a bite out of McDonald’s and Baskin-Robbins soon enough.
The Monster on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
The Monster on February 18, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Well since people talking loud on a cellphone in every place I go bothers me more than a fat person Can we start harping on the people always talking on their cellphones now? since they are costing me a fortune or will be in the coming decade. cancer is after all more expensive and harder to cure then being overweight. All of you with cellphones for the good of the country stop talking. The government will be putting out rules stating that Verizon can only offer 15 minute monthly plans soon.
Heavy mobile phone use may be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland, a study suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 5:09 PM
Heavy mobile phone use may be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland, a study suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm
Maybe we can set up special “cellphone rooms” so the radio waves doesn’t impact us non-cellphone users. I know let’s have them be required to go out back to lite up their phones. and those in homes with children should never be allowed to have cellphones near the precious children.
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Well who could ever argue with that logic. The Government is already involved in other things, so let’s get them involved in everything.
So, who is going to tell you what to eat, what to put in your kids lunches, how much exercise you need?
What government program will be needed for this, and how large and costly?
Dude, this is how a socialist society is born…always with “good” intentions. You know, if we can just help them poor black folk with a little money, and the more kids they have, well it only makes sense to give them more money…and you know the rest of the story.
If you think the Government (which is now Pelosi, Reid, etc.) has your best interest, and can tell you how to live a healthy life…well, you may be posting on the wrong blog.
Pray that Jack LaLane is our national health care administrator and not these government workers.
right2bright on February 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I suddenly feel like going home and watching a little Demolition Man.
Califemme on February 18, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Since there’s so much that’s been said to me, I’ll just respond directly to a couple things, and then give my general defense.
I don’t know what to say to this. There are numerous studies that show that the rise in obesity has been caused by less overall exercise in our lifestyles, especially in children. You can dispute those studies, but I don’t think there’s much disagreement among experts who have studied this.
I was responding to a comparison that 4shoes made (at 3:12 PM).
That’s not was calbear was saying. calbear said that since the government is the only entity that can be in charge of city planning specifically (not other things), it makes sense for it to take into account things like public health when doing it. I assume you agree that things like city planning can’t be done by private businesses.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Now for my general comments.
I understand and agree with the fear of a nanny state. I think it’s mostly a slippery slope argument — first this, then banning smoking in the home, teenage sex, etc.) — which I also agree with, because as you point out, our government and certainly others have slipped down this slope when given the chance.
But I also think most of you will agree that as long as private actions have a detrimental effect on the rest of society, some of those actions need to be regulated. Yes, we should regulate as little as possible, because government is terrible at doing things like this, but it still must be done sometimes. For example, I support regulations on smoking in public because that causes a direct harm to others and there’s no other way to prevent that harm from happening. But I certainly don’t support banning smoking in the home, because the harm to society (taxpayers paying for hospital bills when you get cancer if you’re uninsured) can be prevented by other means (making you pay for your cancer treatment).
Specifically in this case, I support getting rid of the law that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of insurance, and allowing insurance companies to charge extra to those who don’t make the effort to stay healthy. But until that’s done, there’s a direct harm that’s being caused to society by those who don’t stay healthy. And the government shouldn’t overstep too much in trying to curtail it, but minimal steps such as taking this issue into account when planning cities are a reasonable thing to do.
I agree with everyone that personal responsibility is important. I think the scientist in this article that everyone is complaining about would agree with that too. But you also also have to do something about those who refuse to take responsibility as long as you don’t give them an incentive to continue their ways. I don’t think planning cities such that more people can bike or walk to work provides an incentive for people to continue to refuse to take responsibility for their health. It also doesn’t infringe too much on their rights to eat as much as they want and exercise as little as they want.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Well put — and you’ve got a good list. But one you forgot is: “promote individual health insurance plans instead of employer plans”. So long as the tax law forces employers into providing health insurance, the health insurance industry will remain collectivized and collectivist.
While on the subject of health, I have to note that elementary economics has observed that anything with less than infinite supply always gets rationed. This isn’t a theory, this is an observation — like “things fall downward” or “longer days correlate with warmer ones”. When rationed out, you can use a number of different methods — such as by price, by the amount of time you wait in line (think concert tickets), or how politically connected you are (your dacha or mine?).
People complain about health care in the US because you can go broke. That’s because it’s rationed by price. You get better care if you can afford it, but it might cost you all you have.
What other method would they prefer? Rationing by time is done in the UK — pretty much all operations have months-long waiting lists. If you don’t survive until your number comes up, oh well. Rationing by political connection is favored by totalitarians everywhere. Support the regime, or the next time you get sick may be your last.
As unseen notes, nobody is talking about the supply side of things — so what basis would they use for allocating health-care resources? Would you rather be broke ($), dead (time), or in chains (politics)?
cthulhu on February 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Again I ask, “who decides?”.
Even the instance you cite (smoking in public places) as a good example of increased regulation is problematic. The “direct harm” done to others by second-hand smoke has been wildly (and provably) exaggerated by those with an anti-smoking agenda in order to garner support for infringing on the private property rights of individuals for the good of “the rest of society”.
It is a fundamental question of priorities.
Which is of greater value?
A citizenry comprised of free individuals equal in the eyes of the law or a state made up of clients being ministered to by “experts” whose mission it is to see that the security of the majority is in no wise threatened by the sometimes questionable exercise of free-will by a minority?
If you value the former, then the argument against increasing government regulation is not “because government is terrible at doing things like this”.
I don’t mind the manner in which the government takes on such projects. I mind that they are considered the rightful purview of state functionaries in the fist place.
Deety on February 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I don’t know what to say to this. There are numerous studies that show that the rise in obesity has been caused by less overall exercise in our lifestyles, especially in children. You can dispute those studies, but I don’t think there’s much disagreement among experts who have studied this.
tneloms on February 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Of course those experts have skin in the game so to speak. Much like the global warmists experts have skin in the game. there have been cars for 50 years Americans did not start getting fat until the late 70’s when the diet changed. We use to eat bacon and eggs for breakfast now we eat proceesed sugar that people call cereal. We use to smother our bread with real butter, now we use processed hydrogenated vegtable oil, we use to have meat every night for suppers now we have low fat stir fry. the list goes on and on. Watching kids playing I don’t see them using any less energy than they did 30 years ago. Are we exercising less? The number of gym memberships are at all time highs. Men use to like to have muscle now they jog for their health. Every hear of a weight lifter dying from a massive heartattack after a lifting session? No but how many stories have you read of people dying from a heartattack after a jog. Many more.
Just look at nature. You ever see a fat mountain lion? Or a fat wolf? No? I bet you have seen a fat cow and I bet you have seen some fat horses. One eats meat the other has a low fat, low protein diet. Guess which is which. You know you expand more calories digesting meat than carbs right? So 100 calories of meat is NOT the same as 100 calories of sugar. You also understand that FAT when eaten decreases the hunger trigger. Thus you eating 100 calories of fat will make your feel fuller than 100 calories of carbs. thus you eat less for the same punch. therefore simply by changing your diet to a high protein medium fat and low carb diet while eating the same calories will cause you to lose weight because one you feel fuller and will eat less often and you expand more energy digesting your food thus giving your body less energy to store as fat.
primary emphasis on reducing dietary fat may have actually contributed to the dramatic increase in rates of obesity, diabetes and certain heart disease risk factors observed over the last two decades in the United States.
DAVID S. LUDWIG, M.D.
Boston, July 13, 2002
The writer is director of the obesity program, Children’s Hospital, and an assistant professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DD1239F934A25754C0A9649C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
unseen on February 18, 2008 at 11:47 PM
the above comment underscores the potential impact of government messing with things they do not understand. If the good doctor is right than the obesity problem has deep roots in a concerted effort by the government to do good. Many millions of taxpayer money was spent on reeducating Americans to basically commit mass suicide. Now since the government created the problem they now what to take more control to fix the problem. Humans ate certain things for 1000’s of years yet someone somewhere decided that these eating habits were “bad” So a massive campaign was started to change 1000’s of years of learned behavior that evolved from trail and error because science thought they were right, politicians wanted to appear that they “cared” so governmental programs like school lunches were launched causing the problem to balloon to the next generation. Resturants to confirm to the “new” ways changed their menus etc etc. Now people want to point the blame at people not exercising enough. When Atkins came out with his findings a massive misinformation media bltiz was launched by the bread industry to discredit the findings and the man because they, fast food places, cereal companies, the entire food industry that is based on low fat, low protein high carb diets where losing billions.
But it’s all good because we can just blame people’s lazyness and while this does nothing to solve the problem it lets the government seize more power, continues the profits of the food industry, and makes people think they have no self discpline thereby ensuring low self esteem in the population.
As far as fat people being out of shape. have you ever tried to carry around a 100, 200, 300 pound backpack all day every day? Are you in good enough shape to carry this weight around everyday? Can you get out of bed in the morning with 100pd weight on your chest? Are your muscles strong enough to propel your legs over miles with a 150pd backpack strapped to your chest. What’s that old saying “walk a mile in their shoes….
So if even the experts can not decide what is causing the obesity problem how can the avg citizen who is bombarded everyday with a new health message be expected to be healthy? when I was young I would wonder how people could get to be fat, as I have gotten older I understand it is a slow, steady condition that slowly invades your body one that you must be on a constant look out against. You do not go to sleep one night skinny and wake up the next day fat. You might start putting on an extra pound or two a year in your 20’s, then maybe its 3-4 in your 30’s, then it speeds up and soon your packing on 5 every 6 months or maybe ten. Your diet might even stay the same but you body ages and you slow down.
No this crusade against fat people is misplaced, your premiums will not go down if all of America suddenly lost 100 pounds. The insurance companies are not going to refund you unused money, the government will not suddenly declare a tax break and give you your money back. The money saved if any will simply go to the bottomline of the insurance companies and to another pet project of the government. So you give up your freedom for what? That’s right for nothing. don’t believe me? i’m still waiting for the car insurance rate cut because my state passed a seat belt law. they passed it like 10 years ago. Still waiting for all the money I was going to save from that nanny state bill. And while we are at it I’m still waiting for all the money I was going to save on insurance premuims and taxes once people stopped smoking. Still waiting for that also.
This “its costing me money because your fat” is a joke and a straw man for the insurance companies and government to raise funds and to shift the blame.
unseen on February 19, 2008 at 12:18 AM
cthulhu on February 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
I all for Bush plan when it comes to healthcare, tax credits/deductions for healthcare insurance is a great idea. The sooner government gets out of the way with their funding the better we will all be. government should be in the business of mandating rules and regulations and enforcing those rules and regulations not direct funding of pet projects.
unseen on February 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Comment pages: