I figured out how to cure the "Obesity Epidemic"

hmmm wrote:

It is well known that both overeating and eating a poor diet (ie, bad food choices) can and will, even with no other risk factors, contribute to these diseases.

the problem you just brought up has to do with "risk" - and that's what the insurance bases its rates upon. overeating and bad food choices won't necessarily cause heath problems, (though you make the claim that it will) but the risk increases.

likewise with runners. the one guy who said he's never had to seek professional help for any running related problem may think he's the heathiest guy in the world - but the RISK, for having problems like stress fractures, pulled muscles, sciatica, joint problems, etc. is higher than it is in the general population.

so, if we're going to evaluate fat people on the basis of risk of future heath problems, we should do it for other habits as well - like running more than you need to for basic CV health, or drinking in excess.

The Law, Twisted wrote:

For starters, vote Republican. Any liberal selling universal health care is just dumb and dangerous. As heartless as it sounds, universal nationalized care will create disincentives to healthy living because most folks will just continue overeating, smoking, drinking and just assume that a pill will take care of things when they start to feel bad.

Riiight. So socialized medicine, like in Canada or similar liberal, non-Republican nation, will result in fatter people? How's Scandinavia ranking against the US?

"The number of overweight and obese people has increased in all OECD countries over the past two decades. According to the OECD Health Data 2004, the United States has the highest proportion of adults considered overweight or obese, followed by Mexico, the United Kingdom and Australia.

According to the Joint Canada-US Survey of Health released in 2004 obesity rates are higher in the United States than in Canada (21 per cent versus 15 per cent), primarily due to the proportion of American and Canadian women considered obese."

All this talk about food is making me stressed man..... Haven't had a Big Mac since, well, yesterday. And that was only due to hangover-induced stress. You guys are freaking me out - ban the doublechesseburger? Better get some in before that does happen. Doh, too late. Last time I went to MaccyDs I asked for a supersize, and was refused! So I said, do I look fat or something? No, they replied, but it's the new rules (here in the UK, because of the fatties). So the overweight are causing the underweight (ie, me the runner) problems with getting back to a 'healthy' weight. And as I said, it's all stressing me out. And me legs are too sore from a 21 today to go out and clear my head again - am I a wuss?! - and that's stressing me too. All I want is my food. And lots of it. Please?!

heres an interesting idea, when are they going to start putting surgeon general warnings on bad food. i think that they should. "this food increases risk of heart disease, obesity, and diabetes."

surgeon general wrote:

heres an interesting idea, when are they going to start putting surgeon general warnings on bad food. i think that they should. "this food increases risk of heart disease, obesity, and diabetes."

when people start paying attention to the warnings on cigarette packages about cancer, and heeding the warnings on beers that it impairs your ability to operate a car.

The health care costs associated with obesity now rival those attributable to smoking. Obesity costs in the U.S. totaled up to $92.6 billion last year, and government-funded public insurers Medicare and Medicaid financed about half of those expenses.

Federal statistics show that more than half of Americans are obese or overweight, and that number has grown dramatically over the last decade. The obesity epidemic poses a major threat to public health due to the clear association between obesity and a variety of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Americans spent $78.5 billion in overweight and obesity costs in 1998 ($92.6 in 2002 dollars). That figure translates to 9.1% of all national health care costs. Those health care costs are comparable to those associated with smoking, which are estimated at between 6.5% and 14.4% of total spending.

Even with health insurance, people that were obese or overweight paid more in health care costs than those of normal weight. In 1998, overweight and obese individuals paid an average of 11.4% and 26.1% more on out-of-pocket medical costs.

In addition, the study shows that Medicare had the highest prevalence of obese and overweight people combined, but Medicaid had the highest rates of obese patients. Accordingly, the health care costs attributable to obesity and being overweight were also highest among these groups.

"Therefore, as with smoking, there is a clear motivation for payers to consider strategies aimed at reducing prevalence of these conditions," writes researcher Eric A. Finkelstein, PhD, of RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

He says many health insurers include smoking cessation as a covered benefit and some private life insurance companies charge smokers much higher rates. Although some insurance companies subsidize health club memberships to encourage physical activity, Finkelstein says most do not include incentives to promote weight loss.

Since the amount of money spent on obesity-related health problems now rivals that spent on smoking, "it may be increasingly difficult to justify the disparity between many interventions that have been implemented to reduce smoking rates and the paucity of interventions aimed at reducing obesity rates," says Finkelstein.

Obesity is passing Tobacco as the #1 PREVENTABLE killer in the US. Just thought I would throw that in there. By the way I don't think stress fractures or over-exercising are on the list.

But the difference between the US and other countries is our culture (or lack thereof). How many McDonald's, Hardee's, Arby's, Pizza Huts, etc. per capita in Sweden vs. here? Are Canadians as obsessed with mindless "get it NOW!" consumerism as Americans? Are Europeans apt to see cooking at home as "too inconvenient"?

It won't work in America because we are too impatient and too stressed (a HUGE myth!) to take care of ourselves correctly. We also lack proper health education and a collective sense of community to strive for a common good. Our individualistic and consumer oriented society drives the obesity problem because eating out is relatively cheap and easy. We tend to believe that having others make our meals is a symbol of success.

Also, we believe that others have no right to tell us what to do. Lecturing the obese only causes them to tell healthy society to "F Off!" and then they circle the wagons to declare fit people as "unfeeling health Nazis" who create "unhealthy and anorexic" standards of beauty. Then the PC crowd blasts away at the prejudices against "weight challenged Americans". Politically and socially, no one tries to stem the problem for fear of retribution.

Sadly, these attitudes won't change anytime soon and Americans will continue to gorge themselves on Doritos, Hot Pockets, and Twinkies because that's their protected pursuit of happiness. I don't believe that we should have to pay for the gluttony of others nor encourage it through free services.

Kevin M, I agree with you. A lot of people on this board believe the world is black and white (i.e fat=lazy, skiny=disciplined) What will be funny I think, is for some of the guys posting on here to come back in 10 years when they aren't running all the miles but still eating a lot because you have gotten used to doing that. I've seen a lot of disciplined runners with self control who become fat when they quit running.

All this talk about life now being more complicated and thus stressful seems like a rationalization. Ophrah would jump on that bandwagon.

Life, however, did not become complicated overnight. It took time, yet many have struggled to adjust. The theory then goes that this struggle has, through no fault of their own, caused them to overeat, become addicted to various things, etc.

Just as "core exercises" touted by RW are no replacement for 85+ mile weeks, sympathy for those who have caused this obesity epidemic is misplaced. Life only seems to become this complicated after we look back to explain our own shortcomings.

Miles and Miles, no dummy to hardwork, started this thred sarcastically. In that spirit, I suggest Congress, through legislation, institute a national two mile time trial, much like the military does, with passing times scaled for age. Those who fail pay a tax. Imagine how exercise would rise as a public priority, from a very young age. Many health problems related to sedentary lifestyles would decrease. Naturally, certain waivers would be available for those who were physically incapable of making the two miles, such as certain amputees, the wheel-chair bound, etc.

The public would most likely be outraged at such a bill, decrying it as a mypoic frontal assault on liberty, democracy, etc., as well as a sure-fire way to induce heart attacks on many. Yet it seems as if this outrage in itself would cause more awareness of weight related health issues.

Sarcastically submitted.

"Californian, all youre arguments are bullshit. Alcoholics drink because of the same life problems - and they pay tax bigtime. The obese with the same life problems pay no extra tax!"

That is because alcoholics chose to start drinking alcohol in the first place. It is not essential to drink alcohol to survive. It is essential to eat last time I checked.

The Law, Twisted wrote:

Sadly, these attitudes won't change anytime soon and Americans will continue to gorge themselves on Doritos, Hot Pockets, and Twinkies because that's their protected pursuit of happiness.

Bingo. It's all about personal decisions and lifestyle CHOICES.

tps wrote:

I've seen a lot of disciplined runners with self control who become fat when they quit running.

So don't quit running, or at least find another physical activity if you do 'quit' running. It's not rocket science.

Which point are you argueing? That people are rebelling against the mass media induced 'ideal' form and saying "heck no, I'm going to go for the complete opposite look. Double Quarter Pounder with cheese, here I come!"? How is chowing down on fast food striving for any kind of perfectly sculpted body they may not be physically capabla of sustaining? They won't be able to sustain the body that results, but that's because it will have run into a heart attack."

I am arguing that people are people attempt to obtain the ideal body through dieting, over-exercise, and to some extent starvation. This invariably fails, and the body begins to crave food, which leads to overeating. I have personal experience with many people who once tried to severly restrict their food intake and ended up becoming overweight several years later.

Californian wrote:

I am arguing that people are people attempt to obtain the ideal body through dieting, over-exercise, and to some extent starvation. This invariably fails, and the body begins to crave food, which leads to overeating. I have personal experience with many people who once tried to severly restrict their food intake and ended up becoming overweight several years later.

Fair enough, but that just means you are saying it is all about personal choices people made. People choose to try and obtain an 'ideal' body through dieting or over-exercise instead of a more well-thought out plan of healthy eating and physical activity. Humans have developed pretty good thinking powers over the last few millenium and they certainly can't use the excuse that the information on how to do so is not out there.

I have personal experience with many people who learned the basics of a healthy diet and a consistent program of physical activity to achieve a well-rounded body and lifestyle, one that they maintained for years. It's pretty simple stuff if the individuals in question are just willing to engage their minds once in a while.

Greg Hill wrote:

In that spirit, I suggest Congress, through legislation, institute a national two mile time trial, much like the military does, with passing times scaled for age. Those who fail pay a tax.

Now THAT would be funny. They need to make a reality show out of that. Anyone watch the Biggest Loser? I laugh the whole show. Watching Mo (400 lbs. black guy) "running" the laps around the track was a crack up.

Anybody else think that MO must be cheating (sneaking in a few snickers bars every day?). How can he lose so little if he has totally changed his eating habits and diet for the show? In the last week he ran at least 4 straight miles and 3 laps on the track which is probably more running/walking than he did in the previous 5 years combined.

He has actually lost a realistic amount of weight and done really well. Just a smaller percentage, but more weight then some of the others I believe. But because he is a such a jumbo they shouldn't have him running, that isn't the best way for him to lose weight. A gentle walk would be best and probably raise his HR to the right level. But the running makes for good TV and funnier then hell.

The Law, Twisted wrote:

For starters, vote Republican....

apparently, the fat people do.

here's a ranking of the "obesity and overwieght" rates by state. how many "blue" states do you see in the top 20? how many "red" states:

Rank

Overweight and Obesity Rate

United States 56.0%

1 West Virginia 61.2%

2 Alabama 61.0%

3 Mississippi 60.8%

4 Michigan 60.2%

5 Alaska 59.5%

6 Kentucky 59.4%

7 North Dakota 59.3%

7 South Carolina 59.3%

9 Tennessee 59.0%

10 Arkansas 58.9%

11 Iowa 58.8%

11 Texas 58.8%

13 Indiana 58.7%

14 Louisiana 58.4%

14 Missouri 58.4%

16 South Dakota 58.2%

17 Minnesota 57.6%

18 Kansas 57.5%

19 Nebraska 57.0%

19 Pennsylvania 57.0%

i've got 17 republican states, 3 democratic states.

hmmmmmmm......