obesity of 21st century america

[imbetter]

why is 21st century america so obsese? it wasnt like this before

post your thoughts on the matter

PS: yay im a senior member now

[mad_max2024]

Because they eat terribly and their main form of exercise consists in lifting the remote to change channels

[johnny-boy]

Not only America:
https://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_global_epidemic.shtml

John

[mad_max2024]

Not only America:
https://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_global_epidemic.shtml

John

Indeed

[elspeth]

So many reasons... parents don't let their kids play out any more in case they stray onto the main road/a paedophile gets them/they might catch germs if they get mucky... then the rise of TV and computers, a lot of kids grow up thinking anything without a screen isn't entertaining... the amount of junk food people eat, the amount of nasty processed food available and the fall of proper cookery lessons both in school and at home... and one thing which I think is particularly prevalent in America, portion control. Another thing in America which maybe isn't so much of an issue certainly in the UK is the car culture - driving to the corner shop instead of walking, designing cities like LA which isn't pedestrian-friendly.

[imbetter]

interesting opinion. Congradulations on becoming a senior member!

[thalbergmad]

It is a problem here in England as well as yankeeland.

The amount of fast food joints in my town alone is incredible. People seem to live off this muck instead of having it occasionally.

There is always a long queue outside the kentucky and people walk out with buckets of the stuff.

I feel that there are many labour saving devices that don't help. When i think of the calories i used to burn by getting up to change the TV station. When i was young, we did not have a washing machine and i used to help mum turning the mangle. That was bloody hard work.

Cars have a lot to answer for as well. The parking spaces outside our local school are always full and some parents actually park in the middle of the road. My next door neighbour drives her spoilt little brat to school and it is less than 400 yards away.

I also blame President Blair and his pathetic PC cronies who have created so much red tape it is nearly impossible for a school to hold a sports day. In addition, many school fields have been sold off to property developers so they could not have one anyway.

So to my warped mind, the answer lies in change of diet and change of lifestyle.

Lock the car up and buy a bike or a dog.

Prof Thal

[ahinton]

It is a problem here in England as well as yankeeland.

Indeed it is!

The amount of fast food joints in my town alone is incredible. People seem to live off this muck instead of having it occasionally.

There is always a long queue outside the kentucky and people walk out with buckets of the stuff.

True - not that I know Gravesend, but it's the same just about everywhere; the number of McDonald's in France is surely evidence enough and more...

I feel that there are many labour saving devices that don't help. When i think of the calories i used to burn by getting up to change the TV station. When i was young, we did not have a washing machine and i used to help mum turning the mangle. That was bloody hard work.

Yes, but labour saving devices are usually a good thing, provided that one then gets one's physical exercise some other way.

Cars have a lot to answer for as well. The parking spaces outside our local school are always full and some parents actually park in the middle of the road. My next door neighbour drives her spoilt little brat to school and it is less than 400 yards away.

Better than having said brat mugged by a thug or a school traffic cop doubling as the local pædophile, though, surely (unless he/she really is a brat). Again - drive the car when you have to and get exercise by some other means when not driving it.

I also blame President Blair and his pathetic PC cronies who have created so much red tape it is nearly impossible for a school to hold a sports day. In addition, many school fields have been sold off to property developers so they could not have one anyway.

There's plenty more than just that for which to blame them! (but then you knew that already, didn't you?!)...

So to my warped mind, the answer lies in change of diet and change of lifestyle.

Change of diet more than anything else, in most cases, methinks. There are also a few people who are diagnosed as being clinically obese who are so because of a medical condition, but I do accept that these are very much in the minority.

Lock the car up and buy a bike or a dog.

You'd probably need the car to go to the bike shop and buy a bike (almost certainly so if you live in a rural area, which I know you don't); then when you get the bike you'll need to spend a year or two driving it away from the public road in order to develop sufficient fitness when driving it that you can go on the public road and go with the flow of traffic without holding it up, getting in its way and risking being knocked over. I've never tried driving a dog...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

I think it is a combination of wealth, being unsatisfied, consumer culture/commercial culture and disregard for body health. That's the eating too much part.


The other part. People are dictated to spend too much of their time in offices. People should spend less time working. Then they have time to practice sports or walk through nature aimlessly.
People just spend too little  time on serious exersize. They are too busy.

[ahinton]

I think it is a combination of wealth, being unsatisfied, consumer culture/commercial culture and disregard for body health.

I love the way that you (and others) seek to blame all of those things! The last one is certainly true, beyond question; the others, however, are, of themselves, absolutely nothing to do with it, for no one ever gets obese simply by being wealthy, unsatisfied or an active subscriber to consumer and/or commercial culture...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Is there any other way?

No one ever gets obese by simply having disregard for his health either.


I am truly baffled by your distinction.

[johnny-boy]

Give people less work and more leisure time and they'll be sitting in front of the boob tube feeding their faces more. I eat much less at work than I do at home.

John

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

To give a concise answer to the question. Why is there obesity? Because people are stupid and go only for foods that offer immediate gratification and are not smart enough to see the consequences. Why else? Well perhaps with the invention of certain commodities such as television and cars, people find it alot easier to sit rather than walk or let alone do anything physically strenuous. In my opinion, if someone is obese, it is entirely their problem for not taking care of themselves. If you want to stuff your stomach with burgers 24/7 and spend the rest of the time rotting your brain in,front of the tv, then go for it, but don't complain later when your heart is failing and is one is barely able to get out of a chair.

[prometheus]

People have always been stupid. In fact they have been far far more ignorant in the past than today.

Still obesity is a new problem. It is also not a problem in many countries in the world.

[lau]

geeze america isn't that fat. it's only a few states that blow it for the whole country...like texas.

[debussy symbolism]

People have always been stupid. In fact they have been far far more ignorant in the past than today.

Still obesity is a new problem. It is also not a problem in many countries in the world.

Well first of all not all people are stupid. I think the prime reason to obesity is not a lack of intelligence, but an increase in technology that stunts many kinds of growth, including exercises, hiking, bicycling, or just any outdoor physical activity. It also accretes the sitting acivities. Sitting infront of a computer is the most time consuming diurnal activity in human history.

[Mozartian]

I feel the need to point out that being overweight (as well as being underweight) can be a sign of health issues as well (graves disease, etc.), and not just eating badly/not getting enough exercise. It can also be a genetic trait, or a sign of a mental/emotional problem.
Some people's metabolisms are just naturally extremely slow, so while they might eat and exercise as much as the average person, they just weigh more. Or you can be at the other end of the scale and be too thin without having an eating disorder.

</girl who almost went into dietetics>

Basically what I'm saying is don't judge people because of their weight. Yes, some people are just lazy arses and that's why they're obese, but there can be (and in most cases are) many, many other factors that go into it.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes you are completely right. Some person's metabolism is naturally slow due to many factors such as genetics. However I think the discussion and the issue here is about those with a natural metabolism, but stupid lifestyle. Unfortunately I think there is nothing that can be done to reduce obesity. You can't limit the amount of junk people eat, and you can't force them into exercise. If an extremely obese person suddenly collapses due to heart failure, that is his problem as he had that hamburger on his plate for breakfast, dinner, lunch. Many diatery choices however need to be governed by parents. Children do not suffer from obesity because their bodies are young and digest food fast. However, if proper diatery habits aren't instilled they will never know the dangers of bad cholesterol consumptions. If a child is obese, it is not his fault, it is the parent's fault. If a grown man is obese, it is still his parent's fault for not inculcating to him the dangers of obesity.

Overall I think that no matter how much you educate in schools and how much you repeat the dangers of something, whether it is non-healthy food, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, smoking, there will always be the majority that doesn't accept the information and will continue their ways. It is sad, but there is very little to change. The parents have to teach their offspring these things, but the parents often don't, and then complain why their child is obese and is pregnant.

[danny_sequel]

The reason for obesity is simple: refination of food
All food in nature (including potatoes, meat, fish, avocados and what not) provide a certain "caloric load" together with a certain "volume load"
The body signals a lack of hunger not only when you've consumed enough calories but also  when your stomach capacity is 80% full and when a certain intake of minerals and vitamins has been reached

Compare a meal where you have a corn and beans soup, a medium salad with raw vegetables, a beef steak with extra virgin olive oil and steamed zucchini, 100 grams of seasoned artigianal cheese and a fruit salad
The 600-700 calories comes here with a big volume of food and with an high intake of nutritive elements.

Refined foods on the other hand can provide you even 1.200 calories in the kind of volume that is not enough to fill 20% of the capacity of your stomach. Add to that that with foods like this 3500 calories may not be enough to get a proper intake of vitamins and minerals while with "high volume/nutrient dense/caloric sparse" meals your body can get what it needs consuming just 1800 calories

This lack of volume also stimulates other habits: the food doesn't take much time to be eaten; mindless and fast eating is therefore promoted. Through this we bypass any sort of "physiological true hunger" signal. Real hunger is felt in the throat and causes a strong plesant feeling at the thought of eating whether food. The kind of hunger that causes headache, stomach cramps, craves for a specific food is not true hunger but toxic hunger or gluttony. True hunger not only allows us to know how much to eat and what we need but make us aware of the connection between physical activity and food need, between consuming calories and re-integranting the lost elements.

Another aspect of lack of physical activity is not lazyness per se but that the people eating this way are too sick adn weak to even exercise. Children who prefer to stay in front of Playstation instead of going out and ride their bike, do sport or play are not just "lazy" ... their diet is causing them post-prandial weakness and spaciness. The natural desire for body acivities is unheard, the solution to the discomfort is both indoor sedentary activities and "eating some more" (as the process of disgestion councel the feelings of spaciness and weakness by activating the blood flow toward the digestive system)


I've heard lot of people saying that when they go to French (in spite of tasty and dense food) they lose weight and feel better and as soon as they go back to UK they gain weight and feel ***.

What France does insted of UK/America:

They savour their food.
They are passionate about food
76 per cent eat meals they have prepared at home; the favourite place to eat both lunch and dinner is in the home, with 75 per cent eating at the family table. In the UK, by contrast, we like to eat our meals (a) standing up, (b) in front of Coronation Street , (c) at a desk while catching up on emails or (d) by the side of the M40
French typically spend two hours over lunch, UK/Americans bolt down their food in the time it would take them to butter a petit pain.

Nutritionist Dr Francoise L'Hermite believes that the French secret is to sit down with friends or family for a meal, and to eat three times a day at regular intervals. She points out that the French don't eat in front of the television, and they eat slowly, enjoying both the food and the company

"For France, a meal is a very particular moment, in which you share pleasure, the food as well as the conversation" says L'Hermite. "From an Anglo-Saxon point of view, food is just fuel to give energy to your muscles. If you have no pleasure in it, you are breaking all the rules of eating."

Eating in France is a social activity. There are several but small courses, with plenty of time between courses for the physiological feedback to kick in. In England, we eat more pre-prepared foods and ready-meals; we eat fast food both in and outside the home. We have single, large meals, and family members will eat different foods at different times... Fast food is, by definition, eaten fast, so there's no time for that physiological feedback.'

French tend to aim for quality over quantity. Almost every village in the country boasts a bustling market featuring local sausages, patties of farm-made chevre, figs and fennel in the appropriate season or truffles dug from a wood down the lane. It's not just a choice available to the moneyed middle classes, but somewhere for everyone, every day.

Instead of an addiction to 'invented foods' full of hydrogenated oils, E numbers and preservatives, the French way, even today, focuses on the careful preparation of unprocessed foods. It's why French women ration themselves to one rich, dark square of real chocolate rather than hogging-out on a preservative-laden, pre-frozen, half-chemical wodge of pseudo-foodo

French portion sizes are smaller in comparable restaurants, in the sizes of individual portions in supermarkets, individual portions specified in cookbooks, and in the prominence of "all-you-can-eat" restaurants in dining guides.'

Mean portion size in Philadelphia was about 25 per cent greater than in Paris. Philadelphia's Chinese restaurants served 72 per cent more than the Parisian ones. A supermarket soft drink in the US was 52 per cent larger, a hotdog 63 per cent larger, a carton of yoghurt 82 per cent larger.

The CFES reports that 'the French, in contrast to Anglo-Saxons, hardly ever snack outside of meals'.

Comments by French Women living in UK

French women never eat while they're walking or standing, like you do here. We have no culture of snacking, and especially not on fast food. This habit is ingrained in us from a young age.

In France, we eat far more dairy products, yoghurt and cheese, but it's tasty cheese so we don't need to eat a lot of it. For a treat, I'll have chocolate cake but made with dark chocolate so it's not full of refined sugar. In France, we don't drink fizzy drinks. We drink water with our meals. If we have coffee, we order an espresso, which has far fewer calories than a Starbucks cappucino. In Britain, people eat for the sake of eating. I've put on weight since I moved to here.

When I first arrived here I was very puzzled by tinned food - I still don't understand spaghetti on toast, or why you use so much vinegar. And to me something like steak and kidney pie looks like it has been cooked using leftovers. Here there is no discipline: no one listens when their body says 'stop'.

I never snack. When I eat, I eat: bread and butter, honey and jam, proper meals. I eat lots of fruit, and real fruit juice and I only use olive oil. I was amazed at the aisles of salty, sugary foods in UK shops.

I start my day with an infusion. I eat yoghurt, a pain au chocolate or eggs and ham. For lunch I have fish and vegetables. For supper, I always prepare a meal. We eat at the table together - we would never dream of eating in front of the TV.

It's no great secret why British people are often overweight. When I lived in London, the family I lodged with were addicted to frying potatoes, and the bread was of poor quality. In France, we will happily drive for 10 minutes to buy a good loaf of bread. Many British girls eat too much junk food and drink too much. I don't think young British people know how to cook properly, so they cook quickly and eat quickly

P.S  It bears saying that the obesity in europe and other continents/countries is a product of America! The culture of junk food, high refination, fast food, snacking comes from America. If now people is becoming obese even in Europe is because of sugary snacks (that are either american or clone of the american) of fast foods (the McDonald and BurgerKings they have in Europe come from American) beause of snacking culture (they get from American movies or channels) and so on

[amanfang]

Perhaps the answer is not to keep people from eating fast food, but to instead buy up McDonalds stock.   

[danny_sequel]

-

[danny_sequel]

I feel the need to point out that being overweight (as well as being underweight) can be a sign of health issues as well (graves disease, etc.), and not just eating badly/not getting enough exercise. It can also be a genetic trait, or a sign of a mental/emotional problem.
Some people's metabolisms are just naturally extremely slow, so while they might eat and exercise as much as the average person, they just weigh more. Or you can be at the other end of the scale and be too thin without having an eating disorder.

Obesity caused by anything else other than bad food and lifestyle habits is extremely rare.
While it's true that we all have different metabolism the difference in metabolism can't absolutely justify a BMI of 31 and a fat mass of 43%

Also the point is that our physioneurological responses are proportional to our metabolism. In other words it's not like there's a "standard amount of food" to eat and those that have a slow metabolism get fat even by eating the right amount of food, because there's no "right amount of food". The "right amount of food" is individual and hard wired in your physiology and neurological responses. If you've a slow metabolism your body will natural signal less hunger, your stomach capacity will natural be less ... in other words even with a slow metabolism eating too much is still a matter of ignoring real hunger signals of our body or eating food that because of their low volume density and high caloric density sabotage those signals

It's not different than saying that a woman who is 5 feet must eat less than a man of 6.3 feet. It's a wrong argument to say "it's her body fault. She is eating the same amount of food that all 6.3 feet men normally eat" ...
See what I mean

It's easier instead to be underweight not because of food choices but because of health problems since malasorption is independent from hunger signals or eating habits. It's really no a matter of choice when your body absorbs the 20% of what you eat.
Not even 6.000 calories would help, only reversing the malasorption.
On the other hand even the hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system can't account for the extreme skinniness of those hard gainers, since we're still talking about physiological characteristics that are not big enough to account for such big differences as being underweight versus obese.

Lately the researchers have been acknowledging that the reason why we see overweight children in family with overweight mothers and fathers is not (most of the times) because there's a fat gene that has been trasmitted (inborn downregulation of cholecystokinin receptors) but because the eating habits that made the fathers and the mothers overweight in the first place have been trasmitted to the children.
It's a cultural heritage not a genetical one

[ted]

It is certainly not restricted to America. Visit any shopping mall in Auckland and the food court resembles feeding time for the hippos. Half the people can only get one cheek on a seat and can't cross their legs or reach the floor to pick something up. This country is headed for a colossal diabetes problem in ten to twenty years time. Type two diabetes is already common in teenagers at school. They have all these health programmes and publicity but nobody takes a blind bit of notice. Gyms are just an expensive farce. My wife goes to a women's gym and all her friends do is a few feeble lifts and cycling or walking insufficient to raise a sweat. Then they head for the cafes and eat a pile of raspberry buns and greasies. The only thing that reduces is their bank balance.

I don't know what the answer is but there's going to be an awful medical and economic problem unless public awareness of what is essentially a deadly habit increases.

[Mozartian]

On the other hand even the hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system can't account for the extreme skinniness of those hard gainers, since we're still talking about physiological characteristics that are not big enough to account for such big differences as being underweight versus obese.

Not really sure what you mean here.

[danny elfboy]

Not really sure what you mean here.

What I meant to say is that even thought the hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system can account for a propension for underweight it can't account for huge differences in weight control. In order words it may cause you to have a BMI of 19 where you should have one of 22 but it won't cause a BMI of 16.5. To reach those levels you need external active factors as well: in other words lifestyle and dietary choices (except if you've a condition that is causing a malasorption)

[ihatepop]

The answer of obesity: Plain Laziness
The answer to obesity: Exercise and a healthy diet

ihatepop

[elspeth]

Maybe there's an argument for going back in time 50 years and re-introducing rationing... it's the only way I can think of offhand to force people to change their eating habits.

I do think kids often get brought up with no appreciation of good food. I was very lucky, we always sat down to eat as a family, food was home-prepared, and my sister and I were only allowed pizza on a Friday night as a treat if we'd been good - and even then it was home-made pizza. I learned to cook from my mother and grandmother, not from school and fortunately they gave me not just skills but good habits. I was bored to death in home ec lessons. We were never put through a proper basic domestic cookery course, just taught a few easy dishes that we couldn't hurt ourselves while making! It's always a terribly awkward one though, because you can't really legislate for what parents ought to be teaching their kids at home. Maybe there would be scope for formally introducing a 'home curriculum' so that there was actually a list of what parents were expected to teach their kids and and lack of knowledge in those areas could not be blamed on schools. Schools seem to be viewed as the only means of disseminating knowledge and skills to children, we seem to be slipping away from the idea that parents teach their kids about life and schools teach them academic skills. There is less and less responsibility placed on parents nowadays for letting their kids grow up with bad habits. Mind you though, again I was lucky as both my parents are teachers, so my sister and I had a head start!

I think the inactivity is a harder one to solve, because fundamentally that has to come down to the parents. Even small things like, post Christmas dinner, my family would always go for a walk, and nowadays the kids just get packed off to play with the new computer game they got for Christmas. Thal's right when he talks about the destruction of school playing fields, but PE has also been squeezed to an absolute minimum on the curriculum, and a lot of kids hate the lessons anyway because if you're not interested in a subject, being forced to be involved with it is tedious, and at least in academic classes you can daydream. It might help if this country invested more in sport at in international level - there are precious few sporting role models around who are famous for their sporting achievements, not for their rock n roll lifestyle. I think the trick may be letting your kids cultivate interests that involve activity as a by-product more than an end in itself - unless their particular interest is in sport, they've got to have some motivation for doing it.

[ahinton]

Is there any other way?

No one ever gets obese by simply having disregard for his health either.


I am truly baffled by your distinction.

Why? Obesity is very largely caused by bad diet and disregard for good diet; yes, to the extent that it is also encouraged by lack of appropriate physical exercise, one could add in something of the "lifestyle" argument, but not the other things that you mention as being responsible. What underlies my remarks here is that those things that bring about obesity are, for the most part, a matter of individual personal choice.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Actually, I won't quote it all, purely for reasons of space, but your remarks about France in particular are most pertinent and to the point - all of them! - and you don't often see obese people in Spain, either. Sadly, the McDonald's and supermarket culture is invading France, but its adverse effects are still fortunately in their infancy. In fact, when in Chalais (in the south-east Charente) recently, I was rather amused to notice a market stall selling langoustines, oysters and other more locally produced goodies stretched along one side of the local Intermarché (supermarket) - obviously with the supermarket's permission - so that you simply couldn't go from the car park into the store without passing it. Someone's got the ight idea! Come on, Tesco - you're determined to rule the world of retailing, so why not take a leaf out of their book and follow suit?!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Maybe there's an argument for going back in time 50 years and re-introducing rationing... it's the only way I can think of offhand to force people to change their eating habits.

God forbid! Food rationing in those days has been proved to have been a total con, to the extent that it was wholly unnecessary but the public was persuaded by governments that it was unavoidable. People who lived in those dark days in major agricultural areas on England, such as Herefordshire and parts of Devon, had access to all manner of locally produced food to which the rationing regulations of the day determined that they weren't supposed to have direct access. The only "good" thing about rationing was that the genius Elizabeth David finally broke it down - but then look how she did that!

I do think kids often get brought up with no appreciation of good food.

Fully agreed!

Maybe there would be scope for formally introducing a 'home curriculum' so that there was actually a list of what parents were expected to teach their kids and and lack of knowledge in those areas could not be blamed on schools.

God forbid again! Don't we have a massive surfeit of busybodying legislation already? No one will ever successfully legislate for good dietary habits; ask the French - they haven't...

I think the inactivity is a harder one to solve, because fundamentally that has to come down to the parents. Even small things like, post Christmas dinner, my family would always go for a walk, and nowadays the kids just get packed off to play with the new computer game they got for Christmas.

It's usually healthier to have that walk before such a meal than after it.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Thal's right when he talks about the destruction of school playing fields, but PE has also been squeezed to an absolute minimum on the curriculum, and a lot of kids hate the lessons anyway because if you're not interested in a subject, being forced to be involved with it is tedious, and at least in academic classes you can daydream. It might help if this country invested more in sport at in international level - there are precious few sporting role models around who are famous for their sporting achievements, not for their rock n roll lifestyle. I think the trick may be letting your kids cultivate interests that involve activity as a by-product more than an end in itself - unless their particular interest is in sport, they've got to have some motivation for doing it.

With the best (or the worst!) will in the world, not everyone is going to be able to develop a participatory interest in sport, especially if the overbearing "nanny-state" hand of legislation is to try to encourage it. There are plenty of young French people who do not have such an interest but are not obese. I have not the remotest interest in it and, whilst I admit that I could do with losing about 2kg. or so, I am a very long way from being diagnosable as clinically obese. Those of us whose work necessitates long sedentary periods may indeed be in more potential danger, so we simply have use common sense in monitoring our diet and exercise régime with a little more diligence rather than be subjected to some externally imposed obligation to go footballing, mountaineering or whatever else; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here - with, of course, the sensible rider "make sure it don't get broke, though"...

Best,

Alistair

[nicco]

I could never allow myself to be overweight. Being slim, healthy and fit feels so much better. (although i havent ever been overweight so i probably cant be sure )

[elspeth]

I was just thinking out loud more than meaning the suggestions seriously... they'd be completely unworkable of course, and not a description of a country I would care to live in. Although, being involved in education via my family, I have to say it does rile me to see stories in the news about what schools aren't teaching kids about life skills or discipline or other topics, when those things start from home and there seems to be little redress against parents but plenty against schools when kids grow up to be anti-social.

I only really have an occasional spectator-level interest in sport myself, but I have interests which mean I have to get out and be active if I want to indulge them. People often have quite  a narrow band of primary interests, due to time and money, but as soon as one of those is sitting in front of the TV it involves neither thought nor activity.

Thing is though, the fundamental problem here isn't particularly food or exercise, it's getting people to take responsibility for themselves and make the sensible choice rather than the easy one. Cook your own meal from scratch when you get home from work rather than getting a takeaway and letting someone else do the work. Walk to the corner shop even though it's cold and raining. Engage with the processes of living rather than just buying the end product.

People have a natural inclination to do what's easy, and many people don't fight that inclination, in diet or exercise or anything else.

[ahinton]

I have to say it does rile me to see stories in the news about what schools aren't teaching kids about life skills or discipline or other topics, when those things start from home and there seems to be little redress against parents but plenty against schools when kids grow up to be anti-social.

The trouble swith any serious attempts to correct this is that only the government of the day will be called upon to do it and we all know from increasingly bitter recent experience that this would mean parents being policed just as much as schools are - indeed, there is already some evidence that this is happening.

I only really have an occasional spectator-level interest in sport myself, but I have interests which mean I have to get out and be active if I want to indulge them. People often have quite  a narrow band of primary interests, due to time and money, but as soon as one of those is sitting in front of the TV it involves neither thought nor activity.

Fair comment - uexcept to the extent that your last statement surely applies only to the watching of television programmes that do not especially stimulate the emotions and/or the intellect - which, even today, is not always the case!

Thing is though, the fundamental problem here isn't particularly food or exercise, it's getting people to take responsibility for themselves and make the sensible choice rather than the easy one.

Agreed.

Cook your own meal from scratch when you get home from work rather than getting a takeaway and letting someone else do the work. Walk to the corner shop even though it's cold and raining. Engage with the processes of living rather than just buying the end product.

The problem with this is that so many people "get home from work" exhausted by one, two or more full- or part-time jobs that they are simply too tired to do what you suggest. Look at school teachers, for example (since you have been raised by two of them); many of them are exhausted and fearful of the compliance procedures visited upon them and are obliged to spend increasingly disproportionate amounts of their time outside active classroom teaching; furthermore, many of them simply cannot make ends meet on a teacher's salary alone so have to supplement it with other paid work, just as many people in other professions do - and not only so that they can afford more of life's luxuries, either, but so that they can at least support themslves with somewhere to live, a couple of cars to drive and enough money to service their mortgages and other loans as well as pay the utility and grocery bills.

People have a natural inclination to do what's easy, and many people don't fight that inclination, in diet or exercise or anything else.

True.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

crock pot is the answer for those quick healthy meals at night when noone has time to cook.

and, probably some of every answer here.  i agree about the refined foods being unheathy and filling the stomach but not really nutrizing? the body. 

i find that when i exercise i CRAVE water.  a lot of water.  much more than i usually drink.  and, the sweating process involved in exercise (although i rarely sweat ) allows the body to rid itself of toxins.

probably if we didn't have technology and cars - we would be exercising every day to get where we were going.  seems that it gives you a boost of energy.   no wonder we drag around some days.  walking is probably a cure to most people's depression, too.

didn't beethoven do 'walk abouts?'  it was his time to compose and think. 

[thalbergmad]

probably if we didn't have technology and cars - we would be exercising every day to get where we were going.  seems that it gives you a boost of energy.   no wonder we drag around some days.  walking is probably a cure to most people's depression, too.
 

Agreed.

My great grandaddy used to walk 10 miles to work pushing a cart, did a 11 hour day and then walk back. He lived for 96 years.

When he was in his late 80's, he could still carry a sack of potatoes on each shoulder and carry them down the garden.

He was always a drinker and a smoker, but i am sure the constant exercise kept him healthy.

Thal

[ahinton]

My great grandaddy used to walk 10 miles to work pushing a cart, did a 11 hour day and then walk back. He lived for 96 years.

When he was in his late 80's, he could still carry a sack of potatoes on each shoulder and carry them down the garden.

He was always a drinker and a smoker, but i am sure the constant exercise kept him healthy.

Good for him! Yet Elliott Carter flies everywhere to hear performances of his work these days - and he's 98 and still working in the essentially sedentary profession of composition. None of this proves very much, actually, for there are still quite a few people who have made it into treble figures (i.e. centenarians) who have not necessarily exercised as your grandfather did. The French lady Jeanne Calment, whose husband died at the tender age of 103 but who herself survived until the rather less tender age of 122, put part of her extreme longevity down to a tot of cognac daily (although, as far as I am aware, she didn't actually declare how many times per day)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Good for him! Yet Elliott Carter flies everywhere to hear performances of his work these days - and he's 98 and still working in the essentially sedentary profession of composition.

Sedentary yes, but i feel that mental work is as important as physical work for the general wellbeing of the more mature person.

Thal

[ahinton]

Sedentary yes, but i feel that mental work is as important as physical work for the general wellbeing of the more mature person.

Thal

Yes, you are absolutely correct in this, except that I would add that this applies equally to people of any age once fully grown physically; perhaps this may account in part for the fact that, although I do not get a great deal of physical exercise, I am hardly overweight - i.e. that, as a doctor friend once said to me, I "sit there for hours writing and putting on weight through lack of physical exercise while at the same time worrying the hell out of what I am writing and losing that weight as a consequence of nervous brain activity while doing so". Whilst inevitably I took this obviously part-facetious remark with a pinch of that now much-accused substance sodium chloride, he may nonetheless have had a point; maybe I should start yet another a new fad in the ever-burgeoning diet and wellbeing industry by advocating and promoting the virtues of compositional activity in adjusting the excess avoirdupois of the clinically obese. Hmmm...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I think there could be a market for that.

I can see the DVD on the shelfs now.

A Hintons "Countdown the Calories by Composition". Each DVD comes with a free book of blank manuscript paper and a pen signed by the author.

Leave the marketing to me.

50/50 ?

Thal

[cmg]

Yet Elliott Carter flies everywhere to hear performances of his work these days - and he's 98 and still working in the essentially sedentary profession of composition.

True, Elliott Carter must fly, but he's a New Yorker and New Yorkers walk probably more than any other residents of a major city in America.  I'm sure he scoots all over town on errands -- and scoots around on foot, I might add.  We walk here because it's much more efficient getting from Point A to Point B, given the horrendous traffic.  People here routinely walk at least two miles a day.  It's faster and less nerve wracking to do so.  Plus, we have a three-ring circus to look at as we walk.  Incredibly entertaining here for the eye alone.  

And stairs.  We have oodles of them.  An enormous amount of people here live in walkups.  A four-story or even five-story walkup is quite common.

And food.  New Yorkers aren't Americans.  We value good food and dining the way the French do.

And we value self-examination.  Next to London, there are probably more psychotherapists here than any place on earth.  Why?  New Yorkers, to a great degree, hold self-examination in high esteem.  Elsewhere in America, psychotherapy is regarded as a crutch for the "crazy."  Americans elsewhere would never "stoop" to fixing their unresolvable issues with a professional.  Instead, they use food as a drug.  Eating is a way to medicate feelings.  New Yorkers examine their behavior much more than other Americans.

Being obese is much more than the end result of refined foods, car culture or overeating simply because it is a time of prosperity.  People generally are miserable these days.  Food, like alcohol, is a legal drug.  Overeating is a comfort and a balm to people who aren't mindful.  

Having visited some major American cities this past week, I can tell you that Americans are angry, selfish and materialistic.  They value excess and consumption more than anything.  That this is a nation of obese people should come to no surpise to anyone.  It's a rich nation that values greed above all other things.

Overeating and obesity are symptoms of a world gone mad.  The US is simply offering up the lead here.  Don't follow us.  Please.  

[danny elfboy]

Good for him! Yet Elliott Carter flies everywhere to hear performances of his work these days - and he's 98 and still working in the essentially sedentary profession of composition.

Sedentary yes, but i feel that mental work is as important as physical work for the general wellbeing of the more mature person.

Thal

That mental activity is important is true, but it's not true that it can take the place of physical activity. Smoking doesn't cause lungs cancer for and kills everyone who smokes heavily, but kill enough of them to be discouraged
To say "my grandfather smoked 20 cigars a day, drank a liter of beer daily, never ate vegetables and his main meal was lard and bacon" is not an argument that those habits are harmless and should be promoted or ignored as potentially deadly

According to a last research physical sedentarity kills more people than smoking does and the exceptions don't make this less alarming or true. Physical activity (and the research was not even talking about exercising and sport but incidental daily activity) is too vital to the well being of the tissues and vessels and for hormonal synthesis, metabolism regulation and many other bodily aspects that it's impossible for mental activity to act as a replacement. The history is full of sedentary intellectual individuals spending their time writing, reading and researching dying at a young age because of their lack of physical activity coupled with accumulated mental stress (chronic CNS fatigue)

[ahinton]

I think there could be a market for that.

I can see the DVD on the shelfs now.

A Hintons "Countdown the Calories by Composition". Each DVD comes with a free book of blank manuscript paper and a pen signed by the author.

Leave the marketing to me.

50/50 ?

Thal

It's a done deal! and, by my reckoning, that's 50 litres of air to you and 50 litres of the same to me; don't spend (i.e. exhale) all yours at once...

Best,

Alistair

[danny elfboy]

Yes, you are absolutely correct in this, except that I would add that this applies equally to people of any age once fully grown physically; perhaps this may account in part for the fact that, although I do not get a great deal of physical exercise, I am hardly overweight - i.e. that, as a doctor friend once said to me, I "sit there for hours writing and putting on weight through lack of physical exercise while at the same time worrying the hell out of what I am writing and losing that weight as a consequence of nervous brain activity while doing so". Whilst inevitably I took this obviously part-facetious remark with a pinch of that now much-accused substance sodium chloride, he may nonetheless have had a point; maybe I should start yet another a new fad in the ever-burgeoning diet and wellbeing industry by advocating and promoting the virtues of compositional activity in adjusting the excess avoirdupois of the clinically obese. Hmmm...

Best,

Alistair

Brain activity does burn calories but nowhere near the calories burned by even the most moderate physical activity. It would be impossible to provide a weight loss high enough to recovery the health of an obese individual (or worse yet a skinny visceral obese individual) by providing even 14 hours a day of intense mental work

[ahinton]

That mental activity is important is true, but it's not true that it can take the place of physical activity. Smoking doesn't cause lungs cancer for and kills everyone who smokes heavily, but kill enough of them to be discouraged
To say "my grandfather smoked 20 cigars a day, drank a liter of beer daily, never ate vegetables and his main meal was lard and bacon" is not an argument that those habits are harmless and should be promoted or ignored as potentially deadly

According to a last research physical sedentarity kills more people than smoking does and the exceptions don't make this less alarming or true. Physical activity (and the research was not even talking about exercising and sport but incidental daily activity) is too vital to the well being of the tissues and vessels and for hormonal synthesis, metabolism regulation and many other bodily aspects that it's impossible for mental activity to act as a replacement. The history is full of sedentary intellectual individuals spending their time writing, reading and researching dying at a young age because of their lack of physical activity coupled with accumulated mental stress (chronic CNS fatigue)

Mine wasn't even meant to be an argument here. Of course smoking doesn't cause lung cancer in every smoker but it does cause or encourage it in sufficient of them for it to be a matter of concern and, in any case, smoking can cause a number of respiratory and other disorders in smokers whether or not it gives them cancer.

Whilst I agree in principle with some of the remainder of what you write here, the fact remains that we are all exceptions in many ways because none of us processes anything - food, drugs, alcohol, nicotine, even fresh air - in precisely the same ways. What is important is to remain conscious (without becoming obsessively so - an unhealthy condition in itself) of one's general health and how it is developing and to find, note and act upon those things which best suit one's own well-being.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Brain activity does burn calories but nowhere near the calories burned by even the most moderate physical activity. It would be impossible to provide a weight loss high enough to recovery the health of an obese individual (or worse yet a skinny visceral obese individual) by providing even 14 hours a day of intense mental work

Indeed so - and I am not seriously suggesting that it is or can be; in any case, my reference to what a doctor (who was not, incidentally, treating me but happened to be an acquaintance and who also happened to have qualifications as a psychologist and a clinical nutritionist) said to me was not in the context of how to resolve an obesity problem, since I was not then - and have never been - obese.

Best,

Alistair

[cmg]

Brain activity does burn calories but nowhere near the calories burned by even the most moderate physical activity.

Agreed.  Sedentary people who have no problem maintaining a healthy weight have a genetic factor working  in their favor as well as eating correctly.  

Genetics plays an enormous role in metabolic functions.  Some people struggle enormously with obesity and it's not simply the result of over-indugling in food.

One other factor about obesity:  it is an affliction of the poor.  Ironically, the most affordable food is "fast food" or other items that are pure carbs, laced with refined sugars.  That deadly combo is quite addictive, by the way, and causes rapid mood fluctuations that many people mistake for "hunger."  

[danny elfboy]

Genetics plays an enormous role in metabolic functions.  Some people struggle enormously with obesity and it's not simply the result of over-indugling in food.

Though when genetics predispose the metabolism to certain weakness it still isn't enough to cause obesity for a simple fact: all the hunger and caloric/nutritional intake signals are proportional to the metabolism and body characteristic of another person
As I said it's like comparing a 5 feet girl to a 6.3 feet man
The girl can't "blame" her genetics for being 5 feet only, having a small stomach and hence "gaining weight" if eating the same amont of food/calories a 6.3 feet man would eat because from the moment her genetics developed her into a 5 feet girl instead of a 6.3 feet man all her hunger signals, stomach capacity, satiety threshold, nutritional need have been proportionally suited to her genetics and anatomy. It's the same with someone with a geneticall slower metabolism, everything in the body is tuned to make "instinctive" in the person the need for less food, for less calories ... the hunger signal comes sooner, the stomach capacity is smaller. In other words even with a genetical predisposition to gaining weight (if eating the same amount of calories/foods that other people usually eat) it's still a matter of ignoring those natural and instinctive signals tuned for our genetical and metabolic uniqueness OR a matter of designing a diet that sabotages those signals and whether physioneurological response correlated with eating.

Another genetical factor that cause a downregulat of the cholecystokinin receptors can alone account for obesity as there's an impaired satiety response and the person eating till satiated can go so far as consuming 2300 calories in a sitting. Only that this condition is extremely rare and can't explain the everyday obesity or borderline obesity we see around us

[pianistimo]

and, then there are taste buds.  i mean if something tastes good -you stay at it.  like chocolate for instance.  there have been times when i look at myself with disgust and then look at a bag of chocolates , or a whole entire chocolate bar, or whatever it was.  usually i have a lot of self -discipline - but sometimes when i'm at the computer  - i lose track of what i am doing if there is a bag of something nearby.  much better to get one or two out of the bag - put the bag AWAY and bring a glass of water. 

lately - as spring is sure to arrive sooner than planned - i have been starving myself.  a cup of hot water or tea and an orange for breakfast.  well, and sometimes cereal.  i've found that at 45 - i don't NEED three meals anymore.  in fact, the third meal just sits there in my stomach and sort of refuses to digest.  if i eat at 8-10 am and 3-4 or 5 pm - that's really all i'm truly needing anymores.  beyond that - i consider myself just pleasing the taste buds.

i've heard that if you really want to lose weight - don't eat after 6 pm.  it just turns to fat overnight while you sleep. 

now, the japanese have another theory.  eat rice cakes.  they're made of basically nothing -but fill you up.  also, they rarely eat meat - and eat more fish and veggies and rice.  so - if you need food - eat food that turns into nothing. 

[ted]

There are a number of things people living in houses on sections can do to avoid inactivity. Use a hand mower instead of a motor mower, and use hand tools such as clippers, saws and hoes instead of the frequently seen power tools. If the shops are within a mile or so then walk the distance and carry the groceries. There is probably enough regular physical work to be found on the average suburban section to obviate going to a gym. Even if there isn't, a gym seems to me, other than for specialist athletes, a complete waste of time and money. I have an old stationary cycle worth next to nothing, a set of weights which cost around $30 and various bits and pieces of resistance apparatus worth a total of less then $50.

It really takes very little in the way of resources and money to get very fit indeed.

Another very simple trick, for those concerned with weight reduction, is to always leave the table thinking you could have eaten a bit more.  A friend of mine pays a lot of money to attend a gym but moans about his inabilty to get rid of the fat around his guts. Closer questioning revealed that, despite his exercise, he eats and boozes to the point of being a bloated hog every night. The whole equation is very simple.