Jaime observed this during the pre-show at Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede: “The average american is overweight–no kidding.” Maybe you had to be there Hmm them again, maybe not. These are not big boned people, they were just flat out big. I’m willing to admit the venue might have had something to do with it, but this is seriously a very large health risk facing the nation these days. Sad, really.
Oh yeah, bonus points if anyone can recognize this celebrity. I’m absolutely positive he’s an actor, but I can’t remember which movies he was in, and this can’t remember his name.
I think that the Nation’s problem with obesity is probably more of a symptom of other underlying problems than an isolated problem. The interesting part about all of this is that our nation has found out that some of these deadly sins really are deadly over time. We again found out a couple of decades ago with AIDS that lust can cause some health complications, now gluttony seems to be getting more and more of the spotlight. Luckily, the stubborn peoples dealing with these consequences can latch onto either the culture of victimhood or apathy that we’ve been cultivating and feel nothing or feel anger towards an outside source instead of realizing that they are in control of themselves, and then choosing to have full responsibility for changing for the better.
I can’t make out any faces in that picture, so I don’t have a good guess for your celebrity.
Left by David on November 30th, 2003
there is no way in hell anyone is going to recognize whomever is in that picture…i wouldn’t recognize myself in that picture. is that a cell phone picture???..cause it sucks at that distance. as for the obesity problem….i’m not sure what David was talking bout with the whole “symptom of other …” BUT, I do agree w/ the lack of self responsibility that shows itself in the form of victimhood (lets sue McDonalds) or apathy (i’m fat and don’t care). Not everyone is genetically meant to be the same size, but there is indeed a limit which once you exceed becomes a health hazard.
Left by Lin on November 30th, 2003
That was kinda the point, but I didn’t make it very obvious in the way I phrased it. I kept showing the photo to people today and they all that it was ridiculous how low-quality it was. Yeah, my camera phone photo. Camera phone photos are a little (read: very) limited in their usefulness…
Left by Jordan on November 30th, 2003
I think that obesity is a symptom of other underlying problems. I think that better education would certainly help, and I think that there are still social problems in our country. I think these problems have a lot to do with some of the general negative attitudes that people have — such as victimhood, apathy, excessive selfishness, lack of self-discipline, low self-esteem (failure to believe in positive personal change,) untargetted rebeliousness, etc.
The question, “why are people becoming obese?” is answered by many of these things. That is why I think that obesity is just the symptom of those underlying issues.
Left by David on December 1st, 2003
I think that the people who consistently choose to over-eat (or smoke, drink excessively, abuse drugs, have crazy amounts of “unsafe” sex, etc.) are not only being irresponsible for their own body, but for our society as a whole as well. The argument basically goes like this…
When you get sick it costs money. Usually people have insurance which “covers” it, but insurance works by charging everyone a fee to offset every policyholder’s risk. So, if you are healthy and living well, and you pay insurance, you are essentially paying for the people out there that are falling ill. This is fine usually, but when people are having health complications due to their socially frowned upon behaviors it is a bit harder for people to swallow — especially when these particular sick people are using the resources of governments (ex: Medicare/Medicaid,) insurance companies, mega corporations with their own health plans, etc.
So, every person who is having health issues related to over-eating or other things is incrementally adding to both your health insurance premium and your taxes. (Note: They would also make Life Insurance premiums incrementally higher if they die sooner than average thereby lowering the average age of death and then shrinking the time of amortization of your policy.)
It’s all kinda funny, though, because of the trend here… They use more than their “fair share” of resources early on by over-eating, and then that typically continues when they use extra healthcare resources.
Left by David on December 1st, 2003
David: Both health insurance and life insurance companies compensate for people who have poor health. Some don’t even cover those patients. Others charge those individuals more, some don’t allow particular procedures (ie, stomach staples, nicotine replacement therapy). Although those procedures would certainly be less expensive in the long run. And it’s not always because people overeat - some people are genetically more prone to being overweight, have high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. There are studies now that point to that. It doesn’t make overeating right, or not exercising right, but it doesn’t seem like all health problems (at least the ones that I’ve seen) can be attributed to lack of self-control or the like.
Left by Jaime on December 1st, 2003
That is all true for privitized insurance, but government funded insurance works differently, and there isn’t much of a practical way for me, you, or anyone else to get out of participating in those programs. This is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in socialist-type programs for America. It doesn’t mesh well with our other core ideals.
As far as genetic disposition, I’d have to say that these exceptional people are capable of realizing that they have a higher matabolism and then they have the opportunity to choose to eat foods tailored to their bodies and their needs.
I know you are presenting the exceptions and the differences to form a balanced perspective. I appreciate that. My argument is against the people who make decisions that seem to affect only themselves, so it wasn’t balanced… I didn’t include attempts of privitized insurance, HMOs, etc to correct for these things. The reality is that we all suffer at varying degrees when an individual makes one of these “it will only hurt me” type of decisions. …Friends and loved ones experience loss, there are costs to society, there are costs to the individual. I just want to point out that we all lose when we lose a person early to an essentially self-inflicted death.
Left by David on December 1st, 2003
Government funded programs would, in all likelihood, work very much like private insurance programs. While they probably wouldn’t deny coverage, they would almost certainly not provide elective procedures to deal with the result of vices, or would cap the total expenditures allowed for certain classes of conditions.
There are a number of other issues at work here. One is the extremely poor quality of public school lunches. I remember when I was in public school I didn’t think it was a big deal (as I munched away happily at that ever so delicious flat, plasticy pizza that would be rolled up and eaten like a hotdog), but I do now. Studies everywhere show that if a child starts life eating healthy they are much less likely to continue eating healthy through their entire lives. That we cannot, as a public, provide children with five meals per week that meet this standard is unbelieveable. This particularly impacts children on free and reduced lunch programs, as they tend to not only eat more meals at school but also derive a significant portion of their total calorie intake from these meals. By setting a bad example here we are setting these kids up for poor dietary habits down the road. Since these children are more likely to be future recipients of goverment funded health care programs, we are doing ourselves an economic disservice here as well. While what one eats is certainly a personal decision, the people who do not feel that there is at least something the general public can do need to wake and realize that in at least some cases we are funding actions which result in people doing the things we are complaining about.
Another has been the shift from an agrarian society that placed extremely high workloads on the idividual to an advanced industrial society that allows most individuals to work without stressing their bodies, which has come without a major shift in the way we eat. The American diet is still more or less derived from “old time” country cooking which was loaded with calories to provide farmers and the such the energy to do their jobs. Obviously most of us do not need that. Remember, obesity is not a new problem, not is it an uniquely American problem. The rich, which have been historically the only people without labor intensive jobs, have always had a problem with weight — in fact, in most cultures, obesity was a sign of good fortune, as it meant that you, unlike most of the population, had enough to eat on a regular basis. The fact that perhaps a majority of the population in the developed world now lives like only a small handful lived a century or two ago means that the problems once confined to a rather small group are now societal problems. While again I am going to say that of course what one eats is their own decision, it will take some time before a few thousand years of culture programming wears off.
And finally (well, not finally, there are a number of other things I could say, but I’m going to stop), like Jaime said, there are genetic disorders that result in obesity no matter the food intake.
Again, I’m not defending most people (including myself) who are overweight. Americans (and most Westerners) eat poorly and do not get enough exercise. What I am saying is that the belief that people who are overweight are making some selfish decision to _cost you money_ or whatever is a tremendously, IMHO, silly view. There are many, many psychological factors that contribute to any lifestyle decision, and all of those, from the beginning of life on, need to be accounted for and, if in the public control, changed, for any long-term societal changes to result.
Left by John on December 1st, 2003
A note about Medicaid: In order to qualify (in Florida) as a family for coverage, total household income must be less than 25% of the federal poverty levels. The federal poverty level for a family of four is ~18k. That means only $4.5k/year as income. It’s hard to say at that point if they could even afford a toothbrush, let alone provide for necessary vaccines, vitamins, etc.
The coverage amounts are different depending on your situation. All of this can be found on this fact sheet.
David: First of all, let me just say that those “exceptional people” who are genetically prone to being overweight and obese - they don’t know that they are “exceptional” until they already are. And at that point, not only do they have the gene, but now they have all the psycosocial and neurochemical patterns which are extremely difficult to break. Food isn’t as great of an addiction as say nicotine, but I for one eat a lot more chocolate when I am stressed.
And our ideals? Are you talking about pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps? Is it really our ideal (once we are already standing of course) to sit by and make someone (who doesn’t even have a bootstrap) somehow get on their feet? I’m not arguing for a socialist state, I have no idea what that would really mean for the US, especially considering Sweden’s dilemma. But I do think that a government sponsored program (yes, everyone participates) is necessary to help those in or close to poverty recieve money for food, healthcare, etc. And looking at the BMI of the population, the cars on the road, etc., it seems that we can afford this type of program.
Left by Jaime on December 2nd, 2003
John and Jaime: Yep.
Jaime: No, I was thinking more cynically when I wrote “our ideals.” I was thinking of our capitalist ideals — our ideals of selfishly pursuing personal liberty, wealth, and happiness.
Honestly though…
Genetics may play a part, fine, but is it the “living in America” gene that is causing this obesity epidimic? If this problem were entirely due to genetics and other uncontrollable factors then it’s reasonable to expect that we would be seeing obesity problems elsewhere in the world, right? So, based on that logic, I think that there are other, non-genetic issues at play here.
I am really tired of the ‘genes control me’ type arguements. Genes make people fat, gay, moody, hyperactive, anti-committal, etc. etc. Genes definately play a role in our lives, but we needn’t be victims or slaves to circumstance. That’s my first point.
The second point is that some Americans feel that they may freely choose to do whatever they want to do — even if it harms themselves — so long as it does not harm others or break laws. These people are gravely mistaken. Choosing to smoke is costly for the individual making the choice and it causes others to bear costs as well. So does over-eating. I think that if this assertion of mine is true, then people should be made more aware of it.
I think John hit the nail on the head when he wrote –
“There are many, many psychological factors that contribute to any lifestyle decision, and all of those, from the beginning of life on, need to be accounted for and, if in the public control, changed, for any long-term societal changes to result.”
People are making poor lifestyle decisions. I am one of those people. I’d like it to change. I live in a society where money matters a lot, hurting other people’s person or wallet is a big no-no. I was trying to appeal to that, because I feel like I’ve recognized a major, correctable problem.
Clearly, I’m making mistakes along the way, but it’s good to make mistakes in front of people who will slap me upside the head and then help me work out what I was thinking in a more appropriate way. If you flat out disagree with me when I am saying that these things are a problem then I missed something yet again.
Left by David on December 2nd, 2003
David, it is not a purely American problem. As I said in my comment, it’s something that is affecting people from pretty much every developed nation. I don’t have a ton of time to look for articles, but here is one about obesity in Europe, and there are plenty more to be found. While neither Jaime or I are arguing that there are not lifestyle and personal choice issues coming into play here, you simply cannot glibly discount genetic predisposition and claim this as being a purely American problem.
Left by John on December 2nd, 2003
David, I understand what you were saying now regarding rising obesity rates being symptomatic of other problems…
Genetics play a part? Agreed
Socioeconmics plays a part? Agreed
Psychological factors play a part? Agreed
This list can go on and on….BUT, when people know the consequences and continue to make the same bad choices, the blame is strictly their own. Who doesn’t know that excess fast food makes you fat? Who doesn’t know that fast food is unhealthy? Who doesn’t know that obesity leads to other serious health problems? Who doesn’t know that they should get regular exercise?Find me a fat person whether genetically inclined or not who doesn’t know these things? Yet, a large number of these same individuals want to blame anything or anyone for their problems. Heaven forbid taking responsibility for one’s own actions/decisions. Education always seems to be the answer, but obviously it’s not working since obesity rates continue to rise. And now I’ll shut up cause I’ve lost my train of thought …..wtf..
Left by Lin on December 2nd, 2003
I glibly discount genetic predisposition because bringing it into play serves no purpose for those that seek to fix this problem… as one cannot change one’s genes yet.
Also, I am aware of and frustrated by the genetic predisposition position (that was fun), because it has been used to release people from accountability.
Left by David on December 3rd, 2003
Consider this, though:
If tremendous social pressure to be in shape if not thin isn’t enough to drive more Americans to have BMI’s closer to the mean, then certainly the argument about wasting pooled monetary resources on avoidable healthcare complications due to lifestyle is not going to behoove anybody to change their lives. We are socialized to look down upon the overweight, especially when they are young, female, or both. How often does the fat kid get teased in school? How many overweight women are portrayed as sexually attractive? These are not trivial pressures and have direct psychological appeal, whereas your managerial argument seems (to me at least) to lack any sort of direct enticement that would motivate an overweight person beyond whatever social pressures he/she already feels on a daily basis, so I seriously doubt bringing up social responsibility will stir a new wave of dieting and exercise.
I’m troubled by how vehemently you discount genetic contributions to obesity; genes go beyond the ubiquitous oversimplification of fast/slow metabolism”. For example, the role of leptin receptors has been strongly implicated in obesity, among other genes. I believe it is necessary to take these factors into account to fully understand the problem, for without a full understanding of the problem, how can you even begin to fix it?
Left by Dave on December 3rd, 2003
Responding to David’s post #4: There have been studies showing that, for smoking at least, the state’s long-term cost for health care is actually LOWER for smokers than non-smokers. The theory is that they die earlier and don’t incur the costs of long term care - almost exclusively paid for by Medicaid. This came up during the “Big Tobacco” lawsuit by the state attorneys general a few years back. The states weren’t willing to offset their damage estimates by these savings. The companies (understandably) didn’t want to argue the issue to a jury.
Not sure if the same would be true for obesity.
Left by Dan on December 3rd, 2003
Dan: This doesn’t show cost analysis, but here are the predictions from a recent study about the effect of obesity on lifespan (from the abstract):
“RESULTS: Large decreases in life expectancy were associated with overweight and obesity. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 3.3 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 3.1 years of life expectancy because of overweight. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 7.1 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 5.8 years because of obesity. Obese female smokers lost 7.2 years and obese male smokers lost 6.7 years of life expectancy compared with normal-weight smokers. Obese female smokers lost 13.3 years and obese male smokers lost 13.7 years compared with normal-weight nonsmokers. Body mass index at ages 30 to 49 years predicted mortality after ages 50 to 69 years, even after adjustment for body mass index at age 50 to 69 years. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and overweight in adulthood are associated with large decreases in life expectancy and increases in early mortality. These decreases are similar to those seen with smoking. Obesity in adulthood is a powerful predictor of death at older ages. Because of the increasing prevalence of obesity, more efficient prevention and treatment should become high priorities in public health.”
[Peeters A, Barendregt JJ, et al. Obesity in adulthood and its consequences for life expectancy: a life-table analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jan 7;138(1):24-32.]
Left by Jaime on December 3rd, 2003
Sorry meant to add the link to the abstract.
Left by Jaime on December 3rd, 2003
My cost-based argument clearly failed to sway any commenters here, but I am still summarily confused by what you all think. I feel like there is a consensus of some sort, but I don’t have my finger on it at all. Is obesity a problem or no? Is it something that individuals can fix or no? Is it something that they should fix? Does more and more obesity have no affect on society? Is choosing to live a lifestyle that will inevitably lead to personal poor health socially irresponsible or is it something that doesn’t matter to (affect) society?
If we were to decide that obesity is solely caused by genetics it would lift all liabilty/responsibility from companies, school boards, prisons, etc. from serving unhealthy food. I don’t think that would be a good thing. I don’t think that is the truth.
I’ve read that obesity is caused by the following factors: genes/birth; lifestyle choices; psychological and neurological issues; food addiction; and school lunches.
I don’t think that the genetic and neurological factors can be changed at the present time. I believe that obesity is a problem on the both individual and societal levels. So, to fix this problem it seems logical to me to address the addiction, the choices, and the governments and companies that are providing only unhealthy food choices.
Nearly half of this issue seems like it rests in the hands of the obese individual. I feel that a particularly proactive individual dealing with this could solve this problem by making different, albeit difficult, choices.
Is that more reasonable?
Some last thoughts… The motivation for correcting this problem comes from..?.. social pressure? Why is there social pressure against obesity? What caused us to “be socialized to look down upon the overweight?” What purpose does this serve society?
Left by David on December 3rd, 2003