Why We’re Fat: It’s the Government and Wall Street’s Fault, Marion Nestle Says

[Midpack]

But that hasn't worked for smoking!

It hasn't, at least in part?

 

[Letj]

Certainly an interesting thread! I wonder if the solution is simply eating for fuel and sustenance food that is prepared by your own hands. The problem is likely not just the fault of the food industry but the socieity that we live in. One in which people overindulge in everything including food and no longer do anything the long winded way including cooking from scratch. It's likely not so much what you eat but how much you eat that's the problem. I've maintained the same weight my entire life and I am quite healthy at 5'6'' and 125 pounds and I am now middle age. I see how much others are eating and they are eating way more than I eat and understandably most are overweight. I don't fuss about what I eat; I just like to eat fresh food that I make with my own hands thanks to my upbringing. My mother laid a solid foundation for all her children and taught us not eat unless we were hungry and it worked for all of us; no weight problem.

 

[Nemo2]

So why do humans engage in self-destructive behaviour like smoking?

Their conclusion had to do with the time horizon. Our "self-preservation" instinct only kicks in for immediate mortal threats. Long-term hazards like smoking don't trigger it, and thus don't register as a fatality risk

My late wife, who wasn't a heavy smoker, but who smoked nonetheless, said, after being diagnosed with lung cancer, that "I never thought it would happen to me"...........she certainly wasn't a stupid woman, but I guess for some people, particular threats just don't appear on their screen beforehand.

 

[Amethyst]

Hmm, I am wary of seeming political in my response, since there are people out there who think the government made up all the anti-smoking studies (while subsidizing tobacco growers - !]

Acc to the Centers for Disease Control, ~20% of Americans still smoke, so obviously either they don't fear terminal illness, or have convinced themselves the danger is not real:

CDC - Fact Sheet - Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Nevertheless, I believe that is a significant drop from 40 years ago when, as we can see in old movies, "everybody smoked." I had thought that fear of croaking from lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and terminal wrinkliness were definite factors in getting people to quit smoking. Fear of the first 3 convinced my father, brother, and husband, all heavy smokers at one time or another, to quit.

Amethyst

But that hasn't worked for smoking!

 

[ziggy29]

I tend to agree with the end subsidies and let the market sort it out crowd. I would like to tax "empty calorie" junk food as a disincentive but I don't think we know enough about which ones are truly bad to do that (a la the eggs and bacon debate). We would end up simply distorting the market and destroying some businesses while others (just as bad) sneak in through the gaps. Right now, for example, I suspect the only broad consensus would be to tax sugary sodas but even that would favor diet sodas with the unknown risks of artificial sweeteners. But we sure as heck shouldn't be subsidizing the production of HFCS.

I'd put it another way: To me the only justification to target anything that's considered a "bad lifestyle choice" is to recover the measurable public cost of those choices. Merely wanting to "enforce" healthy choices is not a sufficient justification to influence consumer choice. I neither want to punish nor subsidize their choices.

Having said that, one thing I do consistently notice about the "warriors on obesity" (and for smoking and alcohol for that matter) is that they tend to talk a lot about the public health care costs of "unhealthy choices" in order to justify bans, restrictions and taxation of food and drink, cigs and booze, but they almost never offset those public costs by the savings when these people die sooner on average (and collect SS and public pensions for several fewer years).

Now I'm not advocating unhealthy lifestyles as a way to save SS and rescue pension plans, but if someone is going to use the "cost to the public" argument to justify restrictions, bans and taxes then they need to be honest and consistent about it, and factor in the "savings to the public" in SS and pensions when smokers, drinkers and the obese die 5-7 years earlier on average.

 

[Mulligan]

I'd put it another way: To me the only justification to target anything that's considered a "bad lifestyle choice" is to recover the measurable public cost of those choices. Merely wanting to "enforce" healthy choices is not a sufficient justification to influence consumer choice. I neither want to punish nor subsidize their choices.

Having said that, one thing I do consistently notice about the "warriors on obesity" (and for smoking and alcohol for that matter) is that they tend to talk a lot about the public health care costs of "unhealthy choices" in order to justify bans, restrictions and taxation of food and drink, cigs and booze, but they almost never offset those public costs by the savings when these people die sooner on average (and collect SS and public pensions for several fewer years).

Now I'm not advocating unhealthy lifestyles as a way to save SS and rescue pension plans, but if someone is going to use the "cost to the public" argument to justify restrictions, bans and taxes then they need to be honest and consistent about it, and factor in the "savings to the public" in SS and pensions when smokers, drinkers and the obese die 5-7 years earlier on average.

Ok, since you brought the beast out of the cage, I am going to have to submit this article. We need to control healthcare costs by encouraging obesity and smoking, so us healthy people can have lower premiums to pay for our expensive illnesses!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

 

[Midpack]

I'd put it another way: To me the only justification to target anything that's considered a "bad lifestyle choice" is to recover the measurable public cost of those choices. Merely wanting to "enforce" healthy choices is not a sufficient justification to influence consumer choice. I neither want to punish nor subsidize their choices.

Agreed.

Having said that, one thing I do consistently notice about the "warriors on obesity" (and for smoking and alcohol for that matter) is that they tend to talk a lot about the public health care costs of "unhealthy choices" in order to justify bans, restrictions and taxation of food and drink, cigs and booze, but they almost never offset those public costs by the savings when these people die sooner on average (and collect SS and public pensions for several fewer years).

Now I'm not advocating unhealthy lifestyles as a way to save SS and rescue pension plans, but if someone is going to use the "cost to the public" argument to justify restrictions, bans and taxes then they need to be honest and consistent about it, and factor in the "savings to the public" in SS and pensions when smokers, drinkers and the obese die 5-7 years earlier on average.

Fair point, my frame of reference is more from many years of comparing health care costs of active employees for smokers, alcoholics and obese employees, and there was no contest - smokers, alcoholic and obese employees cost more. But I have seen the occasional study on total lifetime costs, have you seen a good one on smoking, alcohol/drug abuse and/or obesity? Here's one that a quick search returned that concludes smokers cost about 1.77X compared to non-smokers, not that current but I doubt the differential changes much over time.

Smoking imposes costs on society even when taking life expectancy into consideration, both in excess health care utilization and in terms of reduced labour supply.

This study was funded by The Danish Medical Research Council and DSI Danish Institute for Health Services Research. The Danish Epidemiology Science Centre is supported by the Danish National Research Foundation.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/95.full.pdf

 

[ziggy29]

Fair point, my frame of reference is more from many years of comparing health care costs of active employees for smokers, alcoholics and obese employees, and there was no contest - smokers, alcoholic and obese employees cost more. But I have seen the occasional study on total lifetime costs, have you seen a good one on smoking, alcohol/drug abuse and/or obesity? Here's one that a quick search returned that concludes smokers cost about 1.77X compared to non-smokers, not that current but I doubt the differential changes much over time.

I'm not claiming that "savings" in SS and public pensions from premature death completely offsets the added public costs -- just that there is *some* offset that needs to be considered in an honest accounting.

But I will make two points here: (1) you still have to factor in the savings in old age pension plans to make an honest estimate of the public social costs of bad lifestyle choices (I'll assume this one does), and (2) public policy should focus on public costs, not other costs borne by employers and private insurers. Employers and private insurers can deal with their own added costs. In other words, the government shouldn't tax someone to make up for the loss of productivity caused by a private employer (or at least shouldn't do so more than the projected loss of tax revenue from the added productivity).

Many employers already do charge smokers more for group coverage. And more and more are starting to look at other lifestyle factors in setting the amount employees have to pay toward their own health care (usually in the form of "incentive" discounts for having a healthy BMI and not smoking). But to the extent these are private costs, they should be handled by the private sector, not taxed by the government. Government has a valid interest in recovering the costs to itself.

 

[Michael108]

Great source on obesity at. http://www.thelancet.com/series/obesity
Also, some drug treatments may become a significant part of the solution. 2 companies appear about to have new obesity drugs approved and their share prices have soared as investors recognize the potential profits in treating an epidemic on US soil...

 

[Letj]

That's the way it works. Create the disease and then make money on the cure.

 

[Midpack]

But I will make two points here: (1) you still have to factor in the savings in old age pension plans to make an honest estimate of the public social costs of bad lifestyle choices (I'll assume this one does), and (2) public policy should focus on public costs, not other costs borne by employers and private insurers. Employers and private insurers can deal with their own added costs. In other words, the government shouldn't tax someone to make up for the loss of productivity caused by a private employer (or at least shouldn't do so more than the projected loss of tax revenue from the added productivity).

We may well be in agreement here, but I'm not sure about (2).

IMO all these costs are essentially "public costs." Government taxes and fees are clearly public costs, but all private costs are borne by the public when we buy their products and/or services. Again, we may agree, but to me it's largely a fallacy when someone suggests that private companies can fend for themselves re: costs as if the public escapes paying. Any cost that hits all private companies, might as well be a tax on the public. People like to talk as if private companies will have to eat additional costs, but that is rarely realistic, they will almost always be passed through to the public sooner or later. The only exception is when those costs hit private companies unevenly, as sometimes happens thanks to loopholes etc. (Counter example: If somehow employers are relieved of health care costs through health care laws, we'll pay those costs through taxes or some means, obviously they will not go away. It's essentially a public expense either way.)

 

[kombat]

That's the way it works. Create the disease and then make money on the cure.

Nonsense. There's no money in "curing" disease. "Treatment," now that's the pharmaceutical cash-cow. Keep 'em coming back for more, and charge it to the insurance company for years on end.

 

[Letj]

Nonsense. There's no money in "curing" disease. "Treatment," now that's the pharmaceutical cash-cow. Keep 'em coming back for more, and charge it to the insurance company for years on end.

I have to agree; I should have said, create the disease and then make money treating.

 

[NW-Bound]

Several posters have said that it may not be processed food, but the portion size that did us in. I tend to agree.

Take for example frozen dinners. We do not buy these, but I have picked some up in stores to examine them. Well, there's some meat there, accompanied by some starch. And there's some frozen veggie. Being frozen means that they need no preservatives. And all the good stuff like fiber and mineral is still there, right? Perhaps it lacks some vitamins, but that is readily remedied with a daily vitamin.

So, what's wrong with it?

Signed someone who may just stock up on frozen dinners for his possible solo RV trip through Alaska.

 

[Midpack]

Several posters have said that it may not be processed food, but the portion size that did us in. I tend to agree.

Take for example frozen dinners. We do not buy these, but I have picked some up in stores to examine them. Well, there's some meat there, accompanied by some starch. And there's some frozen veggie. Being frozen means that they need no preservatives. And all the good stuff like fiber and mineral is still there, right? Perhaps it lacks some vitamins, but that is readily remedied with a daily vitamin.

So, what's wrong with it?

Signed someone who may just stock up on frozen dinners for his possible solo RV trip through Alaska.

Subject of some debate (here in fact), but many processed foods have a lot of added sugar and other simple carbs (highly processed flours, etc.), which provide calories and less nutrition (vitamins, minerals, etc.). Sugars and simple carbs spike blood sugar, less so with complex carbs. My point is not to indict HFCS (other than the subsidies), the argument goes that more and more simple carbs in whatever form seem to correlate with higher incidence of obesity and diabetes. I am sure there are plenty of online sources that will dispute that.

I don't want to debate the topic, I'm simply responding to your message FWIW.

 

[Amethyst]

I have never really understood the "being served big portions made me fat" argument. Either way, I'm the same "amount" of hungry, and get full at the same time. If my plate was too full to start with, I save some for later. Hard to believe that my mother was the only one in the world who taught her kids that simple rule.

The portion ingredients matter much more, IMHO. If all that's in front of you is starchy, fatty, sugary glop (whether homemade, or brought home in a box), you're still going to eat till you're full - in the process, taking in more calories and less nutrients.

Amethyst

Several posters have said that it may not be processed food, but the portion size that did us in. I tend to agree.

 

[kombat]

I have never really understood the "being served big portions made me fat" argument. Either way, I'm the same "amount" of hungry, and get full at the same time. If my plate was too full to start with, I save some for later.

Maybe not exactly, Amethyst. Research has indicated that it can take 20 minutes for the "full" signal to be sent from your stomach to your brain. So if you start with a healthy portion size and eat it all, you might still feel like you could eat more, for another 20 minutes or so, until your brain gets the message that you really are full.

However, if your plate is overflowing, then when you reach "enough," your brain hasn't gotten the signal yet, so you continue eating. By the time the "full" signal gets to your brain, you've already overeaten.

This is also a good argument for eating slowly.

 

[Midpack]

Maybe not exactly, Amethyst. Research has indicated that it can take 20 minutes for the "full" signal to be sent from your stomach to your brain. So if you start with a healthy portion size and eat it all, you might still feel like you could eat more, for another 20 minutes or so, until your brain gets the message that you really are full.

However, if your plate is overflowing, then when you reach "enough," your brain hasn't gotten the signal yet, so you continue eating. By the time the "full" signal gets to your brain, you've already overeaten.

This is also a good argument for eating slowly.

+1. And we have to remember that the ridiculous portion sizes have been brought to us by --- ourselves, as much as anyone else. Restaurants increased portion sizes because we rewarded them with our business for doing so.

 

[Mulligan]

I have never really understood the "being served big portions made me fat" argument. Either way, I'm the same "amount" of hungry, and get full at the same time. If my plate was too full to start with, I save some for later. Hard to believe that my mother was the only one in the world who taught her kids that simple rule.

The portion ingredients matter much more, IMHO. If all that's in front of you is starchy, fatty, sugary glop (whether homemade, or brought home in a box), you're still going to eat till you're full - in the process, taking in more calories and less nutrients.

Amethyst

I would tend to agree with you on your second paragraph. I love the starchy food group and can eat massive portions of it in one sitting, and still be hungry a few hours later. However, if I eat an egg sandwich for breakfast ( which I don't like too much ) it will keep me full until almost dinner. The first paragraph, I must be different, if I really like something, I will keep shoveling it in way past the full stage. Especially when I am at a restaurant. That is why I eat at home mostly because I control my portions better.

 

[Amethyst]

Yes, there are exceptions to everything. For example, I (and others I know) can stand in front of the freezer and eat ridiculous amounts of ice cream at one time, since it doesn't fill you up. It's plain depressing to measure one measly cup of ice cream into a bowl and try to be content with that. Well, the industry is making the ice cream cartons smaller all the time, so I guess that's a healthy trend

Amethyst

I would tend to agree with you on your second paragraph. I love the starchy food group and can eat massive portions of it in one sitting, and still be hungry a few hours later.

 

[NW-Bound]

... many processed foods have a lot of added sugar and other simple carbs (highly processed flours, etc.), which provide calories and less nutrition (vitamins, minerals, etc.). Sugars and simple carbs spike blood sugar, less so with complex carbs...

It is not possible to defend people whose lunch consists of a 64-oz soda and a big bag of Doritos, and I would not take on such task. I think nobody is so dumb to not know that such a diet is not good for them. Their lack of will must be overcome by themselves.

What I was suggesting was that there are other "processed" food items that may not be necessarily bad for the consumers who do not want to cook everything from scratch. I was suggesting that foodstuff such as frozen dinners, cured meats such as ham, salami, sausage, and even bacon (gasp!), can be part of a balanced meal, if consumed in moderation and supplemented by some fresh fruits and veggies.

But even those or even home-cooked meals would not help one avoid obesity if one keeps gorging himself. Large portions do play a part, maybe a big one too. My closest friend is obese, and he eats all good home meals prepared by his wife. He does not snack on potato chips, or drinks soda by the gallon, yet his weight is detrimental to his health and he always knows it.

 

[Midpack]

What I was suggesting was that there are other "processed" food items that may not be necessarily bad for the consumers who do not want to cook everything from scratch. I was suggesting that foodstuff such as frozen dinners, cured meats such as ham, salami, sausage, and even bacon (gasp!), can be part of a balanced meal, if consumed in moderation and supplemented by some fresh fruits and veggies.

Absolutely. We keep some Amy's or Kashi's frozen meals in the freezer that we'll eat for lunch in a pinch.

Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post...

 

[Chuckanut]

Another interesting lecture on why so many of us are obese.

 

[kyounge1956]

That's fine. Then what is your explanation for the trends (refer to post #18 if you like)? Not only has obesity increased dramatically in the US, it seems to be getting worse relative to other industrialized nations (increasing faster in the US).

Processed is a relative term. Presumably you'd agree that a Twinkie is more processed than a banana? And presumably you'd agree there are more processed foods available today than generations past?

I've been listening to Anti-Cancer on audiobook. The author of this points out that the way animals are raised has changed significantly since WW2, with corn and soy-based feed largely replacing the grazing and foraging that was typical in the past. This in turn leads to an imbalance of omega-3 and omega-6 essential fatty acids in the meat, milk and eggs produced by the grain-fed animals. He attributes the rise that has occurred since WW2 in obesity, and in many kinds of cancer, at least in part to this nutritional imbalance. One of the studies described in the book ompared two groups of people. One group ate products from animals raised under current practices, the other group ate products from animals fed in such a way as to retain a healthier fatty acid ratio. Even though both groups ate the same number of calories, the people who ate products of grain-fed livestock ended up heavier than the group who didn't. (I've forgotten whether the "grain-fed" group gained weight, or the other group lost weight.) He also points out that the rate of obesity is rising even in babies under a year old, and with that age group you can't blame obesity on Big Macs, sedentary lifestyle or any other "personal responsibility" factors. I don't say personal choice is irrelevant to obesity, but there has also been a change in the composition of the food itself which is at least contributing to the problem if the author and the studies he cites are to be believed.