The obesity epidemic

[razztazz]

People who have difficulty with their weight need our help and support, not our criticism

All well and good. And true!  But one must concede that you can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink it. All the help and compassion and support and "intervention" in the world will not work unless said flabby guy wants to loose the weight. There are none so blind as those who will not see. (Which is not actually in The Bible, but here it fits)

 

[Gumby]

..

 

[wabmester]

Yes, cigarette consumption fell off directly with price increases, and probably a million kids never picked up the habit due to price disincentives.

I would expect the effect to be even higher for a tax on sugary snacks and drinks, since we can effectively use prices to divert kids (and adults) away from those foods and towards more healthy and less fattening foods.

 

[mathjak107]

I wasn't talking about the people who don't even try. Of those who sucessfully lose weight, 95% of them gain it all back. So, you're right. It's not easy. Just about everybody who tries to change their behavior fails.

So, why not try something that actually has a chance of working?

They fail because they dont commit to the program most of the time. It takes disipline and a strict routine for life. Most people talk a good game , but wont do whats required long term and then look to blame as many other factors as they can.

Loosing weight is easy ,keeping it off is tough.

First off exercise alone will help maintain your weight but not loose weight . All exercise does is increase your appetite and you naturally eat more.

Only calorie restrictions will loose weight, it takes both cardio ,weight training and an eating plan together. As i said before diet without heavy duty weight training only destroys calorie burning muscle as muscle is burned with the fat,leaving ones metbolisium slower and slower with each diet they try hense the weight gain. EACH CYCLE ADDS MORE AND MORE WEIGHT THAN BEFORE.

Heres the trick to dietiing, DIETS DONT WORK. LONG TERM let me explain:

We cant tell ourselves today im going to only breath half a lung of air and you cant tell your self for very long today im going to eat half a stomach of food. Hunger is a very real pain to the body. We need to feel full or long term our own bodies will cause us to fail.

Since right off the bat any diet that restricts the volume of food will most likely fail so the trick is dont diet. Get an eating plan that will keep you full but low in calorie. The best way is a low fat even high carb diet. YEP HIGH CARB.

As an example you can eat 20 baked potatoes for 2,000 calories, the volume of food would choke you. Now you wouldnt eat 20 potatoes but you trade for like calorie foods. Try eating foods with no more than 3 grms of fat and around 100 caloroies a serving or so. I bet the volume keeps you full and happy and the pounds will come off. I Lost 40lbs 6 years ago eating like a pig and havent gained any back. Its basically a healthy eating plan,not a diet . I train quite a few family members and friends and all were successful for years at keeping the weight off.

I intend to be a personel trainer hopefully by next year and you bet my clients will follow this routine

 

[mathjak107]

Heres another little sweetner my clients will get once they are underway with their new lifestyle and ill tell ya all what it is but sshhhhhhhhhh dont tell anyone else:

Its a popular eating plan with most gym rats, its called the zig zag plan.

It works based on the idea that for example a thanksgiving dinner can average 6-8,000 calories. By the next morning we all should weigh 2 lbs more but the fact is we dont. Research has shown we dont because when hit with an unusual amount of calories the body is really unable to metabolize them all and most are excreeded, but dont let your body get used to dealing with that amount ooooh it will store them then very nicely.

SOOOOOOOO FOR 6 DAYS A WEEK STAY ON THE EATING PLAN IN MY POST ABOVE AND 1 DAY A WEEK ,YEP YOU GIT IT,ANYTHING GOES.

Yep pizza,beer donuts, dosnt matter ,enjoy yourself. If you follow the exercise and diet plan you deserve it,you need it and most important your not feeling deprived. Although i havent officially became a trainer for years now i have been helping friends and relatives put a plan together and in every case the 1 day binge isnt a blip on the radar for them.

I CAUTION YOU , the exercise routines you need to do are tough,they arent just going thru the motions like i see most people do so they can say they go to a gym. MUSCLE MUST BE BUILT . You need more calorie burning muscle so even when sleeping you burning more calories. Fat is inert and needs next to no calories to sustain it, its muscle that causes calories to burn. Every routine must be done to the point of the muscle freezing so by the 10th rep you cant move an inch, you need to zap all the strength from the muscle. At that point a chemical is secreted ( i cant spell it its so long) that tells the muscle to grow and grow it will.

hope the above tips help.

 

[mathjak107]

Maybe i should do an info- mercial ha ha ha ...

all i have to do is show my skinny clients eating donuts and pies on their off day.. ha ha ha

 

[lets-retire]

Gumby--I only recall one post where someone took a shot at obese people. That person was quickly slapped down. the rest seem to be either for a social program or personal responsibility. As I have stated before no amount of social program is going to help a person who doesn't want to be helped. They have to decide to change their behavior.

I think the world is about to end, I agree with mathjak. The hard part about having a cheat day is not letting it become everyday, but that one day is needed. But it is a great motivator if used as a reward. Be good all week and on Saturday you can eat anything.


I do think the schools need to reevaluate their food service, as well as other important issues. The last school my son went to allowed the students to choose anything on the menu to eat. So as can be expected most of the kids chose only the sugar filled foods. All the kids were allowed to do this, from K-5 grade. My kid had pop tarts for a week, even after eating breakfast at home before we were notified. The only reason we were told is he ran out of money in his cafeteria account. Gone are the days when school lunches are a balanced meal.

 

[maddythebeagle]

Yes, cigarette consumption fell off directly with price increases, and probably a million kids never picked up the habit due to price disincentives.

I would expect the effect to be even higher for a tax on sugary snacks and drinks, since we can effectively use prices to divert kids (and adults) away from those foods and towards more healthy and less fattening foods.

You and your fat tax …..Hmmm, your chart seems to indicate that in the early 70s, something happened to make cigarette consumption go down and continue to go down….but it wasn’t until the early 80s that a long series of price increases started to happen on cigarettes. You would think that there should have been a dramatic drop in cigarette usage as a result, but looks like a continued trend from something else….


The Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-92) required that the warning "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health" be placed in small print on one of the side panels of each cigarette package. The act prohibited additional labeling requirements at the federal, state, or local levels.
• In June 1967 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its first report to Congress recommending that the warning label be changed to "Warning: Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Health and May Cause Death from Cancer and Other Diseases."
• In 1969 Congress passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act (Public Law 91-222), which prohibited cigarette advertising on television and radio and required that each cigarette package contain the label "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health."

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/factsheets/factsheet_labels.htm

Taxes on cigarettes are nothing more than a tax on the poor.... It's funny when politicians want to do something and looking for funds, they say, let's tax cigarettes....

 

[wabmester]

but looks like a continued trend from something else….

Yes, obviously there were other policy decisions that affected smoking, but price does have a direct effect on consumption. Here are a couple of graphs that show how both increases and decreases impacted smokers:

Taxes on cigarettes are nothing more than a tax on the poor....

Well, they have the biggest hit on poor smokers, not the poor in general. And a fat tax would have the biggest hit on poor eaters. Guess which segment of our population is the most obese? Yup, the poor. But use the tax to subsidize healthier foods, and the economic impact should be net zero.

I'm not saying a tax is the only thing we should do, but if the alternative is to force everybody to listen to mathjak infomercials, which do you think would be more effective?

 

[mathjak107]

Every year 100,000 people die from smoking so what does our government do?

THEY BAN ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER BECAUSE A RAT DIED!

 

[Caroline]

For those who are Christian, this reminder may help. If you are not, please feel free to ignore it.

Well... I no longer consider myself a practicing Christian, but... I welcome quotes from any source that argues in favor or compassion and of looking to one's own improvement instead of criticizing others.

 

[FinanceDude]

My story:

I ran cross country and track in high school and college. I probably ran 200 road races and I ran 5 marathons in a 13 year period............then for some reason I quit running.

Part of it was I had far exceeded all the goals I set for myself, and the personal bests were all so good I felt I couldn't beat them. For me, running was about against the clock, and when I "took the clock away" it became boring............

So I haven't run seriously in awhile, and don't really want to. I had a physical today and my doctor said everything was fine except my triglycerides. Perhaps I have my new motivation................STAYING ALIVE!!!

 

[lets-retire]

That'll do it.

 

[sgeeeee]

Isn't that something? Usually threads go to hell in a hand basket by the 3rd page.

Or even the 3rd post.

 

[sgeeeee]

Yes, cigarette consumption fell off directly with price increases, and probably a million kids never picked up the habit due to price disincentives.


I would expect the effect to be even higher for a tax on sugary snacks and drinks, since we can effectively use prices to divert kids (and adults) away from those foods and towards more healthy and less fattening foods.

It is a serious mistake to confuse correlation with cause and effect. A decreasing social acceptance and perception of smoking may have had a lot more to do with declining smoking rates than taxes.

 

[wabmester]

It is a serious mistake to confuse correlation with cause and effect. A decreasing social acceptance and perception of smoking may have had a lot more to do with declining smoking rates than taxes.

Or maybe it was the warning labels.

I think fat people already have to live with the social stigma, health issues, etc. Yet we still have a growing obesity epidemic. We could do worse than apply basic economic principles to the problem.

 

[dmpi]

We could do worse than apply basic economic principles to the problem.

Low income people have a larger obesity problem than the middle class. Basic economic principles don't apply here.

 

[wabmester]

Low income people have a larger obesity problem than the middle class. Basic economic principles don't apply here.

Sure they do! Sugary processed food is cheap. Fruit is expensive. Which is more appealing to po' folk?

And here's a more controversial thought. One of the biggest factors in success (and wealth) is the ability to delay gratification. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that poor people might be less likely to delay gratification and focus on long-term health goals. And they're more likely to focus on the short-term gratification of eating.

Bottom-line: we've done nothing to address the problem so far. Try something. If a tax doesn't work, repeal the tax and try something else.

 

[jeff2006]

Try something. If a tax doesn't work, repeal the tax and try something else.

Try this: each two-bit expert learns to mind his own business.

 

[wabmester]

Try this: each two-bit expert learns to mind his own business.

Jeffy, the depth of your intellect is exceeded only by the richness of your expression.

 

[azanon]

..

So holding someone accountable about unhealthy lifestyles in an anonymous forum using general statements constitutes "unwarranted pride" and "taking cheap shots". That's interesting.

Placating people and telling them that they're loved anyway results in them doing 2 things about the problem; jack and squat.

I realize sympathy has its place, but rarely does it solve problems

Azanon

 

[mathjak107]

I have no problem with anyone with a lack of will power. Heck when it comes to certain things we all probley have a lack of will power at something.

I do have a problem with someone who has no will power and looks to blame every thing and anything they can for their problems or go thru the motions of attempting to take some action but thats all it is ,its going thru the motions.

Then they will whine how they tried soooooooo hard and see nothing works.

 

[sgeeeee]

Or maybe it was the warning labels.

I think fat people already have to live with the social stigma, health issues, etc. Yet we still have a growing obesity epidemic. We could do worse than apply basic economic principles to the problem.

Yes, but that misses the point. I don't necessarily disagre with the idea of applying basic economic principles to the obesity problem. It may help. I am not against using both positive and negative economic approaches (ie. tax incentives for losing weight and higher cost on unhealthy, fattening food). But it is still a mistake to look at the correlations between tobacco costs and smoking and assume that cost is the cause of that observed effect. There were a lot of things going on during that timeframe. Hollywood went from glamorizing to demonizing smoking. Stop smoking campaigns swept across the country. Lots of money was spent educating people about the dangers. Major profile lawsuits were taken up against the tobacco companies and some of those companies were involved in scandals. Even those warning labels may have had some effect. Even with all that for several decades, some people still smoke.

It seems to me that obesity may be even tougher to diminish. It probably makes sense to apply every weapon we can in the battle against obesity. For most people, smoking is not immediately pleasurable the first time. It takes awhile to be able to inhale smoke without choking. The same is not true for food. Smoking is not required to live -- not even a little smoking is required. We all have to eat. We can pass rules and regulations to outlaw smoking in restaurants and public places, but we can't outlaw eating in restaurants. In the case of smoking, we can treat any smoking as bad or too much. Eating is very different. All tobacco brands can be treated as unhealthy, but some foods in some amounts are not only healthy, but required.

 

[Nords]

But it is still a mistake to look at the correlations between tobacco costs and smoking and assume that cost is the cause of that observed effect.

Sin taxes have become very popular from this belief, and a lot of taxing authorities have been imposing them in many places over a number of years on a bunch of sinful substances.

While I agree that correlation doesn't imply causality on the first occurrence, I wonder how many times or how many different places it needs to occur for statisticians to be convinced that there is causality. We already know that politicians are convinced on the first attempt!

 

[Gumby]

..