Fat studies?

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Women were treated as useless beings since the beginning of time until Emancipation. FACT.
Fat people were treated as useless beings that were eaten alive during famine, while today they´re actually trying to convince us that being fat is something you should live with, instead of practising a little and stop whining about it. FACT.

Actually being fat was something that was pretty rare in many places until very recently and was often a sign of health.
For example, if you had to do heavy work, somebody moderatly fat is usually much stronger then a toothpick like me.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
For the most part people who are fat get that way through laziness and poor diet. That's why most people pre-judge fat people as lazy and gluttonous. There's no need to study it, the answer is obvious.

Even if we accept that it is laziness and poor diet, understanding why people end up that way, and how to avoid it, solves the problem. Don't address symptoms, look for the root causes and address those directly.

Calling people fat and lazy and telling them that diet and exercise will solve the problem obviously hasn't been the solution you seem to think it is.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Spiffor
1. To make the mentalities change, so that people who eat junk food are seen as suckers. Even though it's bad, the massive anti-fat prejudice I'm seeing here might help about that.

The anti-fat prejudice has existed throughout the course of obesity becoming such a problem. Our society is about as superficial as possibly can be. If judging people on their appearance were the cure, we'd have solved it easily many times over by now.

I'd expect the reason your conclusion differs from what reality has shown is that you are ignoring the self-esteem factor of the equation. There may be other reasons as well, but it is obvious that demeaning overweight people has not effected a solution to the problem.

I think that it would be important in this regard to the action and not the person.

2. To regulate the junk food market as any other market that poses a health hazard (tobacco, alcohol, drugs). You can regulate what kind of crap is allowed in processed food and what isn't. You can regulate advertisement. You can actually teach children how to eat properly during the school lunch. You can put the soft-drink drinking age at 21 Things like that.

This is a good point. But how do you regulate it in a manner which will be acceptable to the public? How do you target it to be most effective?

While on an abstract level it's easy to say we should convince people/government to promote a more healthy lifestyle... the devil is the details. It's by studying the dynamics involved that will allow us to make the proper decisions.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


Even if we accept that it is laziness and poor diet, understanding why people end up that way, and how to avoid it, solves the problem. Don't address symptoms, look for the root causes and address those directly.

Calling people fat and lazy and telling them that diet and exercise will solve the problem obviously hasn't been the solution you seem to think it is.

Where exactly did I say it was a solution?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Aeson
I'd expect the reason your conclusion differs from what reality has shown is that you are ignoring the self-esteem factor of the equation. There may be other reasons as well, but it is obvious that demeaning overweight people has not effected a solution to the problem.

True. The only obese person I know well (my father) has absolutely no problem with self-esteem.

This is a good point. But how do you regulate it in a manner which will be acceptable to the public? How do you target it to be most effective?

While on an abstract level it's easy to say we should convince people/government to promote a more healthy lifestyle... the devil is the details. It's by studying the dynamics involved that will allow us to make the proper decisions.

Really, it's a matter of political choice. If you can't affect the mentalities so that people get a healthy lifestyle by themselves, AND if you want to fight against obesity on a societal level, then you need policies that go radically against the American obsession with small government.

In Europe, in order to curb the consumption of tobacco, we did the folliwing. And I don't think we needed full-fledged university majors to do that:
- Increased taxes on tobacco, so that it becomes atrociously expansive
- Tax-funded programmes to help people quit
- Regulation or outright ban on advertisement
- Teaching about healthy lifestyles from a young age on

The problem isn't solved, as many teens still start smoking. However, more people quit during their life, thus alleviating the health problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outright against people doing research into the social reasons for obesity, and which social measures we should take to curb the problem. However, I think it is fully absurd to specialize students in such a restricted field. And if women studies are anything to go by, this major will be here for fat people to feel good about their condition, instead of trying to look on how to solve this public and individual health problem.

[Sandman]

It's by studying the dynamics involved that will allow us to make the proper decisions.

That's nice. 'Fat studies' will fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, in your war against fat people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

True. The only obese person I know well (my father) has absolutely no problem with self-esteem.

This is a good point. But how do you regulate it in a manner which will be acceptable to the public? How do you target it to be most effective?

While on an abstract level it's easy to say we should convince people/government to promote a more healthy lifestyle... the devil is the details. It's by studying the dynamics involved that will allow us to make the proper decisions.

Really, it's a matter of political choice. If you can't affect the mentalities so that people get a healthy lifestyle by themselves, AND if you want to fight against obesity on a societal level, then you need policies that go radically against the American obsession with small government.

In Europe, in order to curb the consumption of tobacco, we did the folliwing. And I don't think we needed full-fledged university majors to do that:
- Increased taxes on tobacco, so that it becomes atrociously expansive
- Tax-funded programmes to help people quit
- Regulation or outright ban on advertisement
- Teaching about healthy lifestyles from a young age on

The problem isn't solved, as many teens still start smoking. However, more people quit during their life, thus alleviating the health problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not outright against people doing research into the social reasons for obesity, and which social measures we should take to curb the problem. However, I think it is fully absurd to specialize students in such a restricted field. And if women studies are anything to go by, this major will be here for fat people to feel good about their condition, instead of trying to look on how to solve this public and individual health problem.

Er spiff, the difference is that tobacco is essentially a poison, and that it harms any users health, even those who dont end up with a disease from it.

How are you going to apply that to foods? You dont want folks to eat potato chips, say. So what, you tax potatos? Or only when theyre fried? So how about ordinary fried potatos? All fried foods? Do you tax vegetable oil? Olive oil?

Fat, unlike tobacco, is a normal component of a healthy diet, consumed in moderation. You CANT discourage it like you would tobacco.

Oh, and BTW, smoking was on the decline here long before it was over there, is my strong impression.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Is this the point at which we come up with a derogatory term to describe people who are disgusted with gluttony? How does 'fatist' sound? Or perhaps 'anti-cellulite'?

Sandman hit the nail on the head. This is just a new exalted victim category being marketed to politically correct hand-wringers. How wonderful for them that they have a new reason to flaunt their compassion and moral superiority.

I expected no better from the supremo racist around here...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You can regulate what kind of crap is allowed in processed food and what isn't.

whats the crap. You can ban or regulate all kinds of additives, but the additives arent what creates the obesity. Its good, normal, products, like salt, oil, shortening (hell, they hardly even use shortening (hydrogenated fats) much here anymore in comm junk foods. Is soybean oil "crap"? Corn oil? Why those, and not, say, a nice Brie? Or a Sheeps milk feta?

[Jon Miller]

You can just look at the food you buy.

If you want, you can keep a lot of the crap out of your diet. For fresh stuff (which you need anyway) you do have to spend a little more though..

The key point, like in most of life, is to not be lazy.

JM

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I expected no better from the supremo racist around here...

Oink oink.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Er spiff, the difference is that tobacco is essentially a poison, and that it harms any users health, even those who dont end up with a disease from it.

How are you going to apply that to foods? You dont want folks to eat potato chips, say. So what, you tax potatos? Or only when theyre fried? So how about ordinary fried potatos? All fried foods? Do you tax vegetable oil? Olive oil?

You could put a tax on supermarket-sold fries, for starters.
You could also give an official "stamp" to restaurants and fast-food joints that do not sell excessively fatty food. This stamp would mean that they don't have to pay as much sales tax on their products than the non-stamped restaurants (the procedure to gain or lose the label would be similar to pretty much any other activity that can obtain or lose an official label).

Generally speaking, for processed food products available in supermarkets, you could have a specific stamp. All products that don't match the dietary requirements for their category (excessive fat is one component, but not the only one - excessive salt is also a matter of concern) don't get the stamp. The sales tax would be significantly higher.

Before you worry about how gigantic such an effort would be, we already have such an omnipresent "stamp" over here, which is the "Green Point". It shows that the consumer good is recycle-able. When a company wants to market a consumer product, it will often contact the organization that manages the Green Point, in order to get certified. It costs some. But after that, it's official. The Green Point is something you'll find on almost every package in a French or German supermarket (don't know if it's generalized in the rest of Europe)

Fat, unlike tobacco, is a normal component of a healthy diet, consumed in moderation. You CANT discourage it like you would tobacco.

Oh, and BTW, smoking was on the decline here long before it was over there, is my strong impression.

Fat by itself is a normal component of a healthy diet. But it's overwhelmingly present in processed foods. Taxing ordinary food components, for people to cook with, would be pretty much useless, as it's impossible to know how healthy the cooking will be. However, it's very possible to tax a processed product that's unhealthy, because we know full well the dietary qualities of a standardized processed product.

BTW, I wouldn't be against strongly taxing sodas. Along with alcohol, they play a very important role in obesity.


Edit: as to tobacco: the US is often in advance on Europe on such things. Tobacco was terrible in the US before it was terrible in Europe, and you found your solutions (pretty harsh ones at that) before us. I trust it will be the same for obesity: obesity has been a plague in the US for decades, whereas it really started to kick off in Europe 10 or 15 years ago. I expect you to find a solution before us on that point as well.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You can just look at the food you buy.

If you want, you can keep a lot of the crap out of your diet. For fresh stuff (which you need anyway) you do have to spend a little more though..

The key point, like in most of life, is to not be lazy.

JM

I understand what one can do PERSONALLY. Pay attention to total caloric intake, fat as percent of calories, amounts of different kinds of fat, need for veggies and whole grains, etc. I was challenging Spiffs belief that the govt can define crap in food, and use that as a basis of regulation as for tobacco and alcohol. Im not saying that they cant, but its MUCH more complicated. Again, its different addressing say school lunch programs, where youre looking at entire meal, and regulating individual items. If im having a bag of chips with my tofu-greens on whole wheat sandwich, why should i pay the same tax as the guy having his bag of chips with his pastrami on rye, or the woman over there whos ONLY eating potato chips?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by BeBro
I was under the impression that in a free society there's also freedom of science/research/study. Then the "there's no need for this and that" is pretty subjective.....if people want to study that, it's primarily their thing.....funding is a point though.....

That's pretty much it. Mock it if you will... and others will mock, say, Art History, etc.

Obesity is a real problem, and one that is not being fixed by yelling "eat less, excercise more!" at people who are obese. That part has gotten fairly obvious, and it's not enough. Whether or not you think it *should* be enough isn't really particularly useful.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

If the supermarkets round here are any indication, you could always curb the prevalance of junk food special offers.

The smaller, local supermarkets used by poorer people often have a perfunctory fresh food section that's dwarfed by the crisp section alone - and there's always special offers on the junk. Large supermarkets preferred by the middle classes usually have a fuller fresh section with more special offers. And they're cheaper, too.