<p>“Our larger disagreement is your insistence that it’s a purely personal issue, not societal”</p>
<p>Where did I insist that it wasn’t societal? On the contrary, I railed about sidewalk-less subdivisions where you can’t even get a newspaper without a car. Huge portion sizes play a role, too. The ready availability of empty calories plays a role. The ever-increasing variety of TV, video-game, and computer entertainment plays a role. But all these changes are shaped by consumer preferences just as they shape consumer preferences. They became prevalent because people like them so much…and now we are so surrounded by temptations that it’s ever more difficult to make good choices.</p>
<p>Rather, I’ve been arguing against two ideas: (1) that middle-class people are so imprisoned by these societal factors that they can’t make healthy changes in their lifestyles and (2) that HFCS is some kind of poison dart that hits us and makes us fat despite all our other good choices. People who take their cars to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail and eat standard Bennigan’s portions every day are going to get fatter and fatter even if HFCS had never been invented. That’s how a huge number of Americans live today.</p>
<p>“How many SEVERELY obese people you know were able to maintain their weight loss over long time period?”</p>
<p>Without professional intervention, very few, but that doesn’t mean that they were doomed to become SEVERELY obese if they’d adopted good habits in the first place. Severe obesity is very difficult to cure, but it is quite easy to prevent (rather like heroin addiction). If you eat nutritious food in moderation and get reasonable exercise – choices that are available to every middle-class American – you are extremely unlikely to become severely obese.</p>
<p>Metabolic theory does no contradict with the previous posts – it explains them:</p>
<p>Are people with disrupted metabolism genetically predisposed to obesity? – yes!</p>
<p>Can these people control obesity by adjusting environmental factors? – yes!</p>
<p>Can obese people with disrupted metabolism loose weight by exercise and diet? – absolutely yes!</p>
<p>Can diet and exercise prevent obesity in these people? – absolutely yes!</p>
<p>Does this take much more effort from these people to maintain a strict diet? – absolutely yes! In addition, they must exercise and diet much more vigorously then the average person. Moreover, it is much more difficult for them to sustain weight loss because their biological body weight “set point” is higher then “normal”. </p>
<p>Is this fare to have the same expectations for these people as for an average healthy person? – absolutely no!</p>
<p>If you read all posts on this thread, you won’t find a single post conflicting with these statements.</p>
<p>It essentially summarizes some of my previous posts and does not contradict with the main message of the article saying that the environment affects body weights. However, if genetic weight range of the person is 270-300 pounds, this person would easily maintain 270 pounds through diet / exercise, but would experience great difficulties loosing any additional weight.</p>
<p>Clearly, there are genetic, social, and environmental factors which affect an individual’s propensity towards obesity. The same can be said for alcohol and drug use and abuse and for smoking. As a society, we come down very hard on illegal drug use, we heavily tax alcohol and tobacco products. The healthcare costs associated with obesity are many tens of billions/year. It is only fair that we tax obesity. Maybe a few thousand dollars/year extra Medicare/Medicaid taxes would be fair. The very thought of an annual weigh-in might help some individuals focus attention on their eating habits.</p>
<p>edad: the government put “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes. Such taxes would make more sense than taxing individuals. For example, how about a junk food tax? You could call it the Twinkie Tax…</p>
<p>Wrong about the the fresh fruits. Most have minimal nutritional value. The highest tax rate should probably go on the worse poisons: soda and fruit juices, all sugar products and those containing high fructose corn syrup. </p>
<p>I still think the best approach would be to tax excess body fat. Virtually any food consummed in excess is harmful.</p>
<p>“Wrong about the the fresh fruits. Most have minimal nutritional value.”</p>
<p>That is not true.
You may be confusing the actual nutritional value of fruits with the nutritional value of processed fruit juices. Fresh squeezed juices also have many vitamins and minerals, and can have fiber if not processed.</p>
<p>Fruits themselves:
“are the natural and staple food of man. They are excellent sources of minerals, vitamins and enzymes. They are easily digested and exercise a cleansing effect on the blood and the digestive tract.” (from 1st website below.) </p>
<p>Fresh fruits also have hundreds of micro-nutrients and flavanoids that scientists have not even begun to discover/measure. You cannot base healthy eating on RDA vitamins alone. There are thousands of chemicals in fruits and vegetables that may be beneficial or even required, aside from the ordinary Vitamins C, A, E, etc…</p>
<p>I admit to a bit of overemphasis. I agree fruits, especially citrus fruits, are a valuable component of a healthy diet. Unfortunately, many people think that replacing sodas with fruit drinks is healthy. Check out the labelling on a bottle of 100% fruit juice and you will find the nutrition is almost entirely limited to sugars. Whole fruits are obviously much better because of the fiber content. Check out the nutritional analysis for the common apple and you will have to agree that the nutritional value is about the same as eating a piece of paper with sugar on it: <a href=“SELF Magazine: Women's Workouts, Health Advice & Beauty Tips | SELF”>SELF Magazine: Women's Workouts, Health Advice & Beauty Tips | SELF;
<p>A good diet should include a variety of foods of different types. This means it is virtually impossible to define or tax junk food. The main problem with obesity is overeating, not the nutritional value of the food. Obesity is very undesirable and very expensive. If we think it is fair to recover some of society’s costs due to the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco, we should consider the same for obesity. The harmful effects associated with excess body weight are not limited to the grossly obese 400+ pound individuals. Harmful effects are clearly associated with much more modest obesity and even a 10-20% body fat amount is very harmful.</p>
<p>10% may be pushing it, atleast don’t say it’s “very harmful”. Normal BMI for males i considered anything below 14-15%…for females it more around 17-18%</p>
<p>I disagree with the bit about the apple. Natural sugars that are found in apples are quite different than regular processed sugar, normally found in fruit drinks like you said. Plus the whole point with eating an apple when trying to eat healthy is for the moisture content…it fills you up so you don’t overeat.</p>
<p>The nutritional value of food that people overeat is certainly a component of obesity. Sure, people COULD obstensibly get fat eating piles of shrimp or carrots (well, not easily), but the more likely culprits of obesity are high fat/high sugar foods. While there are foods that epicurians favor that are high in fat, most sauce laden foods are going out of favor anyway. </p>
<p>I’d say there is an easy and direct correlation between the kinds of foods that people overeat, and the extent of their obesity.</p>
<p>“Natural” sugars in an apple are not different than the processed sugars. Much of the sugar in an apple is plain glucose. The other sugars - sucrose and fructose - are also not somehow different. These are chemical compounds and identical, regardless of the source. These simple sugars are digested and metabolized very quickly. </p>
<p>There is some debate about the value of complex carbohydrates. Carbs are digested and broken down into sugars, but the delay in digestion - although minimal - is beneficial because the sugars are released and metabolized at a slower rate.</p>
<p>“…likely culprits of obesity are high fat/high sugar foods.” Include proteins and carbs and you have covered all the sources of energy. The culprit is excess caloric intake often associated with a low level of exercise.</p>
<p>Quote: “Normal BMI for males i considered anything below 14-15%…for females it more around 17-18%.”</p>
<p>Below is the information from the NIH BMI website. You are in the underweight range above. </p>
<p>What is Your Risk?
Body Mass Index (BMI)</p>
<p>BMI is a reliable indicator of total body fat, which is related to the risk of disease and death. The score is valid for both men and women but it does have some limits. The limits are:</p>
<pre><code>* It may overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.
It may underestimate body fat in older persons and others who have lost muscle mass.
</code></pre>
<p>Use the BMI calculator or tables to estimate your total body fat. The BMI score means the following:
BMI
Underweight Below 18.5
Normal 18.5 - 24.9
Overweight 25.0 - 29.9
Obesity 30.0 and Above</p>
I know I stumbled on a scholarship like that.</p>