Osler's Razor

Aaaaactually, if you'll look at some of the studies out there, it's not necessarily fat/weight that's the problem. A lot of the "obesity" scare comes from an industry dedicated to convincing people that they need to buy sets of products that they make, like diet books, diet drugs, diet foods, etc.

Much of one's weight/body shape is going to be determined by genetics than by diet and exercise habits. As long as one's indicia of health like cholesterol level are acceptable, blood pressure in range, etc., one is more or less "healthy" whether one fits the antiquated BMI scales drawn up by actuaries over half a century ago, when people's general body sizes were much smaller.

That aside, the diet in most industrialized Western nations is too high in proteins, refined foods, and our lifestyle too sedentary. We need a more balanced diet and more exercise.

About the only government regulation that would make sense would be to regulate the production of food products again to prevent things like the McDonald's excesses of the 80s and 90s, when there wasn't much unaltered, unprocessed "food" in their menu items. I'm happy to report that even McD's has been updating their menu to include more natural or whole foods, though they're still not the best by a long shot. And there's really no way to use the force of the law to get people to exercise. Still, cutting out things like government subsidies for domestic corn growers would do a lot to eliminating unhealthy things like high-fructose corn syrup from our diets.

Imagine, folks -- we could go back to a day when Dublin Dr. Pepper was the norm, and not some speciality thing that can be bought only at certain stores.
 

Wow! I agreed wholeheartedly with Lane for three paragraphs!!! I am growing as a person (no pun intended).

In all seriousness, speaking as a fat person, this really is an issue of personal responsibility. Keep the government out of regulating trans fats and corn syrups. Caveat Emptor.

An Aside: one big problem with public health care is that it suddenly becomes the business of the government how many hamburgers I eat.
 

I agree with most of the points made here. And will go out on a limb with this thought: I tend to think that there should be a year service requirement after highschool much like in other countries. It could be facilitated through the military or service oriented programs like habitat. One of the reasons I think a program like that is beneficial is because it would force many into better eating habits and physical exercise at a time when their habits are programed. Rather than the freshman 15, you'd get a healthier population ready to help defend our country and one ready to serve.

Could it be that mandatory bootcamps help to keep excesses in check in other countries?

Obviously there are lots of other issues with an idea like that, but I'm just pointing out the possible health benefits.
 

I like that idea, Dallas ADA, of a year of service (not military service) after high school. Lots of other countries have it.

There are all kinds of reasons for obesity: poverty and the fact that the worst food is often the cheapest food; the reasons Lane lists, too. Genetics plays a big role; the medications people take, such as antidepressants, can cause weight gain, too.

And see "Supersize Me" for documentation of things like increased portion sizes and the effects of fast food.
 

Part of it, I propose, is historical.

A large part of the continental US is made up of cities and communities which arose after the automobile. The cities were built to suit cars, and no one walks anywhere.

Most of Europe, and cities on the US east coast pre-date cars. Cars had to adapt to the cities, and are often a liability or pain in the neck, so it's easier to walk place to place.

I don't have time to fancy this up, but you get the drift of my hypothesis.
 

Dallas ADA--

I am with you 100% on the year of service. I think it would do a lot of good in focusing college freshmen, too!
 

I associate myself with the national service remarks.
 

I love the year of service requirement idea. Not only would it create a thinner population, but imagine the good it could do to have all those young people out there doing something other than drinking a year out of high school.

I think a lot of the problem is that the worst foods are the cheapest and easiest to prepare. When you're living on a very limited budget and/or very busy (or both, like most students and single moms), heading through the Whataburger drive through or grabbing a box of Hamburger Helper might make more sense than preparing a fresh salad for your family at the end of the day. I don't know how to fix that problem.
 

ok - I thought this was about being fat or overweight? Year of Service - great - but the topic is FAT and health.
This only works if the Year of Service teaches people how to eat balanced meals. Do you remember your appetit at age 18 and 19? Our bodies knew how to burns thousands of calories just on general principle. The freshamn 15 was about making bad food choices due to peer pressure.

And goverment regulation of transfats and sugar is not the answer. We should mandate that people cook a meal 2 or 3 times a week and 'sit' at the dinner table for at least 30 minutes. People need to slow down when they eat. When you sit down and eat dinner with people you tend to eat more slowly as you are partaking in conversation. When you eat more slowly your body is not ovewhelmed with the onslaught of food and can work properly. And one also tends to 'feel' full while eating less food.

For those with kids another bad habit forms - eating the food the kids left on their plates - more calories for Mom & Dad. How about not putting so much food on their plates? If they are still hungry - then serve them seconds.

Desserts and ice creams should be for special occassions and not nightly rituals. Once dinner is over at our house the kitchen is closed. No we don't have kids so this is easier for us.

We are not fat and we are not thin. We LOVE food and flavors. I dare say you all would have enjoyed dinner at our house tonight. It was really flavorful!

Bon Appetit
 

"We should mandate that people cook a meal 2 or 3 times a week and 'sit' at the dinner table for at least 30 minutes."

Christine - I normally find you to be fairly reasonable. So, surely you don't actually want the government in the position of dictating how you eat, when you eat, what position you're in when you eat, who you are with when you eat, and where you eat dinner.
 

Regulating the use of trans fats, etc. in food is the wrong way to go about it. Manufacturers don't choose to use HFCS, trans fats, processed this, processed that because it tastes better, but because it cuts out overhead and stretches supplies... but it's not necessarily any cheaper to produce, it's just cheaper because of the subsidy and tariff system that's in place which favors large-scale agri-business farms over the smaller farm.

And on this one, I have to say that farmers know their business better than business knows farming. The push toward corporatizing farming was spurred in part by the awful idea of the "Tragedy of the Commons," though historically, farmers and farming communities have been very good about self-regulation and sustainability because when farming is your livelihood, you tend to learn things that "work" faster than things that maximize the profits of some guys sitting in a boardroom a thousand miles away.

A locally-planned set of farming co-ops is much preferred to modern agri-business, and would result in more nutritious products being the more cost-effective for manufacturers to use. Cut out the processed junk and eat more real food and the tendency to do things like overeat is lessened.

Of course there will still be "fat" people: as long as people aren't starved, there are "fat" people. The association of "fat" with "bad" has to go away, just like "fat" and "unhealthy."
 

Not sure at all how much a year of service would actually encourage "thinner" young adults. As mentioned before, eighteen and nineteen year olds strapped for cash no matter what they are doing (i.e., studying at university, volunteering at a shelter or day care center) are going to consume the cheapest foods available...boxed macaroni and cheese, cheap beer, fast food, etc. Even those not on a
"stuff all you can in your face" meal plan at a university cafeteria are still going to hit the high fat and cheap convenience foods, as we have raised a generation of eighteen year-olds who really have virtually no cooking skills. A lack of cooking skills is probably more conducive to not eating healthy meals than living in a university.

Also, having lived abroad in Europe and Latin America at various periods over the past thirty years, and based on my own observations and health reports coming from this countries, obesity is no longer just an American problem. Has anyone been to England lately, and seen the number of overweight people there? Their obesity level is fast approaching American levels. Even the French have seen obesity levels double in the past twenty years...and you will see similar figures in many developing economies,ironically .
So even a common "gap year" like they have in England, Australia, etc., will not necessarily lead to a thinner population of young people.
 

RRL - you are right - 'mandate' was the wrong choice of words. In fact it is as ridiculous as the govt enacting laws or ordinances that restaurants include calorie counts and info about trans-fats, etc...

The point is that many people are overweight or fat because they eat too quickly and if they sat at a table ~ any table, anywhere, alone or with others ~ their food would taste better and I predict they would eat less.

And despite all good intentions and best efforts there will still be fat / overweight people as some people take medications, make bad choices or the only choices they can afford and some people eat due to psychological issues.
 

And I agree with Anon 2:58

People either don't know how to cook, don't want to take the time to cook or are afraid to cook.
 

The idea behind my service year plan would of course have to be based on some sort of physical activity for it to have bearing on the population and the associated waist line.
And yes, I would include a military requirement as the de facto service. I suspect while this would cause many to howl at my idea it would atleast do much to lower the numbers of obese and overweight 17-19 yr olds as they would be going through boot camp at the time.
Obviously many would get fat soon after, but I think that we can reasonably expect many to keep some of the good habits they would learn over the course of a year that involves lots of good eating and physical activity.
Otherwise, I would include a service requirement that involved actual physical work. As I mentioned, Habitat would be a good example. I mentioned it because I've had experience with the builds and know how tiring, yet satisfying, those builds are.

The other benefit is that Americans today, might be able to learn a bit about hard work when they might not otherwise.

And yes I'm sure there would be exceptions for health etc. and many would abuse the system, but it's a start!
 

I agree with Lane but think we should go a step further on two fronts.

1) LABELING. I can choose to smoke as long as the people selling me the cigarettes label it as addictive poison and allow me to make an informed choice. I believe ALL chain restaurants (Say, more than 5 locations so as not to add undue burden to a mom & pop) should be required to label each menu item with calories/fat/protein/carb so consumers can make an informed choice. Yes, things vary on a "hand prepared" meal, but they should include an approximation so consumers can make an informed decision. (A lot of menu items look healthy only to find out the green beans are bathed in bacon fat, etc, so no it isn't always obvious what is good/bad from a menu)

2) Tax/Subsidize. I'm all for killing the producer subsidies on all crops. Producer subsidies lead to bizarre choices like turning corn into sugar that would make no economic sense without them. That said, retail subsides CAN make good sense. Eating REAL CORN is somewhat good for you. The UK added a tax on unhealthy packaged foods and added a retail subsidy on healthy fresh fruit and vegetables. The result was a major shift in purchasing habits. I'm not talking huge price shifts, just making junk 5% more expensive and real food 5% cheaper makes a huge difference.