Obesity

[quote name='dmaul1114']I do.

But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.

People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.

We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]

Haha, good times, taking moral cues from a comedian I see. Man I have not heard some one rip off Carlin word from word in quite a while.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I do.

But in any case, the biggest part of the problem is the bulk of people are just useless and lack willpower to do what it takes to live positive and productive lives. Be it eating healthy and exercising or working hard and having a successful career or whatever.

People today are just lazy and just want to do whatever they want (and eat/drink whatever they want) and lack the willpower and work ethic needed to lead healthy and/or successful lives.

We can ramble on about genetics, proliferation of fast food, switching from sugar to HFCS in nearly everything etc. being culprits. But at the end of the day everyone can choose to eat healthier than they currently are (I'm not saying eat perfect diets and become gym rats, just that everyone can easily make small improvements at the least) and get more exercise they they currently are, most just don't give a shit.[/QUOTE]

Haha, good times, taking moral cues from a comedian I see. Man I have not heard some one rip off Carlin word from word in quite a while.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']i have the occasional McChicken after a workout. protein bomb for $1? sure[/QUOTE]
Bad choice. You're getting no more protein than a Balance bar, and a lot more fat and calories.

As for me, I allow one day a week to eat whatever I want. The other six are healthy. I could use more fruits and veggies, but I get plenty of whole grains, lean protein, and healthy fats.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The thing is, you're both right. Our bodies haven't evolved past the point of being able to metabolize the excess calories of our adjusting diets into something other than fat and we don't all have the ability to out-think our addictions. I'm as huge a believer in nuture over nature as anyone, but when you have the sciences of psychology, sociology, and biology(in the form of marketing) working to overcome that part of your brain to say "no," it isn't quite as easy as simply having the willpower.[/QUOTE]

Well, it is just will power.

But sure, people have different levels of cravings for unhealthy food, different metabolisms etc. that make it easier or harder to lose weight/stay thin.

But that's just life. It's not fair and some people always have more obstacles in their path to whatever goal and have to work harder than others to get their. But it's still a matter of willpower. Only exceptions in this case are the few who do have biological problems leading to obesity (thyroid etc.) and kids as they have little choice over what they eat.


[quote name='Clak']I don't really think I have that bad a diet, but I'm just not one to go out and run like some are. I don't want to join a gym because I don't trust myself enough to make use of it, and exercising outside in 80-90 degree heat and the sun just sucks.[/QUOTE]

Some good suggestions here. And there are plenty of workout dvds and plans out there that don't require any equipment.

That said, there's still no beating a gym. It may be worth seeing if there's one in your area that doesn't require a contract. All the chain places do in my experience, but sometimes there are locally owned places that offer simple month to month memberships. That way if you end up not using it you're not stuck paying a cancellation fee.

Also, if you're an apartment or condo dweller, make sure to pick a complex with a nice gym for residents next time as that's a nice thing to have freely available.

[quote name='camoor']I'm coming to the conclusion that people are the same in any time. It's not that people born into the Wild West were tough hombres who would never get morbidly obese, it's that they had no opportunity to sit around in an air-conditioned McDonalds all day and ask folks if they wanted fries with that.

I also think much of fast food is to blame. It is not nutritional - it's more of a trick on your salivary and digestive system then an actual meal.
[/URL][/QUOTE]

Yep, those are the two main culprits.

1. Society has become more sedentary as manual labor jobs have declined and desk jobs have risen.

2. Diet has changed with the proliferation of fast food restaurants, TV dinners and other types of pre-prepared unhealthy foods, much more candy, HFCS in everything etc.

[quote name='cindersphere']Haha, good times, taking moral cues from a comedian I see. Man I have not heard some one rip off Carlin word from word in quite a while.[/QUOTE]

If true it was a happy coincidence! I like Carlin's stuff but only have only seen one or two of his specials and don't recall any segments on fat people! :D

[quote name='perdition(troy']why eat terrible for one day? why not just eat healthy all the time. I've never understood people with your mentality.[/QUOTE]

It's an easy to make diets more bearable. Pretty much everyone has foods and drinks they enjoy that are unhealthy. And one doesn't need to totally avoid those things to lose weight and stay thin and healthy, they just need to severely limit them.

Having a "cheat" day or "cheat mean" once a week is usually not going to have much impact on a diet and lets a person still enjoy foods and drinks they love but can't have often because they're unhealthy.

I'll usually eat one meal out a week where I don't worry about what I eat at all, and I let myself has some beer on the weekends only, as my cheats.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I also think much of fast food is to blame. It is not nutritional - it's more of a trick on your salivary and digestive system then an actual meal.
[/QUOTE]

Your clip spoofs the McRib. You know it was pushed out to McDonald's restaurants in 1981... ten years prior to the "EPIDEMIC"

Again fast food was around years/decades ago before this "EPIDEMIC"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='lordopus99']Your clip spoofs the McRib. You know it was pushed out to McDonald's restaurants in 1981... ten years prior to the "EPIDEMIC"[/QUOTE]

Since you seem an expert on Fast Food, any idea what year all the "Super Size" and "Biggie" combo options started.

That's one thing that has changed in fast food over the years--portions have gotten larger. But I don't recall what year all the super size crap started.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Since you seem an expert on Fast Food, any idea what year all the "Super Size" and "Biggie" combo options started.

That's one thing that has changed in fast food over the years--portions have gotten larger. But I don't recall what year all the super size crap started.[/QUOTE]

Early 90s is when Supersize and Biggie were introduced.

To quote myself...
[quote name='lordopus99']The only difference is the portion size. The rest is completely unrelated to the food... [/quote]
 
Thanks.

And the other difference people have noted is that there are a lot more fast food franchise locations around, and thus more people are eating there more often. So between that and portion size fast food is having more of an impact on obesity than it did in say the 50s or 60s etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
It's an easy to make diets more bearable. Pretty much everyone has foods and drinks they enjoy that are unhealthy. And one doesn't need to totally avoid those things to lose weight and stay thin and healthy, they just need to severely limit them.
[/QUOTE]
^This.

Not to imply that the other six days are some sort of punishment. I like the healthy foods I eat, but I also like burgers and Ben & Jerry's.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Thanks.

And the other difference people have noted is that there are a lot more fast food franchise locations around, and thus more people are eating there more often. So between that and portion size fast food is having more of an impact on obesity than it did in say the 50s or 60s etc.[/QUOTE]

True there are more options now but again McDonalds and friends have been on every corner at least starting in the 70s. Sugary Sodas have been in every supermarket since at least the 40s.

So again these are the culprits...
1) Portion Size - not just fast food, but everywhere; even at home. Check a typical American plate and compare it to a European plate.
2) How sedentary we have become... computers have really picked up steam in jobs in the 00s. Add in the internet. Amazon has replaced some people shopping i.e. walking a mall or store. Thus people are sitting in front of computer for at least 8 hrs/day; where in the past people moved around more.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's an easy to make diets more bearable. Pretty much everyone has foods and drinks they enjoy that are unhealthy. And one doesn't need to totally avoid those things to lose weight and stay thin and healthy, they just need to severely limit them.

Having a "cheat" day or "cheat mean" once a week is usually not going to have much impact on a diet and lets a person still enjoy foods and drinks they love but can't have often because they're unhealthy.

I'll usually eat one meal out a week where I don't worry about what I eat at all, and I let myself has some beer on the weekends only, as my cheats.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with this. I think you need to be able to eat whatever you want at certain times as long as the overwhelming majority of the time is eating healthy. You just can't decide to eat healthy and say you are NEVER going to have another chocolate chip cookie or scoop of ice cream in your life. That's not realistic and you are setting yourself up to fail.

You've got to want to be healthy for yourself and no one else. If you are doing it for a girl or some other reason (is there another reason?) then what happens when that motivation is no longer there?

After 35 years I finally found the "magic" combination of foods and exercise that is extremely easy for me to maintain. I do all of my exercise before work and rarely on weekends. I go off my "diet" about once a week (I don't go crazy but I'll have a slice of pizza or a cheeseburger or a beer or whatever). I am not having any sort of trouble maintaining this lifestyle - I only wish I figured it out 10 years ago.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']True there are more options now but again McDonalds and friends have been on every corner at least starting in the 70s. Sugary Sodas have been in every supermarket since at least the 40s.

So again these are the culprits...
1) Portion Size - not just fast food, but everywhere; even at home. Check a typical American plate and compare it to a European plate.
2) How sedentary we have become... computers have really picked up steam in jobs in the 00s. Add in the internet. Amazon has replaced some people shopping i.e. walking a mall or store. Thus people are sitting in front of computer for at least 8 hrs/day; where in the past people moved around more.[/QUOTE]

The number of fast food locations has exploded over the past 20 years, so more access to them definitely has to play at least some small role. And it's not just the big players like McDonalds, but also the spread of new chains like Five Guys. Not to mention all the local burger joints around (3 have opened up around me in the past year or so).

Hell, just the fact that they've expanded, and all these new chains and local joints have thrived, shows people were eating fast food more and that demand was rising to support all these new locations etc.

So it's not just portion size and sedentary lifestyles--though those are huge culprits. But also what people eat has changed. Fast food is getting eaten more often than in the past. People are eating more processed foods like TV dinners and other pre-prepared crap. HFCS replaced sugar and some studies suggest it gets more easily converted to fat than sugar. And so on.
 
[quote name='Javery']I totally agree with this. I think you need to be able to eat whatever you want at certain times as long as the overwhelming majority of the time is eating healthy. You just can't decide to eat healthy and say you are NEVER going to have another chocolate chip cookie or scoop of ice cream in your life. That's not realistic and you are setting yourself up to fail.

You've got to want to be healthy for yourself and no one else. If you are doing it for a girl or some other reason (is there another reason?) then what happens when that motivation is no longer there?

After 35 years I finally found the "magic" combination of foods and exercise that is extremely easy for me to maintain. I do all of my exercise before work and rarely on weekends. I go off my "diet" about once a week (I don't go crazy but I'll have a slice of pizza or a cheeseburger or a beer or whatever). I am not having any sort of trouble maintaining this lifestyle - I only wish I figured it out 10 years ago.[/QUOTE]

All 100% true. Especially the middle part. That's true of most any changes we want to make in our lives. You need to make changes for yourself, not other people. Positive changes you make for yourself will benefit your friends and family anyway, and they're the only kind of changes you're likely to stick with.

And the last part is especially key. Everyone is a bit different in what type of diet they can find that keeps them at a healthy weight and keeps them happy, same with exercise schedules and plans etc. The key is for people to not give up if the first or second or third thing they try doesn't work for them, or makes them miserable etc., and just keep trying until they find they combination that works for them from both a health and happiness standpoint.
 
Stuff like this isn't helping:

Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
This is not some gated community with HOA regulations. This is an ordinary, working class neighborhood in Oakland County, Michigan. Like nearly every other city in my home state right now, Oak Park is facing financial issues. Here at home, people are amazed that a cash-strapped city has the resources to investigate, charge, and prosecute a resident for something as innocuous as planting a vegetable garden.
Click to expand...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/07/michigan_woman_faces_jail_planting_veggie_garden.php

America, let's ditch the pointless lawns and embrace progress. If she has guts Mrs Obama will stand up for this woman.
 
Yeah, that's just bullshit.

It's bad enough when HOA regulations ban that kind of stuff, but it's even more absurd when it's the city banning it.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I think society needs to start looking at (gross) obesity and cigarette smoking as forms of voluntary suicide. If somebody gets a medical condition as the direct result of their bad habit they should have to pay out of pocket for their own treatment.[/QUOTE]

You sir are a fucking idiot.

How exactly do you prove someone gets cancer from smoking? People get cancer all the time that do NOT smoke, drink and take moderate care of themselves. So who is to say a smoker gets cancer and its not directly related to the smoking?

Good friends wife had liver and breast cancer but she didnt drink, smoke or do anything unhealthy really. I knew another fellow that did smoke and had bone caner but you cant say the smoking caused the cancer. So if a non smoker gets cancer and a smoker does also how exactly do you justify saying one person gets taken care of and the other doesnt? You cant justify it because there is no way to tell.

Besides smoking for instance doesnt cause cancer. It never has, it never will. If smoking caused cancer then every single person who ever took a puff off of one would have cancer. Thats like saying playing a video game will turn you into a psycho killer. Smoking can increase the likeliness, but it does not cause cancer or any disease across the board.

Being overweight also does not cause diseases. Ive known people who are overweight their entire lives and are healthy. A overweight person who exercises moderatly is healthier than a thinner or more average sized person who doesnt.

Know what causes diseases? No one knows because there is no 100% accurate rule for health. What is good for one person will kill the next person. My grandfather is 88 years old and he loves coffee, sausage, friend chicken and all that shit and he still works even today a couple days a week shuttling cars down state and cuts his own grass. Someone half his age eats what he eats and they would die from a heart blockage.

There are NO rules for health. At best we have general guidelines to follow.
 
:rofl:


--

[quote name='camoor']Stuff like this isn't helping:


http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/07/michigan_woman_faces_jail_planting_veggie_garden.php

America, let's ditch the pointless lawns and embrace progress. If she has guts Mrs Obama will stand up for this woman.[/QUOTE]

All she had to do was have the garden in her backyard. The neighbors and cops were being dicks but really that's all that had to be done. Stupidity on both sides.

And her front lawn does look like shit, by the way.
 
Who knows, maybe her back yard is too small for those gardens. The front yard is pretty big and sometimes places like that then have very small (or no) back yards) and just butt up against trees or other houses. I skipped around the video, and it didn't look like they ever showed more than the front yard.

People in this country worry too much about what yards and houses etc. look like IMO. It's what the inside of your house looks like that's all that matters. You see a lot of places in other countries where the outside of buildings look pretty ran down, but the insides are very nice.

I mean having an overgrown lawn that you're never maintaining and trash laying around etc. is one thing. But as long as it's maintained and up to code I don't see why we need laws preventing guardians or anything else for appearances sake.

Just another symptom of how materialistic the US is and how our society is so focused on external appearances in general.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Who knows, maybe her back yard is too small for those gardens. The front yard is pretty big and sometimes places like that then have very small (or no) back yards) and just butt up against trees or other houses. I skipped around the video, and it didn't look like they ever showed more than the front yard.

People in this country worry too much about what yards and houses etc. look like IMO. It's what the inside of your house looks like that's all that matters. You see a lot of places in other countries where the outside of buildings look pretty ran down, but the insides are very nice.

I mean having an overgrown lawn that you're never maintaining and trash laying around etc. is one thing. But as long as it's maintained and up to code I don't see why we need laws preventing guardians or anything else for appearances sake.

Just another symptom of how materialistic the US is and how our society is so focused on external appearances in general.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I grew up in a different country and over there we always dried our clothes and sheets outside. The plus side is they smell fresher and you end up saving alot of energy.

Panzer - that's your opinion about your yard, I think it looks nice and organized. But she shouldn't have to give a shit about what either of us think. It's her property she should be able to do as she likes. I think the cops and neighbors are doing more then being dicks - they are intruding on her rights. What's next - a dress code for your front yard?
 
Yeah, if you want a little blue skinned, white haired dude on your front lawn, then who's business is that?;)
 
Yeah, I was in Taiwan for 3 weeks last month and almost no one there has dryers, just washers.

It was ok, but I hated how stiff everything was after being air dryed on the balcony clotheslines. That and it would get old having to do laundry more often (as there's not room to hang all that much stuff--couldn't do one big load a week like I do now. Washer's tend to be small as well.).
 
[quote name='camoor']It's her property she should be able to do as she likes. I think the cops and neighbors are doing more then being dicks - they are intruding on her rights. What's next - a dress code for your front yard?[/QUOTE]

Not really. It is not a fundamental right to be able to do dumb shit to your property. I mean yeah you should be able to do what you want generally but if some asshole had their car up on cinder blocks in the front yard next to mine you bet your ass I'd be calling the cops. I pay too much in taxes to have to look at that all day and that's why every town has codes that govern what you can and can't do to your property.

I do think that the lady in that article is getting screwed big time though. The ordinance is poorly drafted and I think she is technically within her rights there.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, I grew up in a different country and over there we always dried our clothes and sheets outside. The plus side is they smell fresher and you end up saving alot of energy.

Panzer - that's your opinion about your yard, I think it looks nice and organized. But she shouldn't have to give a shit about what either of us think. It's her property she should be able to do as she likes. I think the cops and neighbors are doing more then being dicks - they are intruding on her rights. What's next - a dress code for your front yard?[/QUOTE]

I totally, totally agree about this. People need to find other stuff to worry about.
 
[quote name='gargus']
Besides smoking for instance doesnt cause cancer. It never has, it never will. If smoking caused cancer then every single person who ever took a puff off of one would have cancer. Thats like saying playing a video game will turn you into a psycho killer. Smoking can increase the likeliness, but it does not cause cancer or any disease across the board.[/quote]
It's the leading cause to Lung Cancer and is linked to Alzheimers/Dementia. Yes, not everyone gets it but a good chunk do. Think of it like a hand grenade, not everyone dies in its range but alot do. Do note like all health relations, they do studies. :roll:

Being overweight also does not cause diseases. Ive known people who are overweight their entire lives and are healthy.
Click to expand...
False. Depending on how overweight, the vast majority (95%) will end up with Type 2Diabetes. A good chunk will also have Sleep Apnea to some form of degree. Also non-disease related, their life expectancy goes down from all the weight put on their bones/joints and their organs, which now have to put alot harder.

[quote name='dmaul1114']People in this country worry too much about what yards and houses etc. look like IMO.[/quote]
Everyone put out your Statue of David and make it a fountain it with your "Don't Have Your Dog Shit on My Lawn" sign out front while "Bitches ain't Shit" plays on repeat... Seriously, these are all reasons why HOAs/city ordinances limited your front yard usage.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, it is just will power.

But sure, people have different levels of cravings for unhealthy food, different metabolisms etc. that make it easier or harder to lose weight/stay thin.

But that's just life. It's not fair and some people always have more obstacles in their path to whatever goal and have to work harder than others to get their. But it's still a matter of willpower. Only exceptions in this case are the few who do have biological problems leading to obesity (thyroid etc.) and kids as they have little choice over what they eat.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't necessarily say it is a good thing to have the same depth of thought as a comedian.

But I would just like to inject one thing into this whole equation of will power you have working. So obviously you believe that this is a question of will power, and from your thoughts on will power tend to have a bent most used by people who berate poor people as well (well more specifically poor people and people who lean towards crime). My question is this, are you as comfortable saying people are poor and/or criminals because of will power? Because from what you have poster your arguments for this stance are no more nuanced than someone saying all poor people are just lazy/stupid, as are criminals, both of who are given the rap on not holding down jobs.
 
Now we're debating zoning? Sure she was planting food for herself but what about the guy next door who decides if she can plant a garden in her front yard, why can't he plant rows of sweet corn?

[quote name='Javery']Not really. It is not a fundamental right to be able to do dumb shit to your property. I mean yeah you should be able to do what you want generally but if some asshole had their car up on cinder blocks in the front yard next to mine you bet your ass I'd be calling the cops. I pay too much in taxes to have to look at that all day and that's why every town has codes that govern what you can and can't do to your property.

I do think that the lady in that article is getting screwed big time though. The ordinance is poorly drafted and I think she is technically within her rights there.[/QUOTE]

That was a good way to sum up my first year property class on zoning. You can't use your land to the detriment of other people. It might be healthy and all natural to plant her own garden but it looks ugly as all hell and her neighbors shouldn't be forced to deal with that eyesore.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']
But I would just like to inject one thing into this whole equation of will power you have working. So obviously you believe that this is a question of will power, and from your thoughts on will power tend to have a bent most used by people who berate poor people as well (well more specifically poor people and people who lean towards crime). My question is this, are you as comfortable saying people are poor and/or criminals because of will power? Because from what you have poster your arguments for this stance are no more nuanced than someone saying all poor people are just lazy/stupid, as are criminals, both of who are given the rap on not holding down jobs.[/QUOTE]

Well there is a criminological theory that pretty much argues just that--self control theory put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi in their 1990 book "A General Theory of Crime." At least about will power, not about poverty as you're mixing those two things together.

They argue basically that crimes are committed by people who lack self control, and suggest that self control is instilled through proper parenting techniques (properly recognizing and punishing bad behavior and recognizing and rewarding good behavior) and that it's mostly set in a person by age 8 or so.

That said, empirical support is mixed. IMO it's not a sufficient explanation for crime, but is definitely a valid theory and self control should be part of any more full, integrated theoretical explanation of crime. Other factors matter as well such as environmental factors (both through influencing parenting, as well as things like opportunities for street crime, contact with delinquent peers etc.), strain/stress that pushes people into offending etc. It all interacts (along with other factors I didn't list). Someone with low self control who lives in a shitty neighborhood is more likely to fall into crime than someone with low self control in a nice neighborhood for sure IMO. But at the same time someone with low self control is more likely to fall into crime than the a person with higher self control who lives in the same neighborhood. Poverty has a very weak association with crime on it's own as, while street crimes are concentrated among the lower class, the majority of poor people are not criminals

Anyway, self control/will power is part of the equation of criminality for sure IMO. I'm not sure how central a part it is (i.e. how much variance in criminality across society it can explain), but the evidence is such that I think it's a key variable in the equation.

Same with obesity. Things like budget, amount of free time for cooking and exercise, proximity to fast food restaurants (tempting if you're hungry and can walk to one across the street rather than having to drive 5 miles etc.) matter. But at the end of the day humans still have the power to make their own decisions. One can be busy, poor and have a McDonald's across the street and still make the decision to sacrifice other things and spend the time and money to eat healthier and get some exercise.

But again, choice interacts with environment and people in good environments are, all other things being equal, more likely to make "good" decisions than those in bad environments. Be it about diet and exercise or crime. But as I said before, that's just life. Life's not fair, and the playing field will never be equal as there will always, at the least, be divisions along class lines even if society becomes more color blind. At the end of the day, the only thing anyone can do is make the best of the life they've been dealt and try to build as healthy and successful a life for themselves as they can. It does no good to give up and not try because you have more obstacles in front of you than people who were born into better circumstances.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']why eat terrible for one day? why not just eat healthy all the time. I've never understood people with your mentality.[/QUOTE]

A lot of diets leave room for a "cheat day" or "cheat meals". Most people make the mistake of viewing diets as a way to lose weight, and once they reach their goal, they can go back to eating the way they used to. They fail to view it as the lifestyle change it should be to be healthier. By having some room for cheating, it prevents people from feeling like they'll never, ever get to eat their favorite foods again.

It also removes the feeling like you've failed if you happen to go off your diet for a meal. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has heard, "Well, I've already screwed up my diet for the day. I'll get back to it tomorrow." By having a "cheat meal", you can view it more as your chance that week to splurge and get back to the diet asap rather than having it start some self-defeating cycle.

There is also some debate that cheating once a week can be beneficial for keeping your metabolism up.
 
I'm surprised this thread hasn't mentioned much about how the food supply, especially in the US, is dangerously tainted.
GMO, pesticide use, oil, chemicals, pollution, we ingest a tremendous amount of really, really bad stuff. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly. The body burden of everyone in America, whether it is someone who exercises, lives in the country, and eats their own organically grown food is filled with unnatural chemicals.
Books like The Unhealthy Truth, What's Gotten Into Us, Seeds of Deception, Food Politics, anything by Pollan, just to name a few, are solid looks into how the food system has been captured. Not to mention the numerous documentaries on the subject.
It is no longer a matter of self-control. Fruits often have a "protective" wax, possibly food safe, though if petroleum is an ingredient, it's hard to see how that is safe. Water treatment facilities are not equipped to remove anti-psychotics, levitra, or any number of other medications that empty into our water sheds. Or municipalities dump fluoride in the water as an odd form of medicating. And almost all regulators have revolving door policies with the companies they oversee.

It's not just obesity that is exploding, personality disorders in children, cancer rates, IBS, skin disorders, depression, anxiety, and so on.
We are drinking, eating, and breathing crap. We are rubbing it on our bodies when we bathe, rubbing it on our belongings when we clean, breathing it in as we walk down the street, or exercise in gyms.
There certainly is individual responsibility in being obese, but not just the obese, we are all individually responsible for the toxics we are creating, using, and promoting, as well as our ignorance as to the hundreds of chemicals we encounter every day.
 
All that is 100% true for sure. It just hasn't came up since this thread is about obesity. But that doesn't mean that those kind of issues with the food supply aren't hugely important and probably contributing to a host of other health problems as you note. Just that this thread is focused on the specific public health problem of obesity.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well there is a criminological theory that pretty much argues just that--self control theory put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi in their 1990 book "A General Theory of Crime." At least about will power, not about poverty as you're mixing those two things together.

They argue basically that crimes are committed by people who lack self control, and suggest that self control is instilled through proper parenting techniques (properly recognizing and punishing bad behavior and recognizing and rewarding good behavior) and that it's mostly set in a person by age 8 or so.

That said, empirical support is mixed. IMO it's not a sufficient explanation for crime, but is definitely a valid theory and self control should be part of any more full, integrated theoretical explanation of crime. Other factors matter as well such as environmental factors (both through influencing parenting, as well as things like opportunities for street crime, contact with delinquent peers etc.), strain/stress that pushes people into offending etc. It all interacts (along with other factors I didn't list). Someone with low self control who lives in a shitty neighborhood is more likely to fall into crime than someone with low self control in a nice neighborhood for sure IMO. But at the same time someone with low self control is more likely to fall into crime than the a person with higher self control who lives in the same neighborhood. Poverty has a very weak association with crime on it's own as, while street crimes are concentrated among the lower class, the majority of poor people are not criminals

Anyway, self control/will power is part of the equation of criminality for sure IMO. I'm not sure how central a part it is (i.e. how much variance in criminality across society it can explain), but the evidence is such that I think it's a key variable in the equation.

Same with obesity. Things like budget, amount of free time for cooking and exercise, proximity to fast food restaurants (tempting if you're hungry and can walk to one across the street rather than having to drive 5 miles etc.) matter. But at the end of the day humans still have the power to make their own decisions. One can be busy, poor and have a McDonald's across the street and still make the decision to sacrifice other things and spend the time and money to eat healthier and get some exercise.

But again, choice interacts with environment and people in good environments are, all other things being equal, more likely to make "good" decisions than those in bad environments. Be it about diet and exercise or crime. But as I said before, that's just life. Life's not fair, and the playing field will never be equal as there will always, at the least, be divisions along class lines even if society becomes more color blind. At the end of the day, the only thing anyone can do is make the best of the life they've been dealt and try to build as healthy and successful a life for themselves as they can. It does no good to give up and not try because you have more obstacles in front of you than people who were born into better circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Is this a good summary of General Theory of Crime? http://criminology.wikia.com/wiki/General_Theory_of_Crime

It sounds like you subscribe to this theory and holy fuck balls, it sounds like the goddamned Bell Curve.

The circular logic kinda shines through in this theory. I'm not sure how you can place the burden on agency when the framework of what defines a crime is extremely flawed in regards to who the actor is.

And btw, we're not approaching a colorblind society. If anything, it's more important than ever.

I'm not sure how you can connect the dots of social inequities being tied to race and class in one sentence, and then put it all on agency on the next. Friggin theorists are all the same. ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, I grew up in a different country and over there we always dried our clothes and sheets outside. The plus side is they smell fresher and you end up saving alot of energy.

Panzer - that's your opinion about your yard, I think it looks nice and organized. But she shouldn't have to give a shit about what either of us think. It's her property she should be able to do as she likes. I think the cops and neighbors are doing more then being dicks - they are intruding on her rights. What's next - a dress code for your front yard?[/QUOTE]


I really have no problem with her lawn, I would never confront her about it, and I don't see how it effects anyone else beyond making their neighbors look better by comparison. It's a silly law, but she was warned twice about it and told about the consequences.

I'm not sure if that's part of the city ordinance, but it probably is in someway. So I agree it's a stupid law, but I don't agree with the way it's being painted as how a women suddenly got smacked with such a harsh penalty for growing vegetables.
 
People there are "serving sizes" which tell us what a healthy normal amount of whatever it is .. to eat is fine. Look at fast food though. The portions have quadrupled. STOP OFFERING heart attack sized hamburgers and fries and people won't typically won't buy multiple meals that would equal the amount of food now in a "super size or large or even medium sized meal and drink with fries" nowadays Watch "Super size me" a documentary about the effects of eating Mcdonalds for your 3 meals each day .. simply for a month and how it affects your body and health. It made me think twice about even eating there once. We don't give a shit what we eat nowadays.. all of the additives and preservatives. Even Minute Maid fruit juice... after all of the processing, adding fructose corn syrup.. etc. Even that loses its nutritional value.. If the fast food places changed the portion size I bet that our people would lose weight
 
[quote name='dohdough']Is this a good summary of General Theory of Crime? http://criminology.wikia.com/wiki/General_Theory_of_Crime

It sounds like you subscribe to this theory and holy fuck balls, it sounds like the goddamned Bell Curve.[/quote]

Pretty good summary. It's not a bell curve though as bad parenting (the root of self control in their theory) isn't confined along race and class lines.

A rich family may be even more likely to be shitty disciplinarians as the parents work all the time and give the kids everything they want, which would be a disaster for instilling self control as they're both not disciplining and instilling a present focused orientation of getting what you want right now.

Where as in a poor family it can be from absent or abuse parenting etc.

The circular logic kinda shines through in this theory. I'm not sure how you can place the burden on agency when the framework of what defines a crime is extremely flawed in regards to who the actor is.
Click to expand...

Being tautological is one of the key criticisms of that theory that I agree with. Most indicators of low self control (being impulsive, risk taking, present oriented) etc. are often measured through anti-social behaviors that are pretty analogous to crime and delinquency.

And to clarify, this theory DOES NOT believe in agency. Gottfredson and Hirshchi view human nature as hedonistic--everyone just wants to maximize pleasure and minimize pain and any agency is driven by that. That's why it's a control theory.

They argue criminality and anti-social behavior is explained because some people are socialized properly and instilled with self control to resist those hedonistic impulses and some aren't.

I was suggesting I don't buy that and think it's simplilstic and the notion of self control needs integrated with theories that involve agency and environmental factors.


I'm not sure how you can connect the dots of social inequities being tied to race and class in one sentence, and then put it all on agency on the next. Friggin theorists are all the same. ;)
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that. I was saying both matter and any complete theory of criminality must take multiple things from competing theories into account. Environmental factors (neighborhood, family, peer group etc.), biological and psychological factors, self control, strain/stress etc. all matter in pushing/pulling people into crime to varying levels across society and even more varied in individual cases.

My point on agency is that while all those other factors constrain and influence decision making, at the end of the day humans do possess agency and make decisions and thus we have to be held accountable for the decisions we make.

There's no reason a poor kid from the ghetto who's had a very difficulty life and plans out a brutal rape and murder should get treated any differently than a spoiled rich kid from the suburb who commits the same offense.

The reasoning and theory behind the two crimes are just important from a standpoint of understanding why criminality occurs and what kind of social policies we need to prevent it. They don't absolve the person in either situation from responsibility for choosing to carry out their crime.

Back to the topic of obesity, figuring out environmental and cultural reasons for why obesity has traditional been highest in the lower classes (though the gap is shrinking pretty rapidly currently) is just useful from a public health standpoint of figuring out ways to reduce that trend. It doesn't absolve individuals in poor neighborhoods from taking care of their health as best as they can.

In any case, just my 2 cents. And take it with a grain of a salt as I'm not much of a theorist and focus more on practical research (i.e. program evaluation etc.).

tldr; Environmental and other factors constrain and influence decision making. But that's life, the playing field will never be level and at the end of the day humans possess agency and have to be responsible for the decisions they make regardless of the obstacles that influenced their decision.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I guess we're forever fated to debate the validity of "choice."[/quote]

Yep. We're just on the opposite end of the debate more or less.

I acknowledge that we don't have truly, 100% free choice as our choices are influenced by our environments, biological and psychological make ups etc.

So I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a pure choice or deterrence theorist.

I just don't ascribe to your world view that choice is so limited that personal responsibility is largely moot point, and that bootstrapping is a waste of time etc. :D

The environment etc. influences decision making, but it doesn't make decisions for people. Thus we're all still accountable for our own actions, and for the most part even people from the worst backgrounds will turn out ok if they do the right thing (stay out of trouble) and work hard.

It sucks that someone born a minority in a ghetto will probably work way harder, and achieve less, than a white born into a better background. And as society we have to work to change that.

But that poor black will still lead a much better life if they choose to stay out of trouble and work hard than their peers who say fuck it because of the obstacles and at best have a miserable working lower class existence, and at worse fall into a life of crime or substance abuse etc.

And that's where I see the distinction. Agency and bootstrapping still matter and can still lead to a better life. So every individual has an obligation to do everything they can to make the best decisions and work as hard as they can to better themselves.

While the environmental factors etc. show us more privileged members of society what we need to work to change to help level the playing field and help fewer people fall through the cracks.

This is "The Bell Curve" I was talking about btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
Click to expand...

I of course knew what you meant. :D

I just don't see a lot of similarities beyond trying to explain a complex element of human behavior through one concept--IQ in that case, self control in this case.

The general theory of crime doesn't have the race issues The Bell Curve brought up as there are no claims of self control varying by race. Where as the bell curve got hammered for citing lower IQs among minorities--which were later found to be due to culture differences that biased the test rather than actual intellectual differences by race.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']I really have no problem with her lawn, I would never confront her about it, and I don't see how it effects anyone else beyond making their neighbors look better by comparison. It's a silly law, but she was warned twice about it and told about the consequences.

I'm not sure if that's part of the city ordinance, but it probably is in someway. So I agree it's a stupid law, but I don't agree with the way it's being painted as how a women suddenly got smacked with such a harsh penalty for growing vegetables.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

I don't get the obsession with every house having to look the same. To me it's kind of silly.
 
[quote name='camoor']
I don't get the obsession with every house having to look the same. To me it's kind of silly.[/QUOTE]

Well I think a lot of it is people like for a community to have an overall clean and "nice" look as they worry that letting one house put in gardens or paint the exterior some bright color etc. will ruin the look (especially of others follow suit) and perhaps drive down housing values and make it harder to sell.

Others just bought a house for the look of the neighborhood and want it to stay the same etc. I suppose and find certain things eyesores.

But I agree it's silly. But of course I don't care about owning a home and prefer condo living, so I'm not a part of that demographic at all I suppose.

But in any case, I think property owners rights should come first and any limitations should be for things like dilapidation, code violations etc. only, and not things like gardens (as long as maintained) etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Fair enough.

I don't get the obsession with every house having to look the same. To me it's kind of silly.[/QUOTE]

People like conformity.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well I think a lot of it is people like for a community to have an overall clean and "nice" look as they worry that letting one house put in gardens or paint the exterior some bright color etc. will ruin the look (especially of others follow suit) and perhaps drive down housing values and make it harder to sell.

Others just bought a house for the look of the neighborhood and want it to stay the same etc. I suppose and find certain things eyesores.

But I agree it's silly. But of course I don't care about owning a home and prefer condo living, so I'm not a part of that demographic at all I suppose.

But in any case, I think property owners rights should come first and any limitations should be for things like dilapidation, code violations etc. only, and not things like gardens (as long as maintained) etc.[/QUOTE]

Me too.

I guess I feel that if you want to live in a community that has a board of conformity Nazis then you should have the option, but there should also be a place for people who want to just do what they want with their property, within reason. It's gotta be safe, it can't violate health codes, and it's got to be neat, but beyond that why is it anyone's business but your own.

We had a bar around the corner that had an upturned car in the front, the most rundown look possible, and an outdoor section that violated every rule about not allowing dogs in and being closed off. Needless to say that bar completely kicked ass.
 
[quote name='camoor']Me too.

I guess I feel that if you want to live in a community that has a board of conformity Nazis then you should have the option, but there should also be a place for people who want to just do what they want with their property, within reason. It's gotta be safe, it can't violate health codes, and it's got to be neat, but beyond that why is it anyone's business but your own.

We had a bar around the corner that had an upturned car in the front, the most rundown look possible, and an outdoor section that violated every rule about not allowing dogs in and being closed off. Needless to say that bar completely kicked ass.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

I'm generally OK with gated communities with HOA's etc. setting those kind of rules as people can just choose not to live their or can lobby the HOA board (or run to be a member themselves) to change the policy. That's fine. No reason those kind of developments cant exist.

But I don't think city/county municipal codes for residential property should cover more than things like code violations (safety hazards) and dilapidation (it's reasonable to expect homes to be maintained, lawns mowed, trash picked up etc).
 
[quote name='camoor']
I guess I feel that if you want to live in a community that has a board of conformity Nazis then you should have the option, but there should also be a place for people who want to just do what they want with their property, within reason. It's gotta be safe, it can't violate health codes, and it's got to be neat, but beyond that why is it anyone's business but your own. [/quote]
Why did you put in restrictions? Isn't that what an HOA does? Oh yeah it does.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Why did you put in restrictions? Isn't that what an HOA does? Oh yeah it does.[/QUOTE]

Is it just me or is CAG getting dumber?
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Why did you put in restrictions? Isn't that what an HOA does? Oh yeah it does.[/QUOTE]

The point is an HOA can regulate pretty much whatever they want IMO as the home owners can directly participate in setting standards by being on the board or attending board meetings. HOA can set standards about what colors houses can be painted, whether satellite dishes are allowed on balconies (if it's say a high rise--and that issue varies by state law) etc.

Where as city/county municipal codes should be really limited ONLY to things that have direct impacts on safety--so things of property upkeep really. No dilapidated buildings that are safety hazards, no unkempt lawns to become havens for insects, snakes and rodents, no trash for the same reason as well as other dangers of broken glass, disease from rotten foods etc.

It's much harder for one resident to impact city or county policy than is is an HOA policy, so their power to enforce standards should be more limited than an HOA where residents choose to buy a place their knowing the rules and can have direct say in future rule changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']Is it just me or is CAG getting dumber?[/QUOTE]
This coming from the guy calling pretty much everyone "conforming Nazis"... nice comment bro, it really shows your age :roll:

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's much harder for one resident to impact city or county policy than is is an HOA policy, so their power to enforce standards should be more limited than an HOA where residents choose to buy a place their knowing the rules and can have direct say in future rule changes. [/quote]
It comes down to... Who is the one going to fine you? the HOA is. The city for the most part like dmaul said has other concerns to deal with than Jo Blo down the street with crap all over their destroyed and weedfested yard.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well there is a criminological theory that pretty much argues just that--self control theory put forth by Gottfredson and Hirschi in their 1990 book "A General Theory of Crime." At least about will power, not about poverty as you're mixing those two things together.

They argue basically that crimes are committed by people who lack self control, and suggest that self control is instilled through proper parenting techniques (properly recognizing and punishing bad behavior and recognizing and rewarding good behavior) and that it's mostly set in a person by age 8 or so.

That said, empirical support is mixed. IMO it's not a sufficient explanation for crime, but is definitely a valid theory and self control should be part of any more full, integrated theoretical explanation of crime. Other factors matter as well such as environmental factors (both through influencing parenting, as well as things like opportunities for street crime, contact with delinquent peers etc.), strain/stress that pushes people into offending etc. It all interacts (along with other factors I didn't list). Someone with low self control who lives in a shitty neighborhood is more likely to fall into crime than someone with low self control in a nice neighborhood for sure IMO. But at the same time someone with low self control is more likely to fall into crime than the a person with higher self control who lives in the same neighborhood. Poverty has a very weak association with crime on it's own as, while street crimes are concentrated among the lower class, the majority of poor people are not criminals

Anyway, self control/will power is part of the equation of criminality for sure IMO. I'm not sure how central a part it is (i.e. how much variance in criminality across society it can explain), but the evidence is such that I think it's a key variable in the equation.

Same with obesity. Things like budget, amount of free time for cooking and exercise, proximity to fast food restaurants (tempting if you're hungry and can walk to one across the street rather than having to drive 5 miles etc.) matter. But at the end of the day humans still have the power to make their own decisions. One can be busy, poor and have a McDonald's across the street and still make the decision to sacrifice other things and spend the time and money to eat healthier and get some exercise.

But again, choice interacts with environment and people in good environments are, all other things being equal, more likely to make "good" decisions than those in bad environments. Be it about diet and exercise or crime. But as I said before, that's just life. Life's not fair, and the playing field will never be equal as there will always, at the least, be divisions along class lines even if society becomes more color blind. At the end of the day, the only thing anyone can do is make the best of the life they've been dealt and try to build as healthy and successful a life for themselves as they can. It does no good to give up and not try because you have more obstacles in front of you than people who were born into better circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Wow, wall of text. I am familiar with their theories as well as the main problems with their studies, which is why I alluded to criminal area (which you said you study and teach in if I remember correctly). The way I worded the statement was weird but I was referring to both how self control is put forward as why people are criminal and why they are poor, not necessarily poor and criminal together.

Either way, I was more or less trying to allude to the assumption that you were more or less ascribing the entire thing to people changing their habits. IDK I feel as if a big part of those that say it is simple are overlooking the fact that eating habits can form from both things like laziness and learned habits from parents/friends but that a sizable percentage may be attributed to other things. Last time I checked most obese people (2/3 if I remember right) were below the poverty line, and at this level there are many things that, as you said, play into it. Such as eating habits that arise from situations of learned helplessness caused by economic, housing, activities, and any number of other reasons a person may be unable to act and be forced to continue these with these activities/gaining these things that can lead to. This is not even mentioning the correlation between depression and obesity. IDK, I have always found it interesting that people are more willing to tell the fat person who actually may be the result of mental troubles to simply get his fat ass on a bike and ride it while being more hesitant to do so with an anorexic. Even though both disorders have high rates of things like mental illnesses related to them. IDK, most of time I just attribute people who generally take the "it's all self control" route as people who generally are willing to turn a blind eye to shit normally. Not arguing that it is not self control at all, but merely that there is a lot more than that going on, and generally these points are often overlooked by the "just suck it up and run" crowd.

Meh, either way no grudge against you. While I don't agree with your general view point I can say your points have at least been plainly said.
 
Did you guys know that HOAs can actually foreclose on a home? That's with no involvement from any bank or anything, they can foreclose if fees go unpaid. Also keep in mind that if they feel the need, HOAs can tack on extra fees to pay for various things, and it could be thousands depending on the project.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top