Obesity

http://www.ajc.com/health/obesity-rates-still-rising-1003577.html

-In 1995, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. Now, all but one does.

-The state that has the lowest obesity rate now — Colorado, with 19.8 percent of adults considered obese — would have had the highest rate in 1995.

-The study, based on 2010 data, says a dozen states top 30 percent obesity, most of them in the South. Mississippi topped the list for the seventh year in a row, with Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee and Louisiana close behind. Just five years ago, in 2006, Mississippi was the only state above 30 percent.

Click to expand...

So what can be done about this? With medicare and the health care system in general being near bankrupt, this crisis of obesity is going to crush (no pun intended) the system as more people have severe health problems related to obesity.

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.

These threads never go well...

That's what he said...

With medicare and the health care system in general being near bankrupt, this crisis of obesity is going to crush (no pun intended) the system as more people have severe health problems related to obesity.

Click to expand...

Medicare is crushed due to all the baby boomers retiring. Not enough people to support them. The trend also shows that Social Security is in jeopardy too.

Medicaid is crushed due to fraud.

Health Care's top cost is supporting Cancer. Cancer drugs are damn expensive. Cancer is no way linked to obesity. Next highest cost are MRIs. Again, unrelated to obesity. Just saying.

Diabetes medication is not that expensive at all; that is the leading disease from obesity.

Heart disease is also a leading cause of death in the US and is very highly correlated with obesity.

And yes the baby boomer generation is the main thing crushing medicare along with all the fraud and other problems with the health care system.

But society getting less healthy going forward as obesity rates rise and higher and higher percentages of the population work in sedentary jobs is going to add more burden to the system.

My intention of this thread is not to insult anyone who's overweight, so I hope everyone can steer clear of any of those kind of posts.

The intention is to ask what do you think can be done from a public health standpoint to reverse this skyrocketing of obesity rates? Is it a matter of education? Is it a matter of the FDA needing to regulate/ban certain high fat foods? etc.

If someone wants to get fat, let them get fat. Then let their insurance nail them with higher copays, rates, etc.

I don't know what planet you're from, but why in the world do you think it is the governments job to tell someone he/she can't eat something.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Heart disease is also a leading cause of death in the US and is very highly correlated with obesity.[/quote]
Yes but there are also other major factors like smoking (the leading factor), high blood pressure, heredity just to name a few; all unrelated to obesity

The intention is to ask what do you think can be done from a public health standpoint to reverse this skyrocketing of obesity rates?

Click to expand...

It takes the person themselves to make a change. Media has been talking about obesity on shows and news for almost a decade now with shows like Biggest Loser, etc. They been shoving Jenny Craig all over the ads. Again, it takes the person to make the change. Normally, it takes a milestone to get that change; be a personal goal, new baby, stroke/other death scare, etc. Though, it doesn't happen with everyone.

Is it a matter of the FDA needing to regulate/ban certain high fat foods? etc.

Click to expand...

Jack is a big boy. He can make his own decisions. Regulating/banning is just asking for other forms of socialism. Not a fan for that crap. Let me have my choices and I will make that decision whether I want it or not.

All they can do is just continue the education like the FDA has been doing such as the whole grain labels or the lung pictures on cigerette packs now.

[quote name='lordopus99']Yes but there are also other major factors like smoking (the leading factor), high blood pressure, heredity just to name a few; all unrelated to obesity[/quote]

Sure, and for the ones that are behavioral like smoking and high blood pressure (also related to diet and lack of excercise and other factors) we need public health measures to deal with those issues as well.

Smoking is a good example. A couple decades of a strong public awareness campaign about the dangers of smoking has dramatically reduced the rate of smoking in the US to where it was earlier in the 20th century.

The question is what can be done to have a similar impact on reducing obesity and getting more people to eat right and exercise?

It takes the person themselves to make a change. Media has been talking about obesity on shows and news for almost a decade now with shows like Biggest Loser, etc. They been shoving Jenny Craig all over the ads. Again, it takes the person to make the change. Normally, it takes a milestone to get that change; be a personal goal, new baby, stroke/other death scare, etc. Though, it doesn't happen with everyone.

Click to expand...

Of course. But the field of public health is very concerned with getting as many people as possible to live healthy lifestyles.

So the question is what else can be done to get more individuals to start eating right and exercising. The change in smoking shows that while you can't eliminate unhealthy behaviors by any means, you can dramatically reduce them over time.

Jack is a big boy. He can make his own decisions. Regulating/banning is just asking for other forms of socialism. Not a fan for that crap. Let me have my choices and I will make that decision whether I want it or not.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with that as long as we do something along the lines of the following post....

[quote name='perdition(troy']If someone wants to get fat, let them get fat. Then let their insurance nail them with higher copays, rates, etc.
[/QUOTE]

We shouldn't all have our premiums go up when we take care of our selves and are lower risk to the insurance companies.

Perhaps medical insurance should be more like car insurance where we get breaks being safe drivers. Here we could earn discounts for having a healthy BMI or Body fat % in annual physicals, and of not smoking etc.

Higher premiums for those overweight, smoker etc. I'd be ok with, but I think those would be near impossible to implement without a huge uproar given all the bitching you hear one some obese person isn't let on a plane because they only bought one seat and can't fit in it (which is a perfectly reasonable policy IMO).

But giving premium discounts to people who are in shape, don't smoke, don't visit the doctor often outside their yearly physical (which should be required) would be possible. And it would both reward those who already take care of themselves and give those who are not a financial incentive to get in shape so they can earn the discounts.

If this forum has anything to say about Jack's diet, you will hear it. According to this forum, statistics show that Jack cannot be trusted to make his own decisons on virtually any aspect of his life. Just think about that for a second. Think of one thing a person does that the government isn't trying to get or isnt involved with. The government needs to stay within its job description and stop trying to help every little thing "for the good of the people".

Edit I am not opposed to raising awareness, it is the banning I am so tired of hearing.

From the looks of the responses, I can tell that no one read the article except the OP.

Fresh food is not cheap and the time required to prepare that meal makes it even more restricted to lower incomes and people of color. Fast, and high caloric, food is cheap AND requires almost no time to prepare. A side salad with a full a pack of dressing is still more expensive per calorie than a Classic Single at at Wendy's. That added to the billion dollar fast food marketing industry, another billion dollar fast food biochemistry industry, fast food franchises prediliction to open more locations in lower-income areas, and suburban areas having greater access to cheaper produce, is it any wonder why people in the US, especially the working-class, are so fat?

edit: The solution shouldn't be to add any extra burden to the overweight, but to make it easier/cheaper to get healthier foods, incentivize farmers markets in more urban locations, strictly enforce and fund healthy school lunches in all public schools. And especially remove ALL high sugar and high calorie vending machines from all public schools. But lets not forget to add a no ice-cream truck zone around them as well.

[quote name='dmaul1114'] Is it a matter of the FDA needing to regulate/ban certain high fat foods? etc.[/QUOTE]

It's a huge problem that has many causes. You can't simply ban certain foods. People need to be able to make their own decisions (poor as they may be).

What you can do is improve awareness of foods. Maybe instead of having small nutrition labels on the side you could make manufactures put key information on the front. So you get this... (mspaint at work ftw)

I have never in my life known someone who was fat by accident. These folks choose to eat too much, choose to not exercise, and choose to live unhealthy lifestyles. It's just sloth. I'm a relatively skinny guy (insert Humpty Hump lyric here), but as I've gotten older I noticed I was getting a little chubby through the gut. I didn't counter this by doubling down on butter on my popcorn. I got off my ass and started exercising and adjusted my diet.

To me, insurance companies should ABSOLUTELY charge a higher premium for obese people (do they for smokers, alcoholics, or other substance abusers? Don't know actually). If you get too many speeding tickets your car insurance goes up. Speeding and being fat are the same. They are choices with consequences. Someone like me, with very few tickets in my life, and in moderate to decent shape shouldn't pay as much as the person that's double fisting quadruple cheeseburgers while they're washing it down with a diet Coke and driving 110 on the freeway.

Obesity is sort of like cigarette smokers. There are polite smokers who try to do it away from non-smokers and conscious of where they blow smoke, then there are the rude ones who blow smoke everywhere. You've got considerate fatties who are aware of their size and how it can invade other people's personal space, then you've got the tank asses who think it's their right to use up their seat on the bus/plane/subway, and the seats on either side.

And lastly, on my rant against fat people, you're not disabled. You shouldn't have a handicapped placard unless you have a real disorder. You should have to park further from the store, so you can walk off part of the box of donuts you ate while you drove to the grocery store.

/insensitiverant

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']It's a huge problem that has many causes. You can't simply ban certain foods. People need to be able to make their own decisions (poor as they may be).

What you can do is improve awareness of foods. Maybe instead of having small nutrition labels on the side you could make manufactures put key information on the front. So you get this... (mspaint at work ftw)
[/QUOTE]

Good post. And that certainly sounds reasonable. Require fat content to be posted in a warning label on the front of products.

Hell, maybe foods over a certain calories from fat threshold, sugar threshold etc. should get some kind of Surgeon General's warning that they are unhealthy and may lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes etc.

[quote name='dohdough']From the looks of the responses, I can tell that no one read the article except the OP.

Fresh food is not cheap and the time required to prepare that meal makes it even more restricted to lower incomes and people of color. Fast, and high caloric, food is cheap AND requires almost no time to prepare. A side salad with a full a pack of dressing is still more expensive per calorie than a Classic Single at at Wendy's. That added to the billion dollar fast food marketing industry, another billion dollar fast food biochemistry industry, fast food franchises prediliction to open more locations in lower-income areas, and suburban areas having greater access to cheaper produce, is it any wonder why people in the US, especially the working-class, are so fat?[/QUOTE]

Great post!.

There's also a social justice issue here as obesity is much higher in the lower classes for the reasons dohdough notes.

In addition to the social justice issue, this is why it adds so much burden on the health care system as it's disproportionately hitting the segment of society that's least likely to have health insurance and most likely to be on medicaid etc.

So any public health efforts aimed at obesity really need to be focused most directly on the lower class.

And not just PDAs, labels etc.

How do we address the fact that those in the lower class have less access to healthy food, and a harder time eating healthy as fresh produce, lean meats etc. are more expensive.

Maybe there's someway to tweak the food stamp system to get healthier foods on lower class tables? Give vouchers specifically for fresh fruits and vegetables and lean meats or something, along with the general vouchers?

[quote name='dmaul1114']My intention of this thread is not to insult anyone who's overweight, so I hope everyone can steer clear of any of those kind of posts.[/QUOTE]

Dammit.

Obesity is a problem that can only be corrected on an individual level. You would think by now in the age of TMZ and the importance of celebrities in our everyday lives and how we are all worthless unless we look like they do that the trend would actually be going the other way,

[quote name='dohdough']From the looks of the responses, I can tell that no one read the article except the OP.

Fresh food is not cheap and the time required to prepare that meal makes it even more restricted to lower incomes and people of color. Fast, and high caloric, food is cheap AND requires almost no time to prepare. A side salad with a full a pack of dressing is still more expensive per calorie than a Classic Single at at Wendy's. That added to the billion dollar fast food marketing industry, another billion dollar fast food biochemistry industry, fast food franchises prediliction to open more locations in lower-income areas, and suburban areas having greater access to cheaper produce, is it any wonder why people in the US, especially the working-class, are so fat?[/QUOTE]

bull shit. eating healthy is not that expensive. there are plenty of low cost healthy options that can be prepared in a 15 minutes. not only that, but people can eat mcdonalds for dinner every night, as long as they go for a run after.

[quote name='dohdough']From the looks of the responses, I can tell that no one read the article except the OP.

Fresh food is not cheap and the time required to prepare that meal makes it even more restricted to lower incomes and people of color. Fast, and high caloric, food is cheap AND requires almost no time to prepare. A side salad with a full a pack of dressing is still more expensive per calorie than a Classic Single at at Wendy's. That added to the billion dollar fast food marketing industry, another billion dollar fast food biochemistry industry, fast food franchises prediliction to open more locations in lower-income areas, and suburban areas having greater access to cheaper produce, is it any wonder why people in the US, especially the working-class, are so fat?[/QUOTE]

You're responding to a complex problem with a well-reasoned and thoughtful post. What part of you thought that was a good idea on this thread :lol:

[quote name='dohdough']From the looks of the responses, I can tell that no one read the article except the OP.

Fresh food is not cheap and the time required to prepare that meal makes it even more restricted to lower incomes and people of color. Fast, and high caloric, food is cheap AND requires almost no time to prepare. A side salad with a full a pack of dressing is still more expensive per calorie than a Classic Single at at Wendy's. That added to the billion dollar fast food marketing industry, another billion dollar fast food biochemistry industry, fast food franchises prediliction to open more locations in lower-income areas, and suburban areas having greater access to cheaper produce, is it any wonder why people in the US, especially the working-class, are so fat?[/QUOTE]

That's a bullshit excuse. You don't need fresh food to eat healthy. Many poor people aren't starving, and everyone has access to exercise. Walking briskly, jogging. If they're trying to build muscle and turn into body builders, then yes, that requires a more strict diet with higher priced foods and supplements, but saying that poor people can't afford "fresh food" as a major contributing factor to being obese is ridiculous. They can afford plenty of cheap fast food, but they choose to eat that in excess. We all realize a cheeseburger isn't an healthy option. Besides, all those fast food restaurants have salads and apple slices these days too. It's a lifestyle choice.

Poor people also spend a much higher percentage of their income on apparel-shoes, jewelry, etc. They have some money. It's how they choose to spend it that can add to cycles of poverty (see higher rates of poor smoking, being obese, % of income spent on apparel, etc)

Edit: I should clarify, that there are institutional reasons why some poor stay poor too, it's not like if they quit buying new $200 Jordans and a pack of menthols they'll be rich, but the budget choices that some make, perpetuate poverty. Also, I completely forgot about the food stamp program. If much of the grocery purchase is subsidized, that gives even less reason to say that the poor don't have access to healthy food.

[quote name='berzirk']That's a bullshit excuse. You don't need fresh food to eat healthy. Many poor people aren't starving, and everyone has access to exercise. Walking briskly, jogging. If they're trying to build muscle and turn into body builders, then yes, that requires a more strict diet with higher priced foods and supplements, but saying that poor people can't afford "fresh food" as a major contributing factor to being obese is ridiculous. They can afford plenty of cheap fast food, but they choose to eat that in excess. We all realize a cheeseburger isn't an healthy option. Besides, all those fast food restaurants have salads and apple slices these days too. It's a lifestyle choice.

Poor people also spend a much higher percentage of their income on apparel-shoes, jewelry, etc. They have some money. It's how they choose to spend it that can add to cycles of poverty (see higher rates of poor smoking, being obese, % of income spent on apparel, etc)[/QUOTE]

I'll be honest, I used to be an idealist too but that's a bullshit fantasy-world unclebob way of thinking. In reality if fast-food is there then a large segment of poor, tired, and over-worked folks looking for a quick hunger fix are going to hit it every time. You can argue about what's right or who should bear the brunt of fixing it or all the other bullshit to your heart's content, but the obesity rates will continue to rise as long as the lower classes don't have the time, resources, and basic education needed to procure a healthy and well-balanced diet.

[quote name='camoor']I'll be honest, I used to be an idealist too but that's a bullshit fantasy-world unclebob way of thinking. In reality if fast-food is there then a large segment of poor, tired, and over-worked folks looking for a quick hunger fix are going to hit it every time. You can argue about what's right or who should bear the brunt of fixing it or all the other bullshit to your heart's content, but the obesity rates will continue to rise as long as the lower classes don't have the time, resources, and basic education needed to procure a healthy and well-balanced diet.[/QUOTE]

But what I'm saying is quality of food only plays a part of the role in mass obesity. Lack of exercise, and food in moderation are the others. If you consume enough calories with a double cheeseburger and fries to last you half a day, then you don't need the three other value meals for lunch, dinner, and snack. I'm not saying, "poor people, wake up. Eat filet mignon and fresh fish, with asparagus from the farmer's market!" I'm saying, if you are going to eat fast food, mix up the healthier salad options, eat less, but more than ANYTHING else, get off your ass and exercise a little bit. Who among us doesn't have the ability to walk around the block a few times, or even do a simple cardio workout in our apartment, house, etc? We all have access to exercise. Those who choose not to take advantage of that and eat junk, get fat. This isn't mid-east politics. It's pretty damn clear cut cause and effect.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']bull shit. eating healthy is not that expensive. there are plenty of low cost healthy options that can be prepared in a 15 minutes. not only that, but people can eat mcdonalds for dinner every night, as long as they go for a run after.[/QUOTE]
You only address 2 out of 3 points in my post.

Let's put it this way:
A cup of rice will take 10-15 minutes to cook, .5 lb piece of beef in a pan with no oil/butter/whatever takes at least 10, a salad of mixed leafy greens with a sliced tomato takes about a minute. That's 15 minutes of food prep with cooking for a healthy meal. Total cost of ingredients: probably less than $5. But, is this the Real total time and cost? Of course not. It takes time to get to a market, pick out the food, hope that some of what you need is on sale or you pay more, get the food back to your home, and then do the clean up. Add more mouths to the equation, public transportation, or any number of factors, and the whole ordeal takes a lot more than 15 minutes needed for any meal.

[quote name='camoor']You're responding to a complex problem with a well-reasoned and thoughtful post. What part of you thought that was a good idea on this thread :lol:[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...true enough, but there's still more than enough time for me and others to shit up this thread.

[quote name='berzirk']But what I'm saying is quality of food only plays a part of the role in mass obesity. Lack of exercise, and food in moderation are the others. If you consume enough calories with a double cheeseburger and fries to last you half a day, then you don't need the three other value meals for lunch, dinner, and snack. I'm not saying, "poor people, wake up. Eat filet mignon and fresh fish, with asparagus from the farmer's market!" I'm saying, if you are going to eat fast food, mix up the healthier salad options, eat less, but more than ANYTHING else, get off your ass and exercise a little bit. Who among us doesn't have the ability to walk around the block a few times, or even do a simple cardio workout in our apartment, house, etc? We all have access to exercise. Those who choose not to take advantage of that and eat junk, get fat. This isn't mid-east politics. It's pretty damn clear cut cause and effect.[/QUOTE]

Eh, food has a much bigger impact then exercise. Most of the world population doesn't engage in the luxury of exercise for exercise sake, but still the US is the one with the problem.

I wish it were that easy but frankly I don't think a few more PSAs urging people to exercise would even make a dent.

[quote name='camoor']Eh, food has a much bigger impact then exercise. Most of the world population doesn't engage in the luxury of exercise for exercise sake, but still the US is the one with the problem.

I wish it were that easy but frankly I don't think a few more PSAs urging people to exercise would even make a dent.[/QUOTE]
Exercise is s luxury? Get the outta here with that bullshit!!!

[quote name='camoor']In reality if fast-food is there then a large segment of poor, tired, and over-worked folks looking for a quick hunger fix are going to hit it every time.[/QUOTE]

100% true.

But does that mean there's nothing we can do to at least get them to order say a grilled chicken sandwich (with no mayo) and and a fruit cup and diet soda instead of a Big Mac with fries and a regular coke?

Hell I'm lazy myself and eat fast food sometimes. But I usually get a salad or grilled chicken etc. and at least minimize the harm. Same with TV dinners--I eat more than should from being lazy and tired after a long day of work etc, but I at least stick with low calorie Lean Cuisine ones over things like Hungyman etc. which cost the same or more but have a shit ton of calories and fat.

Eating more healthy doesn't have to mean more time, effort or money. It just means being cautious of at least trying to usually avoid stuff that is absolutely terrible for you.

[quote name='dohdough']Exercise is s luxury? Get the outta here with that bullshit!!![/QUOTE]

It is to some extent. On the one hand, it's free. Anyone can go outside for a walk or jog.

But it's finding the time for it that can be a luxury. God knows I work out less than I'd like since graduating and getting overwhelmed with work. Much less for some single mother to find time for a jog between work and having to take care of her kids etc.

Diet is thus the bigger factor as quite frankly exercising alone will do no good if you don't change your diet as it ups your hunger as you're burning calories. So many people on a shitty diet just eat more of the same crappy foods than they were before and thus lose little or no wait.

Diet has bigger impact, and most obese people can improve their diets without spending more time or money. It may not get them to an ideal diet, but they can make enough changes to lose some weight without having to spend more time cooking and shopping given that their current diets are probably atrocious.

So I think the bigger key is focusing on ways to help that dietary change happen more often, be it through labels or targeted food stamps good for only certain types of food etc.

[quote name='dmaul1114']100% true.

But does that mean there's nothing we can do to at least get them to order say a grilled chicken sandwich (with no mayo) and and a fruit cup and diet soda instead of a Big Mac with fries and a regular coke?

Hell I'm lazy myself and eat fast food sometimes. But I usually get a salad or grilled chicken etc. and at least minimize the harm. Same with TV dinners--I eat more than should from being lazy and tired after a long day of work etc, but I at least stick with low calorie Lean Cuisine ones over things like Hungyman etc. which cost the same or more but have a shit ton of calories and fat.

Eating more healthy doesn't have to mean more time, effort or money. It just means being cautious of at least trying to usually avoid stuff that is absolutely terrible for you.[/QUOTE]
Low-calorie Lean cuisine does not equal more "healthy" than a high calorie Hungry Man. You can be skinny and have high cholesterol, diabetes, and all sorts of other crap. There's more to health than just calorie counting as going on a calorie starvation diet isn't productive either. A 1000 calorie meal of salmon(1lb) and lettuce will still be healthier than your 400 calorie Lean Cuisine. And to be honest, going from a big mac to a grilled chicken sandwich is marginally better, but the chicken sandwich is still going to be more expensive.

I really like your idea of discounts on healthier foods at the market through WIC/foodstamps. Too bad it'd be impossible to implement. I wouldn't take away the ability to buy junk food with it though. People have a hard enough time as it is; no need to take away soda and chips that make life a little more bearable.

Oh..and I was being sarcastic with the exercise is a luxury comment.

[quote name='camoor']Eh, food has a much bigger impact then exercise. Most of the world population doesn't engage in the luxury of exercise for exercise sake, but still the US is the one with the problem.

I wish it were that easy but frankly I don't think a few more PSAs urging people to exercise would even make a dent.[/QUOTE]

It's calories, and type of calories. If you're getting 500% your daily fat allowance every day, then you can run back to back marathons, you're still going to get fat. But if you eat in moderation, and exercise very slightly, the chances of you being obese is much lower. If you cut out something like soda, you will save yourself 1000s of calories a week. A can of soda is the equivalent of jogging 2 miles or more.

It comes back to personal accountability, and to what degree we should all be impacted by someone elses terrible life choices. If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight. McDonalds isn't sneaking a milkshake in your container of skim milk. The Hamburgler isn't swapping your salad with a quarter pounder. Fat people make life choices to be fat. There is a shift in society to find reasons why we can't do things, or why we have afflictions, so we don't feel shitty for our inaction.

I'm broke (as I spend $$$ on videogames, entertainment, crap I don't need)
I'm fat (as I eat fast food 5x a week)
I can't get a job (as I sleep till noon and turn in one app every month)

There are always other factors that can make adjusting things in our lives more difficult, but for something as basic as eating less and getting minimal exercise, there is truly nobody else to blame.

I'm guilty of blaming my inaction with regards to some aspects of my life on external factors, but when I catch myself doing it, I at least identify it and admit it.

the healthier food already is discounted...you know, by being able to buy whatever else you need with your WIC/foodstamps?

I'd like to see Food Stamps programs completely overhauled to be more akin to WIC. Instead of "Here's, $100, go buy whatever junk you want", the family would get "coupons" for an exact item (Fresh fruit, veggies, etc.) and the program could actually be customized based on the needs of the family.

This doesn't prohibit a family from purchasing chips/soda/junk food. It just prevents me from paying for it.

[quote name='perdition(troy']the healthier food already is discounted...you know, by being able to buy whatever else you need with your WIC/foodstamps?[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. A head of lettuce will still cost $1 cash or foodstamp. Just because it doesn't come directly out of your income doesn't mean that the lettuce costs less than $1 in foodstamp credit. Big logic fail there dude.

[quote name='dohdough']Low-calorie Lean cuisine does not equal more "healthy" than a high calorie Hungry Man. You can be skinny and have high cholesterol, diabetes, and all sorts of other crap. There's more to health than just calorie counting as going on a calorie starvation diet isn't productive either. A 1000 calorie meal of salmon(1lb) and lettuce will still be healthier than your 400 calorie Lean Cuisine. And to be honest, going from a big mac to a grilled chicken sandwich is marginally better, but the chicken sandwich is still going to be more expensive.[/quote]

Of course. I'm not suggesting that calories, or even fat content, are all that matter.

Just saying those are easy changes to make and will at least make some improvements in health to people who are obese.

Any improvement is better than nothing. And yeah, the chicken sandwich will be a little more expensive than the cheapest burgers, so that's a fair point. Though moot if they're buying a bacon cheeseburger or something that costs about the same.

And aside from that being skinny and unhealthy is still better than being obese and unhealthy is at least you can fit comfortably into air plane seats, movie theater seats etc., probably have more success in dating etc. But yes, the ideal is to be thin and healthy so you get all the benefits of both looking good AND feeling good physically and being able to be more active, not get sick as often etc. There's few things that can hamper one's enjoyment of life more than losing their health. Nothing else really matters if you physically feel like shit all the time.

I really like your idea of discounts on healthier foods at the market through WIC/foodstamps. Too bad it'd be impossible to implement. I wouldn't take away the ability to buy junk food with it though. People have a hard enough time as it is; no need to take away soda and chips that make life a little more bearable.

Click to expand...

Well, I did say that they should also still get general food vouchers that they could use on any food products. I was just suggesting that some portion of them be given as vouchers that are only good for produce etc. to force them to at least choose some of that stuff or not use those vouchers.

That said, I personally don't have a problem with banning food stamp usage on soda and junk food etc. (other than some difficulties in defining what is junk food) as I don't necessarily think tax payers should be providing things on the basis of making their lives more bearable. Taxpayer assistance really should be limited to bare necessities like healthy food, housing, clothing, health care etc. that are needed to survive. And I'm just talking about in terms of providing products, I'm very supportive of funding going to education, job training and other services to help them better their lives.

How much are big macs, 2 bucks? I don't think it would kill the average fast food consumer to pay 50 cents more for a chicken sandwich.

[quote name='dohdough']No it isn't. A head of lettuce will still cost $1 cash or foodstamp. Just because it doesn't come directly out of your income doesn't mean that the lettuce costs less than $1 in foodstamp credit. Big logic fail there dude.[/QUOTE]

If I buy a head of lettuce, it cost me $1.
If someone on food stamps uses food stamps to get a head of lettuce, it cost them $0.

That is a pretty good discount, IMHO.

[quote name='UncleBob']If I buy a head of lettuce, it cost me $1.
If someone on food stamps uses food stamps to get a head of lettuce, it cost them $0.

That is a pretty good discount, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

You're not looking at it the right way.

You have a budget of $X a month for food. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.

Someone on food stamps has a budget of $X income and $X worth of food stamps each month to feed themselves. A head of lettuce is $1 out of that.

In either case it's a $1 out of each of your monthly food budgets--the fact that part of their budget is food stamps doesn't change that. Every item they buy is still part of the budget spent that thus can't be spent on other food items.

So right now, buying fresh produce means they have less budget left for other things they may want more like soda or chips. Change food stamps so at least some can only be used for fresh produce etc., and they can't make that decision anymore and have to get those things or just not use those particular vouchers.

[quote name='dohdough']I really like your idea of discounts on healthier foods at the market through WIC/foodstamps. Too bad it'd be impossible to implement. I wouldn't take away the ability to buy junk food with it though. People have a hard enough time as it is; no need to take away soda and chips that make life a little more bearable.[/QUOTE]

It would be completely possible to implement from a purely mechanical standpoint. In MA, just about every major chain's POS system can tell whether an item is eligible for food stamps or not already. The endless bitching and moaning from the stamp receivers would surely be deafening, however.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. Stamps should only be redeemable for bulk, renewable, unpackaged goods. If you are going to reform the program might as well go whole hog. Now THAT would be impossible to implement.

[quote name='perdition(troy']How much are big macs, 2 bucks? I don't think it would kill the average fast food consumer to pay 50 cents more for a chicken sandwich.[/QUOTE]

I haven't been to McD's for quite a while, but best I can recall the grilled check sandwich combo is around $1-$1.50 more than the Big Mac combo.

So it can be a decent difference if you're on a very tight budget and trying to feed a family of four etc. as it's basically the added cost of one extra cheaper big mac meal in that case.

[quote name='UncleBob']I'd like to see Food Stamps programs completely overhauled to be more akin to WIC. Instead of "Here's, $100, go buy whatever junk you want", the family would get "coupons" for an exact item (Fresh fruit, veggies, etc.) and the program could actually be customized based on the needs of the family.[/quote]
And who/how do you think a program like that would be maintained? Hell, every town has differing prices, access to markets, and even types of produce. Which leads me to...

This doesn't prohibit a family from purchasing chips/soda/junk food. It just prevents me from paying for it.

Click to expand...

Get the outta here with that bullshit. Are you going to complain about welfare queens eating filet mignon and lobster too? Take a wild guess as to what percentage of your total taxes goes towards the food security program.

Considering your abhorence for paying for the current state of things from the last part of your post, wtf makes you think that you'd be ok with paying for a program that would maintain your suggestion from the first part of your post? Hell, wouldn't that administration cost MORE?

holy shit you even did it in one post in this thread! ing FOOD is racist. You're incredible!

Yes there is a real amount of time and effort involved in making your own meal as opposed to something packaged that needs all manner of preservatives and extra chemical BS to make sure that it doesn't rot on the store shelf. But hey, these modern conveniences all come with a price. Here's an even better idea:
Phase 1.) Buy seeds
Phase 2.) ?
Phase 3.) Eat what comes from the seeds

"I don't have room for a garden"
Do you have a windowsill? Yeah, you're not gonna be growing cantaloupe on the thing but you can get some lettuce/tomatoes/strawberries/herbs/spices/beans/etc... going very easily for negligible cost and the satisfaction of growing and eating something all by your self.

"My ethnicity prevents me from having access to the necessary tools" - just for you buddy
you, find a bucket, some dirt and some water. I have a butt-bucket on my deck that grows food. Granted I'm not going to eat it but the soil quality is actual litter and there's still stuff growing in there and I haven't watered it in 2 years.

"I ain't farming"
Fine, eat crap and don't complain.

RE: UB's coupon or ticket policy
Run it like manufacturer coupons that you get in the sunday ads. Person goes in with a coupon that says 2lbs of Apples and gets the apples with the coupon. Coupon gets sent to a 3rd party facility (job creation!) that administers the redemption of the coupon. The grocer gets reimbursed. The system is already in place for commercial use. Adding a small govt program isn't going to topple the whole thing and anyone that suggests otherwise is just adding a barrier to any success the program could actually have.

[quote name='cochesecochese']It would be completely possible to implement from a purely mechanical standpoint. In MA, just about every major chain's POS system can tell whether an item is eligible for food stamps or not already. The endless bitching and moaning from the stamp receivers would surely be deafening, however.[/quote]
You're in Boston too(from your avatar)?

Yes, I agree that it's mechanically possible and one could easily add PLU's and UPC's to a database of products eligible for discounts. Alas, it's not politically feasable to implement for your reason and many more.

Personally, I'd take it a step further. Stamps should only be redeemable for bulk, renewable, unpackaged goods. If you are going to reform the program might as well go whole hog. Now THAT would be impossible to implement.

Click to expand...

Now this is ideal, but the basic infrastructure of providing accessible markets just isn't there. Not to mention that beyond traveling and preparing the food, you're also assuming that the person has enough storage space and preparation space for it. Another problem is varying food prices from market to market.

[quote name='dohdough']And who/how do you think a program like that would be maintained? Hell, every town has differing prices, access to markets, and even types of produce. Which leads me to...[/quote]

It doesn't have to be very specific monetary value. Now they just get $X worth of food stamps they can use for any eligible items.

Divide that up now so that some are only valid for fresh produce, some for fresh meats etc. and the rest for whatever like currently.

Granted there'd be problems with remaining balance etc. I suppose. But the WIC program already has a more exclusive list of eligible items that food stamps IIRC so there's a way to do that kind of thing.


As for the food stamps going towards luxuries like soda and junk food--as I said above I don't like it either. I'm ok with my tax dollars making sure people don't starve or become homeless etc. But I'm not compassionate enough to want them going toward things like that that do nothing but make their lives a little less miserable.

Especially in this case when it's adding to obesity and thus costing us more in health care costs etc.


In any case, here's a very radical idea of how to limit food stamps going to junk food and get people in the lower class eating healthier.

How about creating a nationwide program that creates a new set of privately owned and operated grocery stores that are heavily regulated by the government and can only carry foods deemed to be a reasonable part of a healthy diet by a panel of FDA scientists. Once these are in place in every county, make these the only places that food stamps can be used. Anyone can shop in them as they take cash and credit card, but there the only places people can use their food stamps. If people on food stamps want junk food, they thus have to go buy it at a regular grocery store with their own money.

Probably impossible to implement though. But if possible that would help focus what food stamps are used on and create jobs in the new stores (assuming they didn't drive existing grocers out of business--which I doubt as most people not on welfare would probably avoid the new stores).

God damn, color me surprised this thread didn't go the way of every other obesity thread that's ever been posted on here.

Anyway, my take is first and foremost that people need to be educated and provided the appropriate information. While I generally don't feel as if the government needs to take a heavy-handed approach along the lines of banning certain foods, increasing requirements for selling foods is something I fully support. One of the best things I've seen any government entity do is what New York did in requiring all restaurants to provide caloric and nutritional information on menus.

Far too long have restaurants hidden their best selling and most profitable foods behind good taste. Most restaurants now have all their nutrition information on websites but trying to find that information out in the store itself is nearly impossible. Then you've also got restaurants who try to pass off incredibly unhealthy foods as healthy. A good example? The Arby's Market Fresh line of sandwiches. A sandwich with sliced turkey? Well it has to be healthy, right? Wrong, the ing thing has more calories than a Big Mac. Its a damn trick, plain and simple. They make it look like a healthy sandwich because they know everyone wants to eat healthy, instead it's loaded with calories people assume aren't there because if it tastes good and people assume its healthy they'll keep on buying it.

These restaurants have to be up front about their nutrition information. If someone wants to eat unhealthy when they have all the information, that's their choice to make I suppose but they should at least be given the tools to know what is healthy and what isn't healthy.

As far as education goes, that needs to start at a young age. I'm not sure how physical education and health are taught in schools now but when I was in school we had it split up that 3/4 of the school year we were in PE and 1/4 was in health. That 1/4 in health ended up being about 75% sex-ed and 25% everything else. In my opinion, that's not enough to teach people about how they should be eating healthy for their lives. PE is great too but how useful is it to learn tumbling/gymnastics, dodge ball, kickball, etc.? Yes I understand kids need some kind of outlet for their energy but make it more useful not just constant athletic competitions, that's what after school sports are for.

[quote name='dmaul1114']It doesn't have to be very specific monetary value. Now they just get $X worth of food stamps they can use for any eligible items.

Divide that up now so that some are only valid for fresh produce, some for fresh meats etc. and the rest for whatever like currently.

Granted there'd be problems with remaining balance etc. I suppose. But the WIC program already has a more exclusive list of eligible items that food stamps IIRC so there's a way to do that kind of thing.


As for the food stamps going towards luxuries like soda and junk food--as I said above I don't like it either. I'm ok with my tax dollars making sure people don't starve or become homeless etc. But I'm not compassionate enough to want them going toward things like that that do nothing but make their lives a little less miserable.

Especially in this case when it's adding to obesity and thus costing us more in health care costs etc.


In any case, here's a very radical idea of how to limit food stamps going to junk food and get people in the lower class eating healthier.

How about creating a nationwide program that creates a new set of privately owned and operated grocery stores that are heavily regulated by the government and can only carry foods deemed to be a reasonable part of a healthy diet by a panel of FDA scientists. Once these are in place in every county, make these the only places that food stamps can be used. Anyone can shop in them as they take cash and credit card, but there the only places people can use their food stamps. If people on food stamps want junk food, they thus have to go buy it at a regular grocery store with their own money.

Probably impossible to implement though. But if possible that would help focus what food stamps are used on and create jobs in the new stores (assuming they didn't drive existing grocers out of business--which I doubt as most people not on welfare would probably avoid the new stores).[/QUOTE]
Socialist grocery stores!?!?!

[quote name='RedvsBlue']
These restaurants have to be up front about their nutrition information. If someone wants to eat unhealthy when they have all the information, that's their choice to make I suppose but they should at least be given the tools to know what is healthy and what isn't healthy.[/quote]

I agree 100% with this. All restaurants should be required to make nutritional information readily available. Ideally the menus as sit down places should be required to list calories, fat, protein and carbohydrate content (at a bare minimum) for each dish.

And the fast food and cafe style places where you just order at the register should be required to have handouts with that information readily displayed for people to grab and look over.

It's not going to help the people eating fast food burgers and other shit they obviously no is bad. But it helps with things like the Market Fresh sandwiches you noted and other things that are marketed to be healthier items when in reality they are not.

In other words, it's at least helpful to people trying to improve their diet and watch what they eat.

As far as education goes, that needs to start at a young age. I'm not sure how physical education and health are taught in schools now but when I was in school we had it split up that 3/4 of the school year we were in PE and 1/4 was in health.

Click to expand...

Agree with that as well. We even had a full semester (maybe full year it's been a while) health class in high school, but there was very little nutritional information taught beyond the four food groups and the food pyramid.

There needs to be a lot more specific education about the effects of fats, differences between whole grains and simple carbohydrates etc. and the effects of an unhealthy diet on your body.

Give people that knowledge in health classes, give them access to nutritional information on every product and in every restaurant and hopefully more people will start making more informed and healthy dietary decisions and if nothing else we can stop the skyrocketing of obesity, and maybe even reduce it some.

[quote name='Clak']Socialist grocery stores!?!?![/QUOTE]

Why not? Giving out food stamps is already basically a socialist idea. Why not go further and limit where they can be used so we can make sure they're used on foods that aren't worsening public health?

And I did at least say they should be private stores (regulated by the FDA) rather than a government ran store!

Hell if I wanted to really get socialist I'd say scrap food stamps and just have people on welfare pick up free food weekly from government food distribution centers!

[quote name='nasum']holy shit you even did it in one post in this thread! ing FOOD is racist. You're incredible![/QUOTE]
The US was built on racism dickhead. Just because you can't deal with that fact that racism still exists in a widesread way doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.

Yes there is a real amount of time and effort involved in making your own meal as opposed to something packaged that needs all manner of preservatives and extra chemical BS to make sure that it doesn't rot on the store shelf. But hey, these modern conveniences all come with a price. Here's an even better idea:
Phase 1.) Buy seeds
Phase 2.) ?
Phase 3.) Eat what comes from the seeds

"I don't have room for a garden"
Do you have a windowsill? Yeah, you're not gonna be growing cantaloupe on the thing but you can get some lettuce/tomatoes/strawberries/herbs/spices/beans/etc... going very easily for negligible cost and the satisfaction of growing and eating something all by your self.

Click to expand...

Look, you privileged little shit. NOT EVERYONE HAS A WINDOWSILL BIG ENOUGH FOR A POT. NOT EVERYONE HAS A WINDOW THAT GETS SUNLIGHT OR BIG ENOUGH TO HANG A POT. HELL, NOT EVERYONE IS ALLOWED TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS A POT TO BE HUNG.

"My ethnicity prevents me from having access to the necessary tools" - just for you buddy

Click to expand...

Hey look everyone! A privileged dreck that doesn't realize how privileged he is! COLOR me surprised! I doubt that you know my "ethnicity" and even if you did, you'd do it only to serve your point that I am either white, in which case I would have white guilt, or I am black, in which I would just be using the "race card" because only white/black people have an opinion on race.

you, find a bucket, some dirt and some water. I have a butt-bucket on my deck that grows food. Granted I'm not going to eat it but the soil quality is actual litter and there's still stuff growing in there and I haven't watered it in 2 years.

Click to expand...

NOT EVERYONE HAS A ING DECK.

"I ain't farming"
Fine, eat crap and don't complain.

RE: UB's coupon or ticket policy
Run it like manufacturer coupons that you get in the sunday ads. Person goes in with a coupon that says 2lbs of Apples and gets the apples with the coupon. Coupon gets sent to a 3rd party facility (job creation!) that administers the redemption of the coupon. The grocer gets reimbursed. The system is already in place for commercial use. Adding a small govt program isn't going to topple the whole thing and anyone that suggests otherwise is just adding a barrier to any success the program could actually have.

Click to expand...

NOT EVERYONE GETS THE SUNDAY ADS SO WHERE THE ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO GET THE COUPONS.

[quote name='dmaul1114']So I think the bigger key is focusing on ways to help that dietary change happen more often, be it through labels or targeted food stamps good for only certain types of food etc.[/QUOTE]

Great idea but then you'll get the rabid freemarketeers coming to the defense of poor little ol' Mickey Dee being forced to own up to the crap they are serving every day.

[quote name='nasum']holy shit you even did it in one post in this thread! ing FOOD is racist. You're incredible!

Yes there is a real amount of time and effort involved in making your own meal as opposed to something packaged that needs all manner of preservatives and extra chemical BS to make sure that it doesn't rot on the store shelf. But hey, these modern conveniences all come with a price. Here's an even better idea:
Phase 1.) Buy seeds
Phase 2.) ?
Phase 3.) Eat what comes from the seeds

"I don't have room for a garden"
Do you have a windowsill? Yeah, you're not gonna be growing cantaloupe on the thing but you can get some lettuce/tomatoes/strawberries/herbs/spices/beans/etc... going very easily for negligible cost and the satisfaction of growing and eating something all by your self.

"My ethnicity prevents me from having access to the necessary tools" - just for you buddy
you, find a bucket, some dirt and some water. I have a butt-bucket on my deck that grows food. Granted I'm not going to eat it but the soil quality is actual litter and there's still stuff growing in there and I haven't watered it in 2 years.

"I ain't farming"
Fine, eat crap and don't complain.

RE: UB's coupon or ticket policy
Run it like manufacturer coupons that you get in the sunday ads. Person goes in with a coupon that says 2lbs of Apples and gets the apples with the coupon. Coupon gets sent to a 3rd party facility (job creation!) that administers the redemption of the coupon. The grocer gets reimbursed. The system is already in place for commercial use. Adding a small govt program isn't going to topple the whole thing and anyone that suggests otherwise is just adding a barrier to any success the program could actually have.[/QUOTE]

IMO this is a fantasy. America is no longer an agrarian society and most of your ideas are simply impractical for modern city living. The specific foodstamp idea would be a complete bitch to implement (no right - I'm sure the govt would do a great job of figuring out which convenience stores sold which produce, especially in areas where the only local shopping takes place at the 7/11)

I'd also be interested in knowing how you would propose to implement the sea-change of nouveau victory gardens. Tax breaks? Govt sponsorship of public gardens? PSAs? Guy posting on a cheap videogame site?

[quote name='dmaul1114']As for the food stamps going towards luxuries like soda and junk food--as I said above I don't like it either. I'm ok with my tax dollars making sure people don't starve or become homeless etc. But I'm not compassionate enough to want them going toward things like that that do nothing but make their lives a little less miserable.

Especially in this case when it's adding to obesity and thus costing us more in health care costs etc.


In any case, here's a very radical idea of how to limit food stamps going to junk food and get people in the lower class eating healthier.

How about creating a nationwide program that creates a new set of privately owned and operated grocery stores that are heavily regulated by the government and can only carry foods deemed to be a reasonable part of a healthy diet by a panel of FDA scientists. Once these are in place in every county, make these the only places that food stamps can be used. Anyone can shop in them as they take cash and credit card, but there the only places people can use their food stamps. If people on food stamps want junk food, they thus have to go buy it at a regular grocery store with their own money.

Probably impossible to implement though. But if possible that would help focus what food stamps are used on and create jobs in the new stores (assuming they didn't drive existing grocers out of business--which I doubt as most people not on welfare would probably avoid the new stores).[/QUOTE]

This would be disastrous for any retailer that focuses on an urban market. Suburb stores won't even flinch. Without derailing the thread too much, I'll just speak as a person who has worked for many retailers and is currently working for one. The most painless mechanical solution, by leaps and bounds, is going to be simply blocking crap food via the POS system.

There would be a rocky transition period and I've got no good ideas on how to educate the populace how to transition to a better diet but the actual POS system that is in place already works pretty well.

[quote name='dohdough']You're in Boston too(from your avatar)?

Yes, I agree that it's mechanically possible and one could easily add PLU's and UPC's to a database of products eligible for discounts. Alas, it's not politically feasable to implement for your reason and many more.


Now this is ideal, but the basic infrastructure of providing accessible markets just isn't there. Not to mention that beyond traveling and preparing the food, you're also assuming that the person has enough storage space and preparation space for it. Another problem is varying food prices from market to market.[/QUOTE]

GO BRUINS!

Unfortunately what you pointed out is the reality. It was kind of like 'Hell, since we're throwing out hypotheticals I might as well chime in!'

Not to derail the topic too much further (sorry) but I think it's pretty rad that we can all basically agree that there is something very wrong with the way that we [collectively] eat. It's also pretty rad that we all agree that it starts with education and the home environment and that there's just this huge issue with the [over]supply side of things. It's like a big hug thread.

[quote name='dohdough']
NOT EVERYONE GETS THE SUNDAY ADS SO WHERE THE ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO GET THE COUPONS.[/QUOTE]

You missed his point on that one.

He was saying food stamps could just be changed and only be good for specific items (like coupons are) not that people should use coupons.

i.e. based on your family size you'd get coupons for X lbs of apples, X lbs of meat, X gallons of milk and so on, rather than a certain monetary value of food stamps.

It's more or less what I was suggesting before--give some vouchers only good for certain types of products as at least part of the food stamp allotment to ensure those healthy items are being purchased and hopefully cut down a bit on junk food. Though it sounds he wants to go more extreme and only give out item specific vouchers.

[quote name='cochesecochese']This would be disastrous for any retailer that focuses on an urban market. Suburb stores won't even flinch. Without derailing the thread too much, I'll just speak as a person who has worked for many retailers and is currently working for one. The most painless mechanical solution, by leaps and bounds, is going to be simply blocking crap food via the POS system.

There would be a rocky transition period and I've got no good ideas on how to educate the populace but the system that is in place already works pretty well.[/QUOTE]

How many oreo cookies do you think would get rung up as "Celery"? I wouldn't want to be the cashier person who tells the foodstamp lady that she can't have her cheese doodles :lol: