A complete and total repudiation of all the people who bleat "calories in, calories out"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

All food is expensive now. Heathy food is actually cheaper. You can get a $5 McD sausage, egg, cheese biscuit or a $3 giant cylinder of oatmeal that gives you 30 servings. This doesn’t stop people from making unhealthy choices or more importantly, keeping portions in check

Awesome PP! Now do some other cheaper healthy foods! Nice healthy low sodium seafood instead of fatty ground beef! Crisp lettuce and fresh vegetables instead of canned! Inexpensive fresh fruit instead of canned! Why this could be a game changer for EVERYONE PP!

So, yeah, you did one particular high carb but healthy food against a McDs breakfast, and think you’ve somehow made a point. Please do a meal plan for a week — and then we’ll have something useful. Bonus points if you can buy everything from one store at a location that’s easy to access by Metro.

Please. People in other countries live on things such as rice and beans. Being so poor you can only buy junk is a myth, or maybe just a preference

Yup. Stick to these foods and follow 80 percent rule.

https://thewholeu.uw.edu/2019/03/18/eating-for-longevity-its-more-than-you-think/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

All food is expensive now. Heathy food is actually cheaper. You can get a $5 McD sausage, egg, cheese biscuit or a $3 giant cylinder of oatmeal that gives you 30 servings. This doesn’t stop people from making unhealthy choices or more importantly, keeping portions in check

Awesome PP! Now do some other cheaper healthy foods! Nice healthy low sodium seafood instead of fatty ground beef! Crisp lettuce and fresh vegetables instead of canned! Inexpensive fresh fruit instead of canned! Why this could be a game changer for EVERYONE PP!

So, yeah, you did one particular high carb but healthy food against a McDs breakfast, and think you’ve somehow made a point. Please do a meal plan for a week — and then we’ll have something useful. Bonus points if you can buy everything from one store at a location that’s easy to access by Metro.

Please. People in other countries live on things such as rice and beans. Being so poor you can only buy junk is a myth, or maybe just a preference

Wrong argument. Or rather, wrong counter-argument. P My argument is: No, it’s NOT true that “Healthy food is actually cheaper”. At least not where I live. And, no, I don’t have a yard where I can start a garden. “Other countries “ and “rice and beans” isn’t really relevant — although it would be great to hear from more people who can talk about that from their own lived experiences, sine I’m sure there’s a lot to be learned from traditional diets of all kinds.

No, it is true. People just don’t want to eat heathy cheaper foods but the cheaper unhealthy foods stimulate dopamine, take less work, and are tasty.

My DH came here as a child with his single immigrant mother who worked a low wage hourly job. She fed three kids without government assistance or fast food. He never even ate restaurant food until he was a teen. She made typical things she made in native country; lentils, rice, stews, oatmeal, eggs, milk, cheese. They didn’t always have fresh fruits and vegetables and when they did it was seasonal and not the variety most are used to. But she managed bc that was what she knew. It is definitely possible to eat cheap and heathy- but it may lack variety at times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

All food is expensive now. Heathy food is actually cheaper. You can get a $5 McD sausage, egg, cheese biscuit or a $3 giant cylinder of oatmeal that gives you 30 servings. This doesn’t stop people from making unhealthy choices or more importantly, keeping portions in check

Awesome PP! Now do some other cheaper healthy foods! Nice healthy low sodium seafood instead of fatty ground beef! Crisp lettuce and fresh vegetables instead of canned! Inexpensive fresh fruit instead of canned! Why this could be a game changer for EVERYONE PP!

So, yeah, you did one particular high carb but healthy food against a McDs breakfast, and think you’ve somehow made a point. Please do a meal plan for a week — and then we’ll have something useful. Bonus points if you can buy everything from one store at a location that’s easy to access by Metro.

Please. People in other countries live on things such as rice and beans. Being so poor you can only buy junk is a myth, or maybe just a preference

Wrong argument. Or rather, wrong counter-argument. P My argument is: No, it’s NOT true that “Healthy food is actually cheaper”. At least not where I live. And, no, I don’t have a yard where I can start a garden. “Other countries “ and “rice and beans” isn’t really relevant — although it would be great to hear from more people who can talk about that from their own lived experiences, sine I’m sure there’s a lot to be learned from traditional diets of all kinds.

No, it is true. People just don’t want to eat heathy cheaper foods but the cheaper unhealthy foods stimulate dopamine, take less work, and are tasty.

My DH came here as a child with his single immigrant mother who worked a low wage hourly job. She fed three kids without government assistance or fast food. He never even ate restaurant food until he was a teen. She made typical things she made in native country; lentils, rice, stews, oatmeal, eggs, milk, cheese. They didn’t always have fresh fruits and vegetables and when they did it was seasonal and not the variety most are used to. But she managed bc that was what she knew. It is definitely possible to eat cheap and heathy- but it may lack variety at times.

Yep, unhealthy junk foods and fast food are convenient and taste good. They are not going away, and we will collectively continue to get fatter.

There are ways to eat healthy for cheap, but most people don't want to spend the time or effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

Okay but you know the $60 Big Mac can't realistically happen, right? People would riot! McDonalds would have to close down, people would lose jobs, etc. Should only rich kids get to have Happy Meals? You will also have all the non-obese people indignant that they are being nannied and food policed when they don't have weight issues.

If you are saying ALL FOOD should be more expensive...well that's what we are living through now and it's probably pushing people to more unhealthy foods that are cheaper.

but it's not expensive enough. people are migrating toward cheaper foods so that they continue buy and eat too much food.

basically if you add up all people in the US and calculate calories all of them them need to maintain their weight (i.e. to just stop gaining weight), and then all calculated all calories in food sold in the US the latter would be magnitudes larger than the former. there is too much food and people eat too much of it. healthy, non healthy, vegan, keto - this is all just rounding error.

i agree that it would be probably impossible to raise these prices so much. nevertheless, it's important to understand what the problem is. people keep blaming the quality of food, but food is probably now better quality. there is just too much of it, and it's way too cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

Okay but you know the $60 Big Mac can't realistically happen, right? People would riot! McDonalds would have to close down, people would lose jobs, etc. Should only rich kids get to have Happy Meals? You will also have all the non-obese people indignant that they are being nannied and food policed when they don't have weight issues.

If you are saying ALL FOOD should be more expensive...well that's what we are living through now and it's probably pushing people to more unhealthy foods that are cheaper.

but it's not expensive enough. people are migrating toward cheaper foods so that they continue buy and eat too much food.

basically if you add up all people in the US and calculate calories all of them them need to maintain their weight (i.e. to just stop gaining weight), and then all calculated all calories in food sold in the US the latter would be magnitudes larger than the former. there is too much food and people eat too much of it. healthy, non healthy, vegan, keto - this is all just rounding error.

i agree that it would be probably impossible to raise these prices so much. nevertheless, it's important to understand what the problem is. people keep blaming the quality of food, but food is probably now better quality. there is just too much of it, and it's way too cheap.

Again, there are plenty of heathy cheap foods. People WANT to buy junk food regardless of price. It is convenient and tastes good and they will pick that again and again over just cooking something boring, simple, heathy, and cheap at home

[Anonymous]

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

All food is expensive now. Heathy food is actually cheaper. You can get a $5 McD sausage, egg, cheese biscuit or a $3 giant cylinder of oatmeal that gives you 30 servings. This doesn’t stop people from making unhealthy choices or more importantly, keeping portions in check

Awesome PP! Now do some other cheaper healthy foods! Nice healthy low sodium seafood instead of fatty ground beef! Crisp lettuce and fresh vegetables instead of canned! Inexpensive fresh fruit instead of canned! Why this could be a game changer for EVERYONE PP!

So, yeah, you did one particular high carb but healthy food against a McDs breakfast, and think you’ve somehow made a point. Please do a meal plan for a week — and then we’ll have something useful. Bonus points if you can buy everything from one store at a location that’s easy to access by Metro.

Nobody participating in this discussion has any of these problems.

Instead they are enamored with themselves having read a lot of obesity research and are contemplating the best way to use their buying power to soak up drugs designed for type 2 diabetics to further constrain the supply of those drugs for people that actually need them. That and figuring out how to appropriate things like food desert problems that don’t actually exist for them, or the need to eat shelf stable processed foods when they don’t have two jobs.

Goodness, your ignorance is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

Just because the majority of the country is overweight does not mean obesity is a normal or healthy condition for the human body. Not being nasty, that's just a fact. Do you disagree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They did not say there is no personal responsibility, but rather that it is the way our society is treating food and how there should be responsibility at the higher levels for food that is offered and how it is distributed and propaganda that supports horrible food choices.

What exactly do you think people at higher levels should do about this multi-faceted problem?

Tax the junk food? Okay, then you are punishing the low income in food deserts who don't have access to better.

Create more grocery stores in those areas? Yes, some have succeeded, and others have had to close or don't find business sustainable due to crime or other reasons.

Mandate only healthy food be made available? Limit how many sugary foods people can buy? That will never be acceptable. It's America - people want the right to choose what they want to to eat.

Even if it were possible to ensure only "healthy" food was available, who even can agree on what that is? Is meat healthy? Dairy? Depends who you ask. What is better for you - artificial sweeteners or pure sugar? Should everything with corn syrup and soybean oil be restricted? Should all sodas be banned? Those kind of measures will be extreme and cause public outrage.

Even if you could manage to get rid of even half the junk food out there, people could STILL become obese just eating large portions of regular foods! I've read posters on here in similar threads talking about how they have to be so vigilant that even an apple will make them gain weight. If that is true, then what hope is there that any of these interventions will do any good, even given the impossible odds that they could actually be put in place?

Americans want the right to eat what they want, even if what they want kills them. CICO doesn't matter.

Yes, CICO does matter. It is the only thing that matters. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less or eat only what your body needs. You can do that with self regulation/will power, meds, or surgery. If you can’t figure out how much food you should be eating to not gain weight, and stick to that, then there is no hope for you. The government can’t regulate how many bites to take.

Right, there's no hope. People are not going to change their behavior.

what would solve the problem is for food to become much more expensive. all food, not just "healthy food". if a Big Mac cost $60 nobody would eat them.

All food is expensive now. Heathy food is actually cheaper. You can get a $5 McD sausage, egg, cheese biscuit or a $3 giant cylinder of oatmeal that gives you 30 servings. This doesn’t stop people from making unhealthy choices or more importantly, keeping portions in check

Awesome PP! Now do some other cheaper healthy foods! Nice healthy low sodium seafood instead of fatty ground beef! Crisp lettuce and fresh vegetables instead of canned! Inexpensive fresh fruit instead of canned! Why this could be a game changer for EVERYONE PP!

So, yeah, you did one particular high carb but healthy food against a McDs breakfast, and think you’ve somehow made a point. Please do a meal plan for a week — and then we’ll have something useful. Bonus points if you can buy everything from one store at a location that’s easy to access by Metro.

Please. People in other countries live on things such as rice and beans. Being so poor you can only buy junk is a myth, or maybe just a preference

Wrong argument. Or rather, wrong counter-argument. P My argument is: No, it’s NOT true that “Healthy food is actually cheaper”. At least not where I live. And, no, I don’t have a yard where I can start a garden. “Other countries “ and “rice and beans” isn’t really relevant — although it would be great to hear from more people who can talk about that from their own lived experiences, sine I’m sure there’s a lot to be learned from traditional diets of all kinds.

No, it is true. People just don’t want to eat heathy cheaper foods but the cheaper unhealthy foods stimulate dopamine, take less work, and are tasty.

My DH came here as a child with his single immigrant mother who worked a low wage hourly job. She fed three kids without government assistance or fast food. He never even ate restaurant food until he was a teen. She made typical things she made in native country; lentils, rice, stews, oatmeal, eggs, milk, cheese. They didn’t always have fresh fruits and vegetables and when they did it was seasonal and not the variety most are used to. But she managed bc that was what she knew. It is definitely possible to eat cheap and heathy- but it may lack variety at times.

Yep, unhealthy junk foods and fast food are convenient and taste good. They are not going away, and we will collectively continue to get fatter.

There are ways to eat healthy for cheap, but most people don't want to spend the time or effort.

The sad part is when our fellow middle and upper middle class neighbors refuse to do it. That’s the part that’s astonishing.

Instead it’s all these external factors. What a bunch of weak BS. They can have at it. The formula is there to follow and they just don’t want to spend the effort because of <insert privileged problem>.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

Just because the majority of the country is overweight does not mean obesity is a normal or healthy condition for the human body. Not being nasty, that's just a fact. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. And I think your “facts” aren’t actually facts.

Obesity is normal now. You may not like reality, but at this point in history, it is the people with BMIs that are under the overweight range that are abnormal. The term “normal” — which has fallen deeply out of favor by health scientists, incidentally, and your use of it quickly identifies you as ignorant — generally refers to a population characteristic shared by a significant percentage of the population. Therefore, if you want to even use the term “normal” (which, as previously noted is disfavored), you should more properly refer to BMIs under the overweight range as “not normal” as they are the ones in the minority (e.g. not the norm). Personally I suggest moving away entirely from the term “normal” like health scientists are, as you can see it’s not a useful description.

Healthy is a much more complex question. There is strong evidence for the idea that in general super morbidly obese people or morbidly obese people have worse health and shortened life spans (although even that data is not so easily simplified). But weight is so deeply intertwined with other health risk factors that I also don’t know if you can ever really separate them out. Meanwhile, being overweight or slightly obese seems life-extending and protective of older women (there are multiple studies on this) but not for older men. So I don’t think you can just make the black and white judgment (not a fact) that you want to make.

When I read a lot of the posts here, I see people who are desperate and frantic to cast obesity as a personal moral failing. It’s striking to me how panicked they sound and how unwilling they are to consider any thoughts of any complexity regarding obesity. I think it is because they have tied their own self-worth and value to being thin, and therefore the idea that obesity isn’t a personal moral failing strikes deeply at their own conception of their own value. It is sad to watch.

Also — because I know what your tired next post is going to be and I want to end run it — I don’t have a weight issue myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

Just because the majority of the country is overweight does not mean obesity is a normal or healthy condition for the human body. Not being nasty, that's just a fact. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. And I think your “facts” aren’t actually facts.

Obesity is normal now. You may not like reality, but at this point in history, it is the people with BMIs that are under the overweight range that are abnormal. The term “normal” — which has fallen deeply out of favor by health scientists, incidentally, and your use of it quickly identifies you as ignorant — generally refers to a population characteristic shared by a significant percentage of the population. Therefore, if you want to even use the term “normal” (which, as previously noted is disfavored), you should more properly refer to BMIs under the overweight range as “not normal” as they are the ones in the minority (e.g. not the norm). Personally I suggest moving away entirely from the term “normal” like health scientists are, as you can see it’s not a useful description.

Healthy is a much more complex question. There is strong evidence for the idea that in general super morbidly obese people or morbidly obese people have worse health and shortened life spans (although even that data is not so easily simplified). But weight is so deeply intertwined with other health risk factors that I also don’t know if you can ever really separate them out. Meanwhile, being overweight or slightly obese seems life-extending and protective of older women (there are multiple studies on this) but not for older men. So I don’t think you can just make the black and white judgment (not a fact) that you want to make.

When I read a lot of the posts here, I see people who are desperate and frantic to cast obesity as a personal moral failing. It’s striking to me how panicked they sound and how unwilling they are to consider any thoughts of any complexity regarding obesity. I think it is because they have tied their own self-worth and value to being thin, and therefore the idea that obesity isn’t a personal moral failing strikes deeply at their own conception of their own value. It is sad to watch.

Also — because I know what your tired next post is going to be and I want to end run it — I don’t have a weight issue myself.

There also seems to be resentment that there are evolving Medicare options to help with obesity. Like there’s a “cheat code” now to have what they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

Just because the majority of the country is overweight does not mean obesity is a normal or healthy condition for the human body. Not being nasty, that's just a fact. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. And I think your “facts” aren’t actually facts.

Obesity is normal now. You may not like reality, but at this point in history, it is the people with BMIs that are under the overweight range that are abnormal. The term “normal” — which has fallen deeply out of favor by health scientists, incidentally, and your use of it quickly identifies you as ignorant — generally refers to a population characteristic shared by a significant percentage of the population. Therefore, if you want to even use the term “normal” (which, as previously noted is disfavored), you should more properly refer to BMIs under the overweight range as “not normal” as they are the ones in the minority (e.g. not the norm). Personally I suggest moving away entirely from the term “normal” like health scientists are, as you can see it’s not a useful description.

Healthy is a much more complex question. There is strong evidence for the idea that in general super morbidly obese people or morbidly obese people have worse health and shortened life spans (although even that data is not so easily simplified). But weight is so deeply intertwined with other health risk factors that I also don’t know if you can ever really separate them out. Meanwhile, being overweight or slightly obese seems life-extending and protective of older women (there are multiple studies on this) but not for older men. So I don’t think you can just make the black and white judgment (not a fact) that you want to make.

When I read a lot of the posts here, I see people who are desperate and frantic to cast obesity as a personal moral failing. It’s striking to me how panicked they sound and how unwilling they are to consider any thoughts of any complexity regarding obesity. I think it is because they have tied their own self-worth and value to being thin, and therefore the idea that obesity isn’t a personal moral failing strikes deeply at their own conception of their own value. It is sad to watch.

Also — because I know what your tired next post is going to be and I want to end run it — I don’t have a weight issue myself.

There also seems to be resentment that there are evolving Medicare options to help with obesity. Like there’s a “cheat code” now to have what they have.

* medical

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obesity is 100% a FAILING, a personal, familial and societal failing.

No, it isn't. But lack of education, kindness, and empathy is.

Obesity is not a good condition to be in, no matter who is at fault. When we start normalizing it, that does not help us fix the problem.

Well, when it is the state of the majority of the population, it is by definition normalized. You can have all the temper tantrums you like, but your desire to be nasty doesn’t actually help anything. It does make me pity you, though.

Just because the majority of the country is overweight does not mean obesity is a normal or healthy condition for the human body. Not being nasty, that's just a fact. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. And I think your “facts” aren’t actually facts.

Obesity is normal now. You may not like reality, but at this point in history, it is the people with BMIs that are under the overweight range that are abnormal. The term “normal” — which has fallen deeply out of favor by health scientists, incidentally, and your use of it quickly identifies you as ignorant — generally refers to a population characteristic shared by a significant percentage of the population. Therefore, if you want to even use the term “normal” (which, as previously noted is disfavored), you should more properly refer to BMIs under the overweight range as “not normal” as they are the ones in the minority (e.g. not the norm). Personally I suggest moving away entirely from the term “normal” like health scientists are, as you can see it’s not a useful description.

Healthy is a much more complex question. There is strong evidence for the idea that in general super morbidly obese people or morbidly obese people have worse health and shortened life spans (although even that data is not so easily simplified). But weight is so deeply intertwined with other health risk factors that I also don’t know if you can ever really separate them out. Meanwhile, being overweight or slightly obese seems life-extending and protective of older women (there are multiple studies on this) but not for older men. So I don’t think you can just make the black and white judgment (not a fact) that you want to make.

When I read a lot of the posts here, I see people who are desperate and frantic to cast obesity as a personal moral failing. It’s striking to me how panicked they sound and how unwilling they are to consider any thoughts of any complexity regarding obesity. I think it is because they have tied their own self-worth and value to being thin, and therefore the idea that obesity isn’t a personal moral failing strikes deeply at their own conception of their own value. It is sad to watch.

Also — because I know what your tired next post is going to be and I want to end run it — I don’t have a weight issue myself.

There also seems to be resentment that there are evolving Medicare options to help with obesity. Like there’s a “cheat code” now to have what they have.

Yes, they are overtly angry at the development of medical treatments for obesity. They are furious at the idea that, for instance, semaglutides make people stop overeating, because that’s hard evidence that they aren’t morally superior. It’s really interesting to me to see just how angry they are, and how much they lash out — it shows just how much of their own self-worth they have tied to their thinness. It reminds me of the rages that you sometimes see from narcissists who are suddenly forced to confront a reality they don’t like. Those kind of rages can be incredibly destructive, and I see a lot of that in the angry obesity moralists in this thread and others. The hard evidence of drugs like the semaglutides and bariatric surgeries is perceived by these posters as an attack on their own self-worth, and they lash out furiously in response.

I wonder what they will do if semaglutides start being used for treatment of alcoholism (studies are now underway as it turn out many semaglutide users lose any desire for alcohol). I suspect the cognitive dissonance will be too much for them.