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:

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.

It is not normal in terms of the span of human evolution. Our bodies have changed rapidly in just the last 30-40 years, due to the food supply and lifestyle changes.

Well, you want to talk evolutionarily, you should then also being saying that it is normal for 1/3 of babies born to not make their first birthday. Do you consider that “normal” or do you reserve that word only for obesity?

That is such a strange and irrelevant analogy.

But accurate.

Not in the slightest.

[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.

Ouch! Harsh but true

[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.

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.

Ouch! Harsh but true

Oh well. Just took my weekly dose and I’m 55 pounds down. And I’m on Medicaid—thanks for helping foot the bill, taxpayers ❤️

[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.

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.

Ouch! Harsh but true

It’s not true. It’s the raving of someone who doesn’t mind showing the world how uneducated she is. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

Garbage. Off label use of those drugs is going to come around.

I don’t care. I’m able to control myself. Even on thanksgivings, crazy the thought of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

Garbage. Off label use of those drugs is going to come around.

I don’t care. I’m able to control myself. Even on thanksgivings, crazy the thought of that.

It’s not really off label if the exact same drug (semaglutide) has been approved for weight loss. I mean yes, if you’re taking Ozempic instead of Wegovy for weight loss you’re technically taking it off label. But they’re the exact same thing.

[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.

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.

Ouch! Harsh but true

Oh well. Just took my weekly dose and I’m 55 pounds down. And I’m on Medicaid—thanks for helping foot the bill, taxpayers ❤️

Good for you. Maybe the next administrations can evaluate your gluttony directly and see how you fair. How does this work along with your “planet focused” voting record.

What a Joke.

Oh my. Someone is big mad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

Garbage. Off label use of those drugs is going to come around.

I don’t care. I’m able to control myself. Even on thanksgivings, crazy the thought of that.

I know you are very mad that your superior self-control no longer makes you any different than us gluttons now that we have medication that gives us the same results with no discipline needed. We’re one of you!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So…CICO works, but it’s too tough to implement for most people?

No, it doesn't work for everyone. It's what happens in the body when the calories go in -- what does your body chemistry do with elements that have entered the body? Not every body processes food the same way, no matter how much or how little exercise you do. Three people can eat the same exact diet and one will gain, one will lose, and the other will stay the same because of their individual biochemistry. A fourth person might die fro the same food intake because their body overreacts to the food and experiences anaphylaxis.

Just as two people can do the same sets of exercises, and one develops defined muscles and the other doesn't because the second body has different neurological wiring for muscle tone.

Nutrition and body chemistry vary from person to person. Obesity appears to be triggered by a fault in body chemistry in some people, the cause of which we have not fully determined.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ouch! Harsh but true

Oh well. Just took my weekly dose and I’m 55 pounds down. And I’m on Medicaid—thanks for helping foot the bill, taxpayers ❤️

Good for you. Maybe the next administrations can evaluate your gluttony directly and see how you fair. How does this work along with your “planet focused” voting record.

What a Joke.

Oh my. Someone is big mad

You can really feel the unhinged anger as PP starts to spell words wrong and lash out about your voting record and the planet (???) in their fury. Absolutely seething. It’s so delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

Garbage. Off label use of those drugs is going to come around.

I don’t care. I’m able to control myself. Even on thanksgivings, crazy the thought of that.

Honestly, you are just not very smart if you think this is about controlling eating habits. It is for a few people, but not at the epidemic levels we are seeing.

[Anonymous]

All the bickering and insulting on this thread is ridiculous and will not make anyone want to seriously consider and engage in what is a very important topic.

No one is changing anyone's views this way. Which seemed to be the original intent of the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So…CICO works, but it’s too tough to implement for most people?

No, it doesn't work for everyone. It's what happens in the body when the calories go in -- what does your body chemistry do with elements that have entered the body? Not every body processes food the same way, no matter how much or how little exercise you do. Three people can eat the same exact diet and one will gain, one will lose, and the other will stay the same because of their individual biochemistry. A fourth person might die fro the same food intake because their body overreacts to the food and experiences anaphylaxis.

Just as two people can do the same sets of exercises, and one develops defined muscles and the other doesn't because the second body has different neurological wiring for muscle tone.

Nutrition and body chemistry vary from person to person. Obesity appears to be triggered by a fault in body chemistry in some people, the cause of which we have not fully determined.

This seems to be a reasonably good explanation. The corollary is, if you learn over time that your body processes food differently and you have a tendency to gain more weight, that is when you have to adjust your intake down to account for your slower metabolism. If my friend can eat 2,000 calories to maintain their weight but I can only eat 1,000... well that sucks and it is unfair, just like many other aspects in life are unfair. Is it hard and does it feel impossible, especially around the holidays? YES!! Of course. But if I don't want to become obese, I have to suck it up and eat less. So that's where I think people are bringing the concepts of accountability and discipline into it. Your metabolism may be slower due to many things over which you have zero control, and that is not your fault, but adapting to that takes dedication and perseverance. Just like if I have to train really hard to run a mile three minutes slower than my friend who effortlessly runs much faster with no training after drinking all night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you hang around a lot of low quality people if this is your reality.

I think it’s sad you want to hitch your wagon to a pharmaceutical instead of working on fixing it yourself. Have at it.

It’s also sad that a bunch of weak minded people that can easily fix all this themselves are sucking up the supply of these drugs for those that actually need them.

Strange flex.
Do yiu feel the same way for people with mental health issues (lets say ADHD) or more critically keeping organs from rejecting?

Garbage. Off label use of those drugs is going to come around.

I don’t care. I’m able to control myself. Even on thanksgivings, crazy the thought of that.

I used a migraine medication off-label for my mood disorder because nothing else was working so I dont really think that off-label is such a stretch. Sometimes there are wonderful unintended uses for drugs. Viagra anyone? Im sure you are also pissed that taxpayers fund erections too /s