We didn't say anything when they came for the smokers...

[213374U]

 

Yes, you actually need evidence to support any assertion that you expect other people to take seriously. I don't expect anyone to meekly nod in agreement with anything I post, just like I'm not buying anything you say just because you or the WHO say it.

 

I find it particularly perplexing that your rebuttal consists of a link to the WP page.

That was a rebut, as much as my previous post was an attempt to engage in discussion on that topic with you. As oppose too a topic I don't care about. And feeling that explaining my initial comment and what I do and don't care about, might be better than ignore you for the third time. That didn't work, so we will have to agree to disagree. I still think exactly what I said in that initial post concerning your link/conclusio and you can think whatever you want about me or the topic.

 

What I am interested in discussing, is (1) anything related to the bigger picture i.e. notion that the need to address obesity is some kind of prosecution as implied in the title, as oppose to being common sense (2) people who can answer the three basic points I noted at the bottom of post #146 and are willing to discuss what is the best possible solution, as oppose to looking for ways to discredit the solution they don't like.

 

 

Hang on, let me get this straight. You are not interested in the topic, but you keep posting nonetheless. Explaining why you disagree with my link and "conclusion"—even before you actually understood what the paper was about—is also not working because you have not actually done so, despite your repeat references to a non-existent explanation. The initial post concerning my link contended that it was random and that it did not contradict the WHO report. Turns out that following the URL shows that the former is simply false and the latter not only is irrelevant but also cannot be verified unless you can produce a copy of the report. But you stand your ground anyway. O...kay.

 

What you are interested in is just having the last word and pushing your pov while ignoring all counterpoints to your poorly researched "proposals". And I am using these blunt terms because it is abundantly clear that you do not really read what others post—skimming may be too generous—and yet you have the audacity to quote yourself and suggest that others read your posts (when not even you read what you post!).

 

If you want a discussion of (1), start by reading up on the links I posted in response to your lazy delivery of WP nth-hand content. They actually contain analyses of the issue and  references to other research on, for instance, the effect of discounts on healthy food. For (2), the points have already been discussed, but you either derailed or simply ignored the different arguments made.

 

We could agree to disagree... if you had actually made any points and bothered to defend them down to a matter of opinion. Instead all I see is a string of drive-by posts and demands that others address points already treated.

Edited February 17, 2014 by 213374U

[TrashMan]

Thought Police of course. You know that's coming too.

 

 

It's kinda here already in a form and fashion.

 

Society already "brainwashes" people to think and feel a certain way.

Questioning certain values of trains of thought that are pushed will result in hostility and pressure and change.

 

The irony is that humanity has always been like that and always will be like that - given our nature it's the only way.

[TrashMan]

 

Call me crazy, but people are stupid and sometimes need saving from themselves.

 

Yeah, they don't want it and it may not be right to force the issue.

 

But dammit is humanity stupid.

 

Alcohol, drugs, guns.... seems like humans can't trusted to do the right/smart thing.

 

Its okay Trashman. I know the right thing to do and say. I'll guide you and take that responsibility away from you so you don't need to worry anymore 

 

 

 

I don't worry for myself. At least not about that.

 

I don't smoke, I never got drunk in my life and I don't do drugs.

My only vice is spending too much time on the PC.

 

And ya know, I wouldn't mind someone forcing me away periodicly.

[Zoraptor]

 

Yes, everyone else is suggesting things of limited effectiveness and high cost while your suggestions of tax increase with rebates or whatever it was you came up with for not targeting the poor is both effective and low cost. Or not, seeing as it's a bureaucratic nightmare where you have people being weighed yearly or whatever to decide how much tax they pay.

I didn't said that it either A OR B kind of thing... and from the looks of it you made a huge mess of my comments(did you read older comments?)

 

Thing is, you confirm what I say further down where you specifically state about it being done via direct taxation, ie a tax increase with a rebate for the poor people, or a direct tax levy on the 'well off' overweight. Both of which I specifically mentioned.

 

Really though, you seem a bit confused about what you are saying, and your response to any criticism to it is just to restate it again and claim people are being 'negative'.

 

Anyway, the first stage of dealing with such a problem is by educational campaigns to encouraging people to change their lifestyles.

 

Yep, that's exactly what I said.

 

Such campaigns are both costly and usually ineffective, because most hate change and being told how to live by some spam camping.

 

 

They aren't expensive, certainly not compared to the system you are proposing, and if you call them ineffective, well, the punitive taxes on cigarettes doesn't stop everyone from smoking either. Education campaigns work perfectly fine, you don't have to be a paternalist zealot espousing fundamental truths to the great unwashed when doing educational campaigns but you should start from the position that most people would like their children to be healthy, even if they don't care that much about themselves.

[Mor]

Thing is, you confirm what I say further down where you specifically state about it being done via direct taxation, ie a tax increase with a rebate for the poor people, or a direct tax levy on the 'well off' overweight. Both of which I specifically mentioned.

You are correct the end result is the same, however, what you intialy said that I came up with a way "for not targeting the poor", is incorrect. The goal I am looking for is that just like with tobacco Obese people will bear the full costs of their consumption, associated medical and social costs(call it users fee), I suggested direct taxation after explaining that indirect taxation is impossible(unless on very small/limited scale to things like soda). My plan is about personal responsibility, not how 'well off' you are, how 'well off' you is the reality of our tax system in general.

 

They aren't expensive, certainly not compared to the system you are proposing, and if you call them ineffective, well, the punitive taxes on cigarettes doesn't stop everyone from smoking either.

I wouldn't compare the two and the goal of taxes on tobacco isn't to 'stop everyone from smoking', you can't force people todo what they don't want to, but you can make them pay for their consumption and associated costs(medical etc). We seen a reduction in smoking habit which is great, and the rest bear their share.

 

IMO indirect tax on tobacco is much more effective than what is possible and I suggest with obesity it targets a single product, which has no benefits, so any consumption is bad for you and no way to work around it. It also most effective where education is not, and smoker population is most prevalent. While not as effective, "money talks" and it will work in the same way that eco taxes work.

 

Edit: Also I don't recall if I mentioned it already, but the reason we need to tackle this is not only because it is the most serious public health problems of the century and the leading preventable cause of death worldwide, but its increasing prevalence in population(all groups)

Edited February 18, 2014 by Mor

[213374U]

Education campaigns work perfectly fine, you don't have to be a paternalist zealot espousing fundamental truths to the great unwashed when doing educational campaigns but you should start from the position that most people would like their children to be healthy, even if they don't care that much about themselves.

 

Pretty much. The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality. But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV.

 

But hey, let's tax sex outside of marriage! Because those dirty pigs must pay!

 

smh

 

edit: seriously what's with font size changes?

Edited February 18, 2014 by 213374U

[Orogun01]

 

Education campaigns work perfectly fine, you don't have to be a paternalist zealot espousing fundamental truths to the great unwashed when doing educational campaigns but you should start from the position that most people would like their children to be healthy, even if they don't care that much about themselves.

 

Pretty much. The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality. But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV.

 

But hey, let's tax sex outside of marriage! Because those dirty pigs must pay!

 

smh

 

edit: seriously what's with font size changes?

 

Education; while being important is useless nonetheless when there isn't a healthy alternative to high calorie foods. You could have people go to schools and try to educate in proper eating but as long as the vending machine in the corner is still choke full of candy and other crap it is all moot. The problem isn't just education and the public but the hold that the Food industry has over society.

[213374U]

 

 

Education campaigns work perfectly fine, you don't have to be a paternalist zealot espousing fundamental truths to the great unwashed when doing educational campaigns but you should start from the position that most people would like their children to be healthy, even if they don't care that much about themselves.

 

Pretty much. The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality. But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV.

 

But hey, let's tax sex outside of marriage! Because those dirty pigs must pay!

 

smh

 

edit: seriously what's with font size changes?

 

Education; while being important is useless nonetheless when there isn't a healthy alternative to high calorie foods. You could have people go to schools and try to educate in proper eating but as long as the vending machine in the corner is still choke full of candy and other crap it is all moot. The problem isn't just education and the public but the hold that the Food industry has over society.

 

 

I've been working an office job for the last two years, I am familiar with the vending machines you are talking about. Instead, I took a peanut butter+banana sandwich (the sandwich that killed Elvis!) to work, plus a whey shake that I chugged down with full fat milk to take me through the morning, in addition to whatever I brought for lunch. I'm sitting at ~10% bf. Please tell me what is in your vending machine that has more calories than that.

 

People need to learn how and what to eat, and most importantly, they need to understand that the human body has evolved to move, not to spend 8-12 hours hunching in front of a computer screen.

 

But you are right, that's not all. Some other stuff such as discounting healthy food (raw veggies, fresh fruits, unprocessed meats and cereals, etc) are also probably good ideas. Not a lot of evidence on the potential effects of that, though.

[Mor]

The idea that "educational efforts don't really work" is absurd and easily disproven by the fact that you have savage apes elevated to the status of neurosurgeons because of educational efforts. The whole of human civilization is based on the transmission of knowledge so claiming it doesn't work is... not very well grounded in reality.

Who said that education doesn't work, I used the term effectiveness. Also speaking of reality, we might be able to train apes to become neurosurgeons, but it cost a lot of money and hard word and very much effected by socioeconomic status. Obviously education is not limited to schools, it starts with home influence(e.g. like purchase habits), media etc. Which is why I suggested to leave the details to the end, because campaigns such as we need which address different target groups across all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds, need different approaches.(I suggest only one)

 

Obviously a major component of every camping is money. With tobacco you can make targeted campaigns and make the tobacco companies pay for them! and make the users bear the costs of their consumption. How would that work here? are you planing to role the cost to everyone through use of taxes or reallocate funds? and what type of educational campaign your suggest? (personally, I am tired that school educational budget is drained on a replacement for basic parenting)

 

Since there are different approaches/cost for educations, and time issue since prevalence of the problem continues to be on the rise, the obvious question that comes to mind is effectiveness of any measure. Any specific reason why you dismiss the idea of personal responsibility, which would help finance such efforts and further our cause by offering monetary incentive?

 

But one does not need to find such grand examples—the awareness raising and educational approach to sexual health in the last few decades has worked pretty well in reducing the impact of STDs, especially HIV.

Indeed, That campaign worked well as part of sex education, after all who want HIV, STD, teenager parents or too many kids. It was easy and cheap to address, no big changes simply put a condom, which brought condom makers on board with big smiles and dollar bills in their eyes. Are you certain that obesity (which you can't stamp with rubber, it requires a lot of work and self control) is such an easy case to tackle (how successful are campaigns against drugs abuse ?), especially with food industry in the picture, who is already lobbying against any measures.

 

...The problem isn't just education and the public but the hold that the Food industry has over society.

I agree with what you said, vending machines are a contributing factor. But i hate how you phrased the 'Food industry hold'... it sound big and ominous, something that only government can solve with regulation and poring big money on it. To me it sounds like when parents complain that consoles/computers don't have some kind of lock mechanism which would limit daily use, instead of taking personal responsibility and actively working on what their kid do or in our case eat.

 

 

@Zoraptor, sorry about the rough state of post 155, it was late and I barely managed to translated what I wanted to say into English.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Mor

[Hurlshort]

Last year after my wife nearly died of Pancreatitis, I started paying very close attention to all the labels on our food.  It is actually fairly difficult to find stuff that isn't loaded with salt, fat, and sugar.  They put these huge labels on the food that say REDUCED or LOW FAT but they are still obscene.  

 

Just look at sodas, does anyone believe that a diet soda is really healthier for you than a regular soda?  They are both terrible. 

[Enoch]

Last year after my wife nearly died of Pancreatitis, I started paying very close attention to all the labels on our food.  It is actually fairly difficult to find stuff that isn't loaded with salt, fat, and sugar.  They put these huge labels on the food that say REDUCED or LOW FAT but they are still obscene.  

 

Just look at sodas, does anyone believe that a diet soda is really healthier for you than a regular soda?  They are both terrible. 

 

Well, it's a matter of which risks you want to face.  "Regular" sodas have the clear, well-established risks of highly concentrated caloric energy delivered in a way that does not satiate hunger.  "Diet" sodas have the largely speculative risks associated with certain artificial sweeteners. 

 

IMO, the diet stuff has been freely available for decades, and I am aware of no solid consensus that they're any more dangerous than a thousand other environmental factors that would drive a person crazy to pay special attention to.  There could be some connection to very slow developing cancers, but the same can be said for eating grilled meat or having a beer. 

[Mor]

This reminds me the joke about someone buying junk food, with extra everything(size, fries and desert) except a diet coke, because yeah that what will save you... Like most things in life its about quantity, even medicine become a poison if you take too much of it.

 

In large enough quantity "Diet" sodas can be as harmful as "Regular" ones, more so if you look at your general health as suggested by Enoch. So far I have been fixating on obesity because obesity(and abdominal fat in particular) has been shown to directly increase almost every known health risk. Also compared to other issues like nutritional and health values of various substances, which is sometimes hard to comprehend by regular folk who don't follow that stuff, most people can "easily" address obesity and check if it works with quick weigh or look at the mirror test.

[Zoraptor]

Apparently there is a drop in soda consumption, according to Coke's financial results. Probably the healthiest soda alternative is to just buy carbonated water and use a decent fruit concentrate for flavouring.

 

It's always a bit difficult talking about buying healthy food because you're never sure how it is in other countries. Personally, if I were looking to eat healthily and cheaply I'd be cooking all my own food, buying big sacks of stuff like potatoes, onions and carrots as a base for most meals. They're all pretty healthy and available for roughly a dollar a kilogram. That's cheaper than buying pre prepared stuff, though it takes more time to prepare.

 

Then again we also have a lot of advertorial type stuff on TV that is 'feed 4 for $15' or food in a minute type stuff which is completely voluntary, 'free' (ie provided by companies, not the govt), food education which I suspect is not typical.

[Orogun01]

I usually prepare all my cooked food for the week on Sundays (free day) then I just have to heat it on weekdays. Saves me from the tiring task of cooking after a day's work.
To be honest I don't know if it's because I'm foreign and my previous diet was all natural but I can't really digest heavily processed food all that well. Though I suspect that the people growing up on it just have become accustomed to having blood on their stool.

[Mor]

If you live in a good location(most countries + good house/pipes), then the best alternative is tap water, it is healthier, costs much less and saves another trip to the elevator to bring those six packs. I went through many additives, but right now I simply drop fresh menth into a bottle, it is warm here and cold tap water taste great. That said, I am have nothing against soft drinks, although to moderate myself I usually buy them only when they are on sale, there is specific carbonated water that works well with ****tails and I LOVE ice tea.

 

I think that it is pretty much universal that you can make cheap\healthy food yourself and actually pretty quickly/easily once you get little experience. The problem is like you said time, people are lazy and like junk or quick prepared food because they it takes less time and you can stock a lot of it without spoiling. Which is why obesity is a good indicator of a neglected kid, clueless teenager or a person who has issues (unstable life, depression etc)

 

To be honest I don't know if it's because I'm foreign and my previous diet was all natural but I can't really digest heavily processed food all that well. Though I suspect that the people growing up on it just have become accustomed to having blood on their stool.

I know they used to add paper/plastic, leftovers and other crap into some types of processed food, maybe they still do with some products in some places... though I have yet to enjoy that particular experience you described :/ not sure if its because of location or that I am not a huge consumer of processed food.

[Gfted1]

If you have blood in your stool then you have way bigger problems than processed food. Might want to have them run a camera up your tailpipe.