U.S. health gains hurt by obesity, smoking (23.1% considered obese)

High Fructose Corn Syrup. That shit is in EVERYTHING! Americans need to get off their fat asses and MOVE! What ever happened to good old fashioned vanity and pride in appearance? Sheesh. I'm 46 and have 4 children my last one at age 42! Running is one of my BEST hobbies!

That's also not the reason obese people should lose weight. Health is far more important. It's not a matter of fashion.

That's nice about your kids, but why should everybody want to aim to be like you? Why set yourself up as the example? (Childbirth is not without its risks, by the way, especially as you get older...)

If very overweight people die 10, 20, 30 years before everyone else, then they actually save society money, because they won't be collecting paychecks or Social Security as long as anybody else. Also, not everybody carries insurance or seeks treatment for themselves; therefore, not everybody is part of running up the medical costs.

Obesity, as bad as it is, is not infectious; it is something a person does to themselves.

The best reason to lose weight is to live a long life and enjoy it.

I take absolutely no medication. NONE. I have been sick maybe 4 times in my life. I run and stay very active. I bet the 23.1% of people who are obese would want my life. Whatever!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I'm probably considered "obese".

Until my surgery last week I was at the gym 5 days a week for the past 8 months. I've lost 100 lbs in the last 14 months, but I am still overweight.

I think the term "obese" doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm a big person, and yes, I'd probably be healthier if I were smaller, but I think the term "obese" doesn't tell the whole story.

What determination you must have.

:toast:

I am probably one of the fittest,strongest women in this state...but I am a "big" woman....with an IQ of 175,speak three languages,well-read in many areas,a loving and skilled RN,and a really funny,fun mom.People,don't judge.

so there are lots of people out there who are overweight. Now I walk to work virtually every day--three miles to work and three miles home or six miles of brisk walking four to five days per week--and I love it! but I'm also about 25 pounds overweight. I've lost weight in the last year on weight watchers and it feels good--but it's also a constant struggle. Alot of weight problems are also genetic. Also lots of people do have medical problems which keep them from losing weight. Diabetics, for instance, have a hard time losing weight and we all know about thyroid problems. So I feel some sympathy for overweight people--I'm one of them--thankfully I'm trying to do something about it. I think it's great you are so active and run every day and are very fit and don't take medication. Many people would like to be in your shoes, but it also sounds in your response that you need to learn a little about putting yourself in somebody elses' shoes--it's not always as easy as you think.

Please. Congrats on bringing four more mouths to feed into the world. Such a staggering accomplishment and I'm sure we're all in awe of your reproductive success.

But as far as wanting your life? I'll pass.

That's so interesting! I guess I'd always assumed that people would be more likely to envy those who are young, beautiful, and wealthy.


:think:

How many fast food commercials are on in one evening on most channels. Count 'em.

"treat" is the wrong word, but "cure" isn't a word typically used w/ addiction. "Recovery" is a good one.

With food, you can't quit cold turkey.

I quit smoking. It was difficult, but it was no where near as difficult as controlling my weight.

Raves were happening all over, and dancing was well on its way to becoming a vital part of our culture.
Dancing is very good exercise.

But the powers-that-be didn't like it -- it's way too participatory and empowering,
our tastes move too fast for lumbering megacorporations to keep up with,
and we won't sell out to them anyway.
Dancing is also not competitive, which bothers them the most of all.
So the media and the government declared war on dance culture.
They have shut down nearly all of the raves in most of the country.
They'd rather have everyone sitting at home in front of their TV.
They got what they wanted for the most part.

One cannot fail to notice that those few areas that still have a functioning rave scene have much less of a
problem with obesity than the rest of the country.

>Americans need to get off their fat asses and MOVE!<

Weight issues are multi-pronged; it's not just lack of exercise. Interestingly enough, there's been more than one study proving that those now classified as "obese" and who exercise regularly are found just as healthy as those who are thin. I got a trainer and started hitting the gym 3-5 days a week. If I never lost any weight at all, I feel better. I'd rather feel better (and have the energy to live my daily life,) than determine my future happiness on a set of numbers on a scale.

The insurance weight tables deeming "normal" weight have also been deliberately adjusted downwards over the past several years as well.

Julie

as you can tell by my moniker,I am a fitness freak.I also weigh over 200 pounds(although I have about 18% body fat).I have been in the weightlifting/bodybuilding arena for years,and I can tell you nothing is more self-destructive than a woman who sees a "fat" woman in the mirror.The extremes my competitors,and myself-to be honest<would go to to make weight were ridiculous.Now that I no longer compete,I have relaxed a lot about fitting into a pre-determined box.Keep up your fitness program,girl.

18 percent body fat? You GO, girl! Is your avatar a photo of you? You look great!

>The extremes my competitors,and myself-to be honest<would go to to make weight were ridiculous.<

When I was still single ;-), I lived next door to a woman who was Washington state's flyweight bodybuilding champion. I couldn't believe the stuff Cookie used to eat (and not eat, such as existing on iceberg lettuce and tunafish for months before a competition.) When the competition was over, my phone would ring at 2:00 AM, and I'd hear Cookie say, "Pancakes. NOW. Get over here." :woohoo: The scariest thing for me was to go to aerobics with her. She had no cardio endurance.

>Keep up your fitness program,girl.<

I'll do my best. I am enjoying the additional strength, energy and endurance. I hope to someday be as active as I was before I thought I wasn't doing anything because I didn't go to the gym. ;-)

My thoughts and prayers are with your boy. I hope he comes back safe and sound, as soon as possible.

Julie

but I would have thought one legitimate reason to deliberately adjust them downwards would be because people's weight now is more likely to consist of fat instead of muscles. Muscles weigh more than fat, and a woman weighing 200lbs because of muscles gained by doing farm work or other physical labor, would most likely be healthier than a 200lbs office worker. The same with, say a lumberjack and a stock broker. Perhaps the adjustment took that into consideration?

I'm sure you have always been a good runner.
You could probably outrun most of the other girls at school, and even some of the boys.

The kids who are having obesity problems are not the natural athletes,
they are the ones who get sent to play soccer and spend more time on the bench than playing.
They are reviled by the coach for "not trying hard enough", no matter how hard they try.
They come out of school associating exercise with failure and humiliation.
THAT is what is causing obesity.

>They come out of school associating exercise with failure and humiliation.
THAT is what is causing obesity.<

I hated exercise until I started doing things I enjoyed. When I was younger, I used to rollerskate around Green Lake in Seattle. I would really like to learn to rollerblade this summer, maybe I can do it again! I learned to love exercise when I started no-impact aerobics (aka NIA, if you'd like to look it up, go to www.nia-nia.com) and found joy in movement. I'm signing up for a belly dancing class after the first of the year, because it looks like fun, and I love to dance. To my shock and amazement, even my time at the gym is fun if I can listen to music I enjoy while I'm working out.

It's a matter of finding whatever makes one happy, and feeling the benefits from that.

Julie

Of course, by the time all the coaches and gym teachers were through with me,
I was far too self-conscious to dance -- until I found


The Grateful Dead knew how to get people up and dancing, even shy people like me.
It was at their shows that I came to appreciate dancing. The long, flowing jams
were made to dance to, and the atmosphere was supportive for riding the music wherever
it might go.

I came to enjoy dancing a lot. Followed the music out to California.
Just in time for the rave scene :-) and the tech boom :-)

I have observed that not only is dancing very good exercise,
but it seems to do more to improve coordination than all the sports I ever tried to do.

If I coulda had raves instead of phys ed when I was a kid
it would have done me a world of good!

Physical education in the country is set up all wrong, and it was wise of you to point that out.

Gym classes need to concentrate on activities that are less competitive and don't exclude those who are less athletic and less coordinated than the star performers.

Jogging w/ staggered start times (so no one really knows who finishes first or last). Yoga classes. Step aerobics, salsa dancing, free weights....

Kids should know about muscle groups, target heart rates, added weight versus added reps....

Throw away the kickball, basketball,... and anything competitive.

And make the shower stalls more private. Kids are self-conscious enough.

I have read stats to verify this, but I'm telling ya -- when somebody I know moves out to the way-burbs, in a year or two they've invariably gained weight. Why? Too much car time.

If you live five minutes from work you are more likely to exercise and less likely to rely on fast food, than if you spend 2 hours in traffic every day. Plus these sprawling "gated communities," a lot of times you have to drive even to the market, they are on the other side of the freeway (talking about some of the "planned communities" I've seen outside of L.A. They're planned to DRIVE...everywhere!"

I think city folks and rural people are both more fit than suburbanites, and suburban communities have exploded the last decade or two.

I KNOW it's not impossible to be a fit suburbanite so don't yell at me that you're one, LOL!! I just mean it's more of a challenge if you commute and spend a lot of time driving.

when somebody I know moves out to the way-burbs, in a year or two they've invariably gained weight. Why? Too much car time.

If it's far enough out that it has an outdoors worth being out in, then the benefits can outweigh this. But then it's not suburbia either.
Works for me

If you live five minutes from work

or telecommute:-)

you are more likely to exercise

People are more likely to exercise if they have access to strenuous activities that they enjoy.
I don't live so close to work, but I'm 5 minutes (by bike) from the best mountain biking trails in the Bay Area. This has had a very favorable effect on my physical fitness.

and less likely to rely on fast food

To some extent this is a matter of imagination, or lack thereof. When I was working in San Francisco I had several coworkers who nearly always had lunch at Carls Jr. I could never understand this, since San Francisco has a greater variety of restaurants than any place but New York City. To eat mass-produced burgers in such a place seems like a terrible waste. I usually ended up eating lunch with the Indian contingent, who had much more interesting culinary preferences.

than if you spend 2 hours in traffic every day.

Only time I ever had that long a commute every day I was living in the city and commuting out to the outer burbs.

Plus these sprawling "gated communities," a lot of times you have to drive even to the market, they are on the other side of the freeway (talking about some of the "planned communities" I've seen outside of L.A. They're planned to DRIVE...everywhere!"

And sometimes the market that is within walking distance closes down. Even the best-laid plans....

I think city folks and rural people are both more fit than suburbanites

An interesting paradox, since most rural people are not farmers, and some commute even further than the average suburbanite.

One might presume that the city folks might walk to work, though the characteristic city commute exercise is hanging onto a strap on a crowded public conveyance, and many city-dwellers drive, often to jobs out in the suburbs.
Out in the country, one can presume that the farmers get plenty of exercise,
and some of us telecommute or otherwise manage to work at home, so we can avail ourselves of that which caused us to move out into the sticks in the first place.
There are others that spend even more time commuting than the suburbanites do.

I admit to having a horror of the sprawling way-burbs for a lot of reasons. Personally if I had a BIG piece of land it would be worth it but this thing where people drive for hours just to be on top of each other in cookie cutter "units," blech. If you're gonna live in close quarters you might as well get the benefits of urban life.

I think you're def in the minority as far as living in the city and commuting to the burbs, don't you?

Then I moved out to the burbs to be closer to work.
That sucked, so I moved further out.

than some over weight Americans.

...about ten years ago. My, my, what a coincidence.

And guess who makes a pile of money off the new standards? That's right...the exercise, medical, pharmaceutical, herb remedies, and fatburning pill industries.

it helps, but there's the matter of how far and also how fast. Nevermind there's the whole rest of the body to think of it. I love people at the health club who spend 40 minutes on a treadmill but would faint attempting 100 pushups. Nevermind some women run too much/don't eat enough. Namely to the point where bodyfat drops so low their menstural cycle stops. Which is very bad.

that in just fifteen years, barely any time at all, the number of obese people has DOUBLED! It's not like anything has really changed in the US either. I mean, if we had just been through a famine or something, or even a recession, I could see why people would be making sudden and massive dietary or activity-level changes. It's just really odd.

Is it just a lot of small things adding up -- a sort of snowball effect?

Things like fewer smokers, more high-fructose corn syrup, more driving?

Nintendo games, the Internet, more cable TV channels, more fast-food joints serving ever-bigger burgers (a 1/4-pounder used to be the biggest burger available. Now we have Hardee's. SoooooWHEEEEE!) and restaurants serving HUGE portions as routine practice. Kids don't go outside anymore. My mother used to kick us out of the house on nice days. Now the parents have to worry that some pervert might do something horrible to their kids so they watch TV and don't get enough exercise.

All the advertising makes people go gung-ho over this crap. My wife was watching some show last night where they showed obscenely obese people being treated at a "fat farm" nursing home. This guy weighed several hundred pounds and hadn't left his bed for five years since his knees wouldn't take the weight. As he lay in his bed he was served a dinner of a salad and vegetable soup. He gasped out "I want a hamburger".

It's ultimately about personal responsibility.

The one about parents having to worry about pedophiles just isn't true. Caution must be taken, but the incidence of pedophilia hasn't changed at all in the past 50 years.

I think the U.S. is continuously seeing jobs change from manufacturing and production to service-oriented and I think a lot more people earn their living in jobs that require less and less physical activity. I can't say though that this trend is bigger in the last 15 years than it was in the 15 years before that. I just don't know.

All of the things you bring up do factor into the problem. Plus, if people commute a lot for their jobs, they make less time for exercise.

...changed...about 10-15 years ago. Weight standards were dropped for each body-type (small, medium, large) by at least ten pounds, despite the fact that Americans are now taller and heavier,

Gee....I wonder who benefits by all of this "Americans are more obese" talk?

When I was a kid in the 70's, "fast food" was whatever was around in the fruit bowl or maybe heating up yesterday's leftovers. I really think with all the time constraints now -- family schedules are so jammed-packed that drive thrus, processed foods (lunchables etc.) and junk of all sorts becomes part of a lifestyle rather than a once-in-awhile change of pace thing.

Not dissing working parents at all but one of the reasons I quit work (besides I was dolling out over half my check in childcare!) was that I had a hard time managing the home front & especially groceries and cooking, when I was always working late. However I know other working moms that pull it off just fine. Those are the super moms, cuz it sure was a struggle for me!

Of that 23%, I bet there are a lot of people on that list who, 30-40 years ago, would not have been considered obese. In today's society, if you aren't UNDERWEIGHT by 10 pounds or more, you're considered 'fat'.

Women used to have curves. A little belly. And fleshy thighs and a round butt. Now, if you don't look like boobs on a stick, you're considered fat. And the boobs are most likely fake.

Marilyn Monroe is probably rolling over in her grave, seeing what passes for 'beauty and fitness' nowadays.

30-40 years ago isn't relevant--more is known about effects of being overweight than back then. Granted, there's societal emphasis on "supermodel thin", but the CDC doesn't give a hoot about that.

Bottom line is, obesity has gone way up in 15 years. And that's bad news.

...changed about 10 to 15 years ago, dropping about 10-15 pounds per body-type: small, medium, large.

Use some common sense instead of relying on advertising that helps only the exercise and medical industries.

makes no adjustments for standards being changed. And sorry no one has ever shown that a woman who is 5'10" and is 170lbs is overweight and at any increased risk of anything. And at one time that was considered a normal weight for a woman that's 5'10". Then again no one flinched at a woman wearing a size 12 dress either.

You might be thinking of "underweight" vs. "healthy weight" vs. "overweight". That's not what this is about.

This is about OBESITY.

CDC defines obesity as (for example) 5'9 and 203 lbs or more. (not 170 lbs)

That's FAT, in this decade or any other.

Almost 1/4 of Americans in that category. Talk of "changing tables" is simply ignoring the issue.

as a certain amount or more overweight. What is overweight has changed over the last 40 years, not that anyone has ever been able to justify it. Consequently how many obese people there are is a matter of what weight standards one uses. The old ones from the 60's or current ones.

that the standard for OBESITY (not "overweight") has changed in 40 years?

Do you know for a fact that the standard for OBESITY (not "overweight") has changed in the past 15 years? (the period covered by the chart above)

If not, then the chart remains valid.

who happens to be a doctor. And he goes by the old weight charts not the new ones that are associated with BMI, which he thinks are worthless. As what counts as overweight changes does what is obese. Nevermind a quick visual survey of the people around would indicate the 23.1% number is beyond bogus.

So what was the old BMI for obese, and when did it change?

If "obese" is defined as being 30 lbs. more than one's ideal weight (and I don't know that 30 lbs. is what the definition is, I'm just throwing that out there) then what is considered "obese" will change every time the weight standards change.

For example, if I weight 150 lbs. and the weight stardard for my height is 130, then I am not obese.

But if the weight standard drops by 10 lbs. (meaning that my ideal is 120), then I am 30 lbs. higher than the standard and *poof* I'm obese.

I didn't ask what made sense, I asked what the old standard was. This isn't a table where one works by inferring.

My point is, the "overweight" standard may or may not have changed, but either way, that does not necessarily affect the OBESITY standard. For example, the BMI for "overweight" could change without affecting the BMI for "obese".

So for now, the chart remains valid.

Hasn't the other poster told you that an uncle of theirs has charts both old and new?

If there's a new chart that difers from and old chart, it stands to reason that there has been a change.

Doesn't it?

And if obesity is defined by weighing more than an ideal weight, then what is considered obese will change any time the standard for ideal changes. It depends on what the definition of obese is.

I'm on Medicine.net and their definition (and who knows if this is what the AMA uses or not) is dependent upon the measurement of body fat, not on height/weight charts.

We're not talking about the AMA here. The report came from the American Public Health Association, which got their data from the CDC.

Again, it doesn't matter what "stands to reason". I'm just asking for backup for the claim that the OBESITY (not "overweight") standard has changed in the past 15 years.

The "overweight chart" may or may not have changed from the "old overweight chart", but the article above is about obesity, not overweight. They ain't the same thing.

You said, "if obesity is defined by weighing more than an ideal weight"

It's not. It's a BMI of 30 or more, irrespective of what "ideal weight" (or even "overweight") is defined to be.

does their definition in any way rely on what the standard is for "ideal" body weight?

BMI is a poor indicator of obesity--ask any body builder. Successful body builders have very high BMIs but have very little body fat. Mr. Univere's BMI is probably off the charts.

Body fat indicators seem to be the best indicator of obesity, however, as I have said a couple of times now (and no one has yet to address) "obesity" or even "body composition" are not always reliable indicators of overall health.

BMI of 30+. And yes, CDC has this caveat for body builders: (so if you're Mr or Ms Universe, you're exempt)

"It is important to remember that although BMI correlates with the amount of body fat, BMI does not directly measure body fat. As a result, some people, such as athletes, may have a BMI that identifies them as overweight even though they do not have excess body fat."

So EXCEPT for body builders, BMI is actually a very good indicator of obesity.

I have only questioned whether or not the definition of "obese" is dependent about what is considered "overweight".

And since you're interested in the report from the American Public Health Association, you'll have to check when them to see how they define it now, and how it differs from how it was defined then.

I was merely pointing out that if the definition is dependent on "ideal weight" then when one changes so will the other.

Please note that I'm not trying to argue with you.

I do wonder why you won't take the other person's word for it when she tells you about the uncle. It seems to me on DU we're a community that has the same ideals and motives. We don't always agree on everything, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of us aren't going to lie just to win an argument over something this silly.

Obesity is a problem, yes, but as I've indicated, it's not the only reliable indicator of health. And while changing standards may or may not be a part of the equation, there are other changes that need to be made in order to reverse the trend. Unfit, overweight people can be the product of medical problems, food addiction, limited access to health care and mental health treatment, a failed education system (I think P.E. in the public schools SUCKS) and a slew of other problems.

Complicated problems don't come with cookie-cutter solutions, for sure. And no one helps the discussion but assuming that the other side is lying just to win an argument.

"I have only questioned whether or not the definition of "obese" is dependent about what is considered "overweight"."

No, it's not. The BMI for obesity is independent of the BMI for overweight. And neither is dependent on "ideal weight". It's 30+, irrespective of the BMI for overweight or ideal.

What I "won't take her word for" is her conclusion, that "my uncle says the charts changed" implies "the standard for obesity has changed too". One does not follow from the other (not dependent).

I never assumed she lied, and hope I didn't imply such. I only asked what the old standard for obesity (not overweight) was. As it happens, that standard has not changed (see below).

Agreed, obesity is certainly not the only indicator of health (in fact, the report above uses *multiple* factors for health). But almost a quarter of Americans being obese is an indicator to be taken very seriously. IMHO.

Note also that the 23.1% figure is for *all* Americans. Of *adult* Americans, the figure is 30%. To me that is a frightening statistic.

as weight standards change who qualifies as obese changes. Last time weight standards changed millions of Americans became overweight overnight. Sweet move.

If you're so certain the standards for OBESITY (not overweight) changed, then provide the backup, please. You can't expect me to just take your uncle's word for it.

20% above the highest acceptable weight for a given height. So if 200lbs is the max accepatble weight for a given height, then 240lbs would be where obese starts. Now if for that height you cut the max acceptable weight to 190, obese starts at 238. Of course weight alone is of limited value. There is the matter of fat and muscle mass. Which is the big problem with BMI. And the total lack of mention of the fact that too little bodyfat carries health risks just like too much does.

Dunno what "standard" you're quoting is, but that ain't the one referenced in the article above, which is the standard used by CDC and WHO.

Fact is, the OBESITY (not "overweight") standard (30+ BMI) has not changed since at least 1985 (and maybe much earlier). BMI itself has been around since 1850 (not a typo).

Muscle mass/body builders was addressed above.

So...the article above, and the chart above, remain valid.

- 23% of Americans are obese
- This figure has gone up since 1990--and it's not due to "changing standards".

And too little body fat may indeed carry health risks, but it's hardly "just like" the health risks that too much does.

Your uncle (if you're quoting him accurately) is contradicting himself. BMI comes *directly* from height/weight tables. There's no magic factor to it. For him to embrace h/w tables, and yet proclaim BMI "worthless" makes no sense.

Given any of these standards, I'm obese.

But the term obese doesn't tell the whole picture.

I was given a physical fitness evaluation at my local gym recently. My aerobic index and my "endurance" were in the "excellent" range.

My "strength" was in the "above average" range.

My flexibility was considered "average"

My body composition was "poor".

My overall fitness evaluation was "good".

I can out run people who weigh a lot less than I do. (Maybe not in speed, but definitely in endurance.)

I'm one of the 23.1. But I'm willing to bet that I'm healthier than a lot of people who are in the 77.9% that aren't considered "obese".

Body composition alone is a very poor indicator of health.

FWIW, Marilyn wore a size 10-12, and weighed anywhere from 118-140 lbs in her career (height 5' 5 1/2"). Despite a common claim, she did not wear a size 16 dress.

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.htm

Watch 'Some Like It Hot'. Marilyn has a stomach and very curvy hips in that movie.

These days, if you are 5'5" and wear a size 10-12, you're considered 'fat'.

Marilyn would not be in the 23% (which is the original topic of this thread). Supermodel-thin obsession and actual obesity in America are two different things. Too many really are obese--changing standards from the 1950's or not.

For example, WHO has been considering a different standard for Asians, with BMI of 23kg/m^2 indicating overweight and obesity starting at 25kg/m^2, based on the rates of obesity-related illnesses.

In case anyone wanted to know what exactly these rankings are based on, have a look at this.

The choice of factors (HIV, hepatitis, and tuberculosis to represent ALL infectious disease?) and the weighting of those factors (being "overweight" is as bad as having no health care?... giving money to public health bureacracies is just as good as actually vaccinating children against disease?) are pretty arbitrary at best. This "study" tells us far more about the interests, opinions, and funding wish-lists of public health professionals than it does about our own health.


Sorry, not impressed...

They had to weight them somehow. Otherwise the states can't be assigned overall scores.

Irrespective of the weights, the individual factors are alarming. Obesity up, and little change in smoking since 1993.

They had to weight them somehow. Otherwise the states can't be assigned overall scores.

... why that comment is the funniest thing I've read all day?


I had to come up with this arbitrary methodology -- you see -- because if I hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to rank the states according to it!

:argh:


Far out, man!

Maybe you should read more.

Maybe you should read more.

Oh, I'd recommend that course of action to you. But after reviewing your many remarks, I'm hesitant to conclude that it would do any good.

Never mind. I'm sure you do your best. Bless your heart.

You're much too kind.

Why focus only on illnesses caused by obesity and smoking?

Its a harmful trend that has resulted in cuts to programs that provide health care coverage and research funding for those affected by serious, chronic illnesses like cancers.

If you take a look at those statistics you'll find no improvements as those diseases and their impact on the population are being ignored completely.

than to advocate for health care access or discuss cleaning up the environment.

I don't have much respect for many public health officials today - most have turned into big promoters of alternative medicine, which is very unhealthy.

Formerly and for most of my life slender, healthy and in reasonably good shape, I quit smoking 10-plus years ago and in the first year off cigarettes blimped out an extra 75 pounds, gradually gaining nearly 25 pounds more since then -- not by over-eating, but by a metabolism gone completely on strike.

There is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that will take the weight off. I diet and my body immediately goes into what my nutritionist calls "starvation mode": not even limiting intake to 1000 calories per day will take off any weight. And vigorous exercise merely makes it worse, especially by adding chronic exhaustion: the need to sleep 10, even 12 hours a day. Nevertheless last spring I undertook a reconditioning program and followed its requirements religiously. Eating just enough to have sufficient energy to not be exhausted by the program, I did not lose even one ounce.

Finally three months ago the exercise fired up chronic arthritis in a wrist, knee and shoulder, with the result I had to terminate the whole program. I will go back to it when the arthritis pain diminishes -- not to lose weight (which I now bitterly recognize is impossible) but just because I generally feel better when I'm more active -- though recovery from an arthritis attack of this sort typically takes six to nine months.

Two doctors have admitted to me my circumstances are far more common than the medical profession will admit. If what so often happens when one quits smoking becomes common knowledge, far fewer people would quit, so the facts are methodically censored.

People who both smoked heavily and worked out regularly are especially susceptible to extreme post-nicotinic weight gain, I have been told. This describes me perfectly; I stayed in shape for years with military calisthenics and brisk walking, never (except as a temporary result of other quit-smoking efforts) weighing more than 10 pounds over my (best-condition) military weight of 155 pounds.

So I know from bitter and grotesque personal experience that one oft-repeated statement about fat people is not only absolutely false but implicitly hateful: "Obesity...is something a person does to themselves." Which is no less vicious -- and philosophically absolutely of a kind -- with the vindictive JesuNazi belief that "sickness is god's punishment for sin -- something one brings on themselves."

It might even account for the majority of the statistical increase -- I wonder if countries where there's a lot of smoking have proportionally less obesity? It would be an interesting study, but you're right: it might be a real disincentive to quit smoking.

I do think the proliferation of corn syrup in practically every processed food is part of the problem too.

Good luck to you! No one *wants* to be overweight -- it's obscene that people somehow think that prejudice against the overweight is the last legitimate bias.

(PS You're an excellent writer)

No one *wants* to be overweight. But many many Americans don't do a damn thing about it.

>But many many Americans don't do a damn thing about it.<

Do you know what it is like to walk around in a fat body in this society? One is perceived to be stupid, lazy, have no self-control, and morally flawed by those who happened to win the genetic lottery.

Why would anyone actually wish to be fat in America?

Julie

When I weighed 100 lbs. more than I do right now, getting through the day was harder than you could ever imagine.

Think about it. Every thing I did, every step I took, I did it carrying around 100 lbs. (I think of the boxes of Arm & Hammer kitty litter.... 3 of them. Imagine carrying 3 of those around w/ you, all day.)

People who are severely overweight are NOT lazy. Call them unmotivated, if you must, but the bottom line is that a person who weighs 300 lbs. expends twice the energy as a person who weight 150 lbs. to do the exact same activities.

They're exhausted. There's a reason for that.

And the point has already been made that food addiction is a major factor in obesity and it's not just something that people can just shrug off. There are very often emotional and psychological factors that figure into the equation. And given the fact that we have millions of Americans with no health insurance and probably several million more who have inadequate coverage, I'm betting that getting the kind of therapy that would help food addicts recover is quite difficult.

(Julie, I know you didn't call them lazy... I'm just trying to accentuate the point you were making.)

>Julie, I know you didn't call them lazy... I'm just trying to accentuate the point you were making.<

I was trying to impress on others on the thread what it's like to live life as the non-svelte. Thank you for responding as well.

Miss Millie, congratulations on 100 pounds gone! Good for you, and I know how hard you must have worked to make that happen.

:hug:
Julie

it is very limited in its' reimbursement of either counseling or fitness programs.

and I'm thrilled with the results.

But I don't think it's for everyone, and I would never fault anyone for not getting it done. Surgery is always risky, and when you're over-weight and/or not very fit, the risks only increase.

It is a shame that more health insurance providers don't treat food addiction as they would other substance abuse.

the obesit number is crap. Take the old weight standards, which were perfectly satisfactory and redo the stat. The lower limits are just nuts.

...to increase sales.

of what qualifies as overweight have a lot to do with this. I'm 6'3", and according to the BMI standards, unless I keep my weight under 200 I'm categorized as overweight(???). That's ridiculous.

Of course, I just came back from the cafeteria where I stood behind a guy who probably weighed 300 pounds buying two huge hot dogs smothered in chili and cheese - and a large coke.

But the article was about "obese" not "overweight". If you (at 6' 3) were 240+ lbs, you'd be obese.

Very few are based on scientific evidence and they obviously ignore the increasing lack of access to health care and growing numbers of uninsured.

Much of the message today is focused on "smoking cessation" programs as many public health departments are heavily reliant on funds from the Tobacco Settlement.

And yes, they do distort statistics.

Being able to engage in outdoor physical activities year-round makes quite a difference.

Here in St. Louis, we have such brutal winters & frostbite and hypothermia are real dangers outdoors from November through March, even if you bundle up. During April through October you'll find 90*+ temps with high humidity which increase your danger of heatstroke. Yes I know that you can excercise indoors, but gym memberships have skyrocketed like college tuition in recent years & some people (including me) can't have that in their budget. For example, I first joined a YMCA back in 1997 at a cost of $27 per month. That was affordable to me then. Now in 2005, that same Y that I went to charges $64 per month for an adult membership.

I went to Hawaii last year (December) & I saw very few obese (native) people there. A lot of people were doing outdoor activities in the wonderful weather such as surfing, biking, swimming, jogging, hiking, you name it. I did a lot of those things too. I felt lucky to be there because I knew everyone back at home was denned in from the cold & probably sitting in front of the tube watching football all day.

I've heard similar stories from the Pacific Northwest. In some places almost a cultural pressure to get outside and be active.

We put too much fertilizer in everything damn thing just to make it bigger, greener and prettier. The shit is not only making American fatter. It's killing us.

.....but make no mistake, it's a health crisis affecting the entire nation. The correlation between obesity and diabetes as well as heart disease is well established (look at the studies done with the Pima Indians) and new research shows that persons with obesity are at much greater risk for bone and muscle injuries due to strain (this goes way beyond just being sore. Think fractures and torn ligaments).

As for Obesity being something that ends up not costing society in the long run since the people affected die 10, 20, 30 years earlier and don't collect social security..... I call that rubbish! The money spent each year by Insurance Companies and HMO's on medical conditions related to or worsened by obesity is staggering. That kind of Social Darwinism is fools logic.

Obesity falls into that gray area where responsibility for the condition lies with both the individual and the environment. No, there is no entity forcing people to eat and disagree that food can be as addictive as tobacco. However, major fast food chains and food retailers exploit Americas fascination with food at every turn, especially when it comes to children.

Look at the stats. The danger is real. In New York City 1 in 5 children are obese by the time they reach kindergarten! In Mississippi the ratio of adults is almost 1 in 3.

Unfortunately, the fat storing nature of our bodies hasn’t caught up with the evolution of our fat laden diet.

“Heredity loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger”
- Food Fight Kelly Brownell, Katherine Battle Horgen

:scared:

I'd rather shoot the problem than the people (symbollically speaking of course). Lets focus on those issues/ entities that cause the problem and also prevent the remedy.