Pop sociology of obesity

[Feelin Frisky]

The latest thread about "fat women" or "fat people" or "fat men" started for no therapeutic reason was closed and I respect the move and reason. But the last entry questioned me personally about my view on social cues that people who suffer with obesity get from routine other folk in society and whether mocking actually helps as much or more to dissuade people from become obese than education about the latest understanding of obesity does to either dissuade people from being obese or make society so tolerant of it that we have more obese b people because the mockery has stopped. Please bear in mind that this is not in any way an invitation to belabor what you personally find unappealing about other people's looks because of obesity.

 

Here's my stance having faced a life in which my own personal obesity has been a constant struggle. Mockery is not a helpful motivator. It may be a temporary motivator at times because it hurts. But it is made completely from misinformation and therefore perpetuates both misinformation and cruelty. What's more, seeing "fat people" or "fat women" or "fat men" or "fat kids" as :groups" rather than individuals who all have their own unique circumstances and contributors to why they are obese is very much another kind of "racism" where each person is seen as "one of them" and not "one of us". This is a social injustice that has implications which truly good people concerned about growth and progress should probably want to see vanish with racism.

 

Society understanding obesity will not tend to excuse it or increase it. Such an effort should not just be one social objective alone and by itself but instead should be part of a major educational reform to make "social development" at least on a par of priority with knowledge development as people's motivations for learning are so tied to their social development. And when we address motivation before learning we put the horse in front of the cart that can change everything for the better. The dimensions of that are so huge no one can get their mind around it in an instant, but suffice it to say that when education changes to a cooperative social dynamism that actually creates economy rather than simply suck resources from it, there will be a myriad of reasons for young people to both cooperate and compete and along the way help each other make good choices rather than sit back and ridicule everyone else for not being exactly like them.

 

Mockery is not the way--there are things about obesity (beside thyroid weaknesses) that play a role. There is evidence that if you were not breastfed, you will not have gotten an important substance called colostrum which all mammals get from their mothers which helps create the appetite regulation mechanism that tells individuals when they've been fed enough. This is an adaptation from when animals had more births in a litter than the mother had teats and something had to give to let everyone get some. It still effects us and I believe that because I was not breastfed and was obese by age 6 months that this is likely part of why I don't know what it's like to become indifferent to food halfway through my meal like most "thin" kids did. I would ask my siblings for everything they left on their plats and still dream about more potatoes.

 

Parents are products of cultural misinformation who are often obese themselves--are they really qualified to have children and let those children be subject to TV commercials which make it look like there is absolutely no consequences for "super-sizing" every delight known to the human palate? There something seriously wrong with the systems, the culture, and the media model which personal mockery can not compete with. Today, people get operations to remove large sections of their stomach's and intestines because they can't find the "off switch" to drive to eat. And at that, some still manage to stay fat anyway. Others die quietly to anorexia where even if they are not mocked, the fear of mockery is so traumatic, they starve themselves to death.

 

None of us should feel the need to personally pity to obese person or care for their fate one way or the other. But the least we can do is not congratulate ourselves for not being obese if we are lucky enough to have a metabolism that works within a range that keeps us from getting extremely obese. You get for free what other's would give everything to have. There's no need to add insult to injury. All addictions can be solved by removing the individual from the drug, gambling, sex or w.e environment. But eating disorders are the most cruel and insidious addictions there are. They never let us alone no ,matter where we go and life-long suffers like myself must win many battles every day to fight the impulse that just goes off whether we like it or not. And I can say from experience that I have literally gone out in every kind of weather at all hours and sometimes in some unsafe areas to busy myself walking because I knew staying home would mean and inevitable defeat I'd regret. Mockery doesn't work. No one mocks me more than myself and I stiff struggle after 50 years of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that it's a complex issue, but I think ???? and others who share

her attitude do much more to help the obese then those who try relating and point to the latest study on brain chemistry to show they really can't help it.

Do you really think you would be as successful as you are with your weight loss if society was more accepting of big fatsos? If people out in public didn't give you disdainful looks or make fun of you behind your back? I know I'd probably be at the chinese buffet everyday for lunch if I could get away with being fat and still command respect. So hurrah for ???? and everyone else who doesn't put

up with obesity, it's important to be unsympathetic sometimes.

 

Note: Name withdrawn and question marks used not to make this a continuation of the closed thread.

[tman666]

I agree wholeheartedly that mockery is not the answer.

 

You talk a lot in your post about how factors external from the individual affect obesity. You're probably correct in many of these. Western culture lends itself to obesity. We live in the age of excess. This not only applies to the highly over-availability of calorie dense foods, but also to basic comforts. Technology has paved the way to lifestyles of ease, relative to previous generations. Simply put, we move and exert ourselves less than previous generations, all the while consuming more. Thermodynamics takes care of the rest.

 

The evolution of our physiology is far slower than our culture change. Humans are designed to endure hardship. Take away those hardships (large amounts of physical exertion and famine), but leave in the evolutionary survival mechanisms that have allowed humanity to flourish, and the door to obesity is thrown wide open.

 

However, one of the most important survival mechanisms that we have at our disposal shouldn't be overlooked: our ability to make rational and logical decisions, i.e. our ability to think.

 

Yes, education is a piece of the puzzle. It's the catalyst to change. However, we know more about how the human body works now than we ever did in the past. Furthermore, this information is exponentially more widely accessible to more people than ever before.

 

So why is the obesity problem continuing to grow despite the populous being more educated on the topic? I personally believe that for the most part, it's a lack of individual application of principles. It's one thing to know what makes a person fat, but it's entirely another thing to make sweeping lifestyle changes and go against the flow of the culture.

 

There's also an interesting psychological phenomenon that occurs when looking at this type of information. Most people will look at the information available on avoiding obesity and agree with its validity, at least when applied to the majority of society. However, when it comes to turning that information around onto themselves, people are exceptionally poor at this. They tend to think they are somehow unique little snowflakes.

 

For example: http://jcdfitness.com/2011/02/why-we-fitness-folk-suck-at-coaching-ourselves/

 

Basically, I think that decrying societal and cultural issues only fixes part of the problem. Individual application is where the rubber hits the road.

[Forever Learning]

Great post Frisky. I always learn so much from you. What a treasure you are.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Forever Learning

[FitChick]

You could say that "society" encourages people to spend money and get deeply into debt and go bankrupt. Those people knew they couldn't afford the items yet they bought them. It's an inability to delay gratification. I think there was a study that showed the most successful people could give up easy but lesser success now for bigger, more satisfying success later on. Everyone has free will yet most take the easy way out and cry that they are victims.

 

Me? I try to stay debt free and fat free!

[Lil1]

 

So why is the obesity problem continuing to grow despite the populous being more educated on the topic? I personally believe that for the most part, it's a lack of individual application of principles. It's one thing to know what makes a person fat, but it's entirely another thing to make sweeping lifestyle changes and go against the flow of the culture.

 

Basically, I think that decrying societal and cultural issues only fixes part of the problem. Individual application is where the rubber hits the road.

 

As always tman you're quite the motivator. I've been thinking about this myself, the ability to go against the grain and make a fundamental lifestyle change. This concept is very difficult to put into practice but like you said, real change begins with your actions, not just your beliefs.

[LadyGrey]

Frisky, I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.

 

Personally I've been fortunate that I've never had a big weight problem, I think in my case it's genetics and that I have a fairly healthy relationship with food. I don't binge or purge or overeat often but yet I am not a really healthy eater either. As I said, I've just been lucky.

 

Anyway when I'm out and about and I see someone obese, I don't view them negatively nor do I spend time wondering about what they eat. I see them like everyone else, just a person, but one who happens to be obese. More often than not, I feel bad for them, and then I thank my good fortune that I've been lucky in that respect.

 

So is feeling bad for someone wrong? Am I doing something insensitive?

 

My best male friend is obese and it's odd, but I seldom even see that about him, but once in a while I do and it surprises me when I do notice it because most of the time, I don't if that makes any sense. I worry about him sometimes because he does have some health problems related to his weight but he and I go out quite often and I've never saw him pig out, from my vantage point he eats pretty much the same as me, just more but not a great deal more and I attribute that to him being a man, not because he is obese.

[Eve]

H'mmm.. all being said, I think the case is that most do not want to consider obesity as a disability.

 

Take care,

Eve x

[stillafool]

Great post Frisky. I always learn so much from you. What a treasure you are.

 

I completely agree! You are indeed a treasure.:love:

[oldguy]

The latest thread about "fat women" or "fat people" or "fat men"

Wow, excellent perspective. I'm looking forward to reading more.

[Kamille]

Tman is right... Social change is at the root of increased obesity. We're now expected to self-regulate where we didn't have a need for it in the past.

 

A few other factors: North American cities were designed to facilitate the use of cars. We walk less than many people who live in cities that were designed at a time when walking was the modus operandi (think cities with a medieval core that you can only access on foot). The industrialization of food has drastically reduced the varieties of food we get, as well as the quality of it. (Modern tomatoes, for instance, have been shown to have less nutrients than heritage tomatoes; "regular" industrial produced chicken has less protein per ounce than the chickens we used to grow on our own farms). Industrialization also means we're swamped with transfats and added sugars (their production cost and ability to increase shelf life making them cost-effective ingredients). And then there's all the marketing of this food: from media adds trying to make us believe kids don't like fiber or veggies (never understood that one) to product placements in the grocery store. So yeah, there is more to obesity than only "self-regulation". Society stacks the odds against us. It makes self-regulation even more of a challenge.

 

If we're truly serious about curtailing the negative effects of increased obesity, we not only need to motivate individuals but we need to rethink how we build our cities and how we produce and market food.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Kamille

[verhrzn]

Tman is right... Social change is at the root of increased obesity. We're now expected to self-regulate where we didn't have a need for it in the past.

 

A few other factors: North American cities were designed to facilitate the use of cars. We walk less than many people who live in cities that were designed at a time when walking was the modus operandi (think cities with a medieval core that you can only access on foot). The industrialization of food has drastically reduced the varieties of food we get, as well as the quality of it. (Modern tomatoes, for instance, have been shown to have less nutrients than heritage tomatoes; "regular" industrial produced chicken has less protein per ounce than the chickens we used to grow on our own farms). Industrialization also means we're swamped with transfats and added sugars (their production cost and ability to increase shelf life making them cost-effective ingredients). And then there's all the marketing of this food: from media adds trying to make us believe kids don't like fiber or veggies (never understood that one) to product placements in the grocery store. So yeah, there is more to obesity than only "self-regulation". Society stacks the odds against us. It makes self-regulation even more of a challenge.

 

If we're truly serious about curtailing the negative effects of increased obesity, we not only need to motivate individuals but we need to rethink how we build our cities and how we produce and market food.

 

 

First of all, amazing post OP.

 

Obesity is starting to become a very big topic in medical anthropology (the field is dedicated to studying the cultural factors of biological conditions.) Like Kamille states, a lot of factors for obesity are actually based more in society than the individual. For example, it isn't a coincidence that obesity levels started to rise in the 1950's, right around the time the government subsidized corn, and you started to see high fructose corn syrup popping up into everything.

 

There are also a lot of studies showing that obesity patterns overlay with poverty levels... the poorer you are, the more likely you're obese. Quality food requires money, and quality meals require time to cook and an above average level of nutritional knowledge. (How to use beans as an effective source of protein, for example.) Most working class to lower class families are too harassed doing the basics of putting food on the table to worry about what in particular is in that food.

[Feelin Frisky]

Frisky, I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question.

 

Personally I've been fortunate that I've never had a big weight problem, I think in my case it's genetics and that I have a fairly healthy relationship with food. I don't binge or purge or overeat often but yet I am not a really healthy eater either. As I said, I've just been lucky.

 

Anyway when I'm out and about and I see someone obese, I don't view them negatively nor do I spend time wondering about what they eat. I see them like everyone else, just a person, but one who happens to be obese. More often than not, I feel bad for them, and then I thank my good fortune that I've been lucky in that respect.

 

So is feeling bad for someone wrong? Am I doing something insensitive?

 

My best male friend is obese and it's odd, but I seldom even see that about him, but once in a while I do and it surprises me when I do notice it because most of the time, I don't if that makes any sense. I worry about him sometimes because he does have some health problems related to his weight but he and I go out quite often and I've never saw him pig out, from my vantage point he eats pretty much the same as me, just more but not a great deal more and I attribute that to him being a man, not because he is obese.

 

As you describe your general take on obesity I think it sounds about as proper and almost noble as it gets. I don't think you mean to say you feel "bad" per se--more that you empathize with someone else's misfortune. There is nothing wrong and oh so much right with that. No one chooses obesity and it is not a question of them being stupid and needing someone else to deride them. Let's look at Oprah Winfrey for example. She went through so much to lose weight and with a woman's television show and so much tabloid newspaper interest in her and her relationships, she had every incentive to keep the weight off. She was wealthy enough to pay a full-time watch-dog to keep her from falling backward, yet several times she regained her weight and went through the same processes of self-recrimination and trying again. It's insulting to me to here some people who don't have the problem imply that people with obesity problems are lazy or stupid. There are examples of super-achievers right out there in media-land that obviously are neither stupid or lazy but the problem still claims them.

[Feelin Frisky]

First of all, amazing post OP.

 

Obesity is starting to become a very big topic in medical anthropology (the field is dedicated to studying the cultural factors of biological conditions.) Like Kamille states, a lot of factors for obesity are actually based more in society than the individual. For example, it isn't a coincidence that obesity levels started to rise in the 1950's, right around the time the government subsidized corn, and you started to see high fructose corn syrup popping up into everything.

 

There are also a lot of studies showing that obesity patterns overlay with poverty levels... the poorer you are, the more likely you're obese. Quality food requires money, and quality meals require time to cook and an above average level of nutritional knowledge. (How to use beans as an effective source of protein, for example.) Most working class to lower class families are too harassed doing the basics of putting food on the table to worry about what in particular is in that food.

 

More than government subsidized corn and the production of high fructose corn syrup, the 1950's were the years when television and air conditioning started becoming house-hold items. Television is not only a sedentary pastime, but parents had no rule book for it's use or abuse and often abused it as a pacification tool for young kids to keep them quiet and out of their hair. Meanwhile advertisers made it look like there was never a consequence for coming their products to your hearts desire. TV shows didn't concern themselves with showing obesity except to mock it. Somehow the message was creeping in to America that you could spend many hours a day effectively staring at a box that did nothing while you pleasured yourself with advertised food stuffs while no one with any knowledge of anything was making intelligent decisions. This created a generation which also felt fine pacifying their children with television viewing while taking in messages that everyone was enjoying super-sized sundaes with no consequences.

[gaius]

I'm glad you continued the thread in spirit frisky, and I wasn't spouting random uninformed theories about being fat. I've been very heavy just like you have. In high school I was put on a medication that had the unfortunate side effect of never letting you feel like you were full and I ended up topping out at 5'10 255 pounds. People never really said a huge amount about it directly to my face but you could tell the way they looked at you and sometimes I would overhear things. One time I heard a group of girls teasing each other about which one should date me in a derogatory sense. I had never felt more humiliated in my life and I started losing weight after that.

 

Even though I'm not on the medication anymore I still do really enjoy eating. I would actually prefer taking down an entire pizza over drinking booze or any of the other common vices. But every time I get that urge to have a second serving I don't need I remember all the humiliating incidents and it gives me the strength to resist. Even though those girls were incredibly mean they helped me in a way, my knees don't ache when I walk anymore and girls respect and sleep with me now!

 

You're right that not everybody is fat for the same reason, and I don't expect everyone to have the same successful experience with weight loss that I did. My experience in high school did help me though, and despite you and I being different I know I'm not the only one out there who finds social pressure to be the motivating factor in staying thin. I also know that from personal experience being accepting of obesity never leads to that person losing weight. So you can either have a society that's mean and helps some people lose weight or one that's totally accepting and helps nobody lose weight. I'd rather go with the former considering I have a member of my family who might have to have one of his legs removed in the next couple years due to complications with his obesity. The less people obese the better, I'd rather see hurt feelings then a chopped off leg.

[Feelin Frisky]

... I'd rather see hurt feelings then a chopped off leg.

 

If those were the only two choice and I could be sure there wouldn't be hurt feels AND a chopped off leg, I'd go with the hurt feelings too. But on the highest levels of ethics, moral, science and knowledge, understanding will do more to prevent obesity than ignorance and cruelty will dissuade it. Personally I really feel that to really tackle social/cultural problems the not only will social development have to become a formal priority with a whole conventionality built separately for it to reform education but it must be willing to go where ever it must to fight the causes of misperception--and the biggest one I can think of is something I call "de-facto creationism".

 

Most of us know what creationism is and we know that there is a debate about whether it should be taught along with evolution in schools as the general theory of how we've come to be. But whether it is taught or not, it is observed already in the design of many social systems. There is a prevailing assumption that people are "created" and all are given the same basic capacity and after that everything is a matter of morals, ethics and disciplines. The concept of "genetics" has only slightly impacted the long- held assumption that people are somehow "created" as if manufactured and the establishment uses what it wants from the concept however it suits the situation--like the notion of "racism" where race is believed to limit a whole group genetically versus another group or, conversely, race and breeding are taken to imply superiority of other groups. Genetics have really only one relevance in this area and that is the hand that individuals are dealt by the specific gene pairings of their particular pairings in which some individuals inherit disease, genetic weaknesses in certain areas and "predispositions". Obesity can be both genetic--in that a person is genetically predetermined to have metabolic issues and perhaps inabilities to regulate appetite, and it can be "epi-genetic" in that the genetic predisposition is triggered by environment such as the example I gave earlier of some people not developing the ability to regulate appetite because they were bottle fed instead of breast fed and thereby deprived of colostrum.

 

De-facto creationism is what allows society to believe that education can be segmented into the "class" and "class/year" structure that is used as if there are rules set in stone for entire age groups to which people must be tied. In a worldview where this ancient notion is gone and replaced by the realization that each person is unique and the nature of their capacity "neuroplastic" there is no such thing as racism and we fundamentally know that "herding" people into these "class year" processing structures actually causes many people to be held back from their ability to achieve. Social development must be looked at as a way to simply facilitate the growth capacities in people by having them inter-operate in ways that both place them in competition models and cooperation models because all of their social and economic progresses from there forward will be tied to how well they do both and not just "compete" as has been the kill or be killed or dog eat dog way of creating the 1% versus 99% split to date.

 

Not everyone believes in creationism and many people reject it. But the skeleton of society still slows down the whole because it remains uncontested in major reform. That's the way I see it. The errant assumption that humans are created and separate from the animal world is an artifice that preserves misperception and keeps us from dealing with the absolute truth where ever that needs to lead.

[verhrzn]

You're right that not everybody is fat for the same reason, and I don't expect everyone to have the same successful experience with weight loss that I did. My experience in high school did help me though, and despite you and I being different I know I'm not the only one out there who finds social pressure to be the motivating factor in staying thin. I also know that from personal experience being accepting of obesity never leads to that person losing weight. So you can either have a society that's mean and helps some people lose weight or one that's totally accepting and helps nobody lose weight. I'd rather go with the former considering I have a member of my family who might have to have one of his legs removed in the next couple years due to complications with his obesity. The less people obese the better, I'd rather see hurt feelings then a chopped off leg.

 

Let's be honest: no obese person in this society is unaware of the attitudes towards fat people in this society. Everybody knows fat is ugly, fat is unhealthy, fat means you're lazy/selfish/greedy, etc.

 

Our society is already shaming fat people. And yet, our obesity levels are increasing. So, common sense says that looking purely at that data, shaming actually increases obesity.

 

Very, very few people are fat by choice. The ones that are, choose the attitude out of either defeatism (because they'd done all that they could, and gave up) or confidence. Some people actually looked at themselves and said," Ya know what, I'm okay with being fat. No one else gets to tell me what to do with my body."

 

That's how deep-seated our hatred of fat is in this society, that it boggles the mind to think that a few people would actually choose to be that way.

 

The fact is, if being thin was so easy, people would already be doing it. Shaming doesn't make losing weight easier; in fact, it just makes me want to take another piece of pie to prove that other people don't get to judge my health purely from my looks, or tell me what I get to put in my body.

[tman666]

This created a generation which also felt fine pacifying their children with television viewing while taking in messages that everyone was enjoying super-sized sundaes with no consequences.

 

Perhaps, but how many people in Western Society still believe this is true today? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a majority of people that truly believe that poor eating habits and a sedentary lifestyle have no negative consequences.

 

I get what you're saying Frisky... Our culture lends itself to obesity, and that berating and belittling those who are is counterproductive and wrong.

 

What I'm not grasping here is the idea that personal responsibility for one's state of being is somehow taken out of the equation due to the external factors at hand. Yes, education is important, for it results in the INDIVIDUAL'S ability to make informed and rational decisions concerning their health. If enough individuals jump on the bandwagon, cultural change ensues. Obesity is an epidemic that needs to be approached from the bottom up, not the top down.

 

If I've completely misread your point, please correct me.

[oldguy]

First of all, amazing post OP.

 

There are also a lot of studies showing that obesity patterns overlay with poverty levels... the poorer you are, the more likely you're obese. Quality food requires money, and quality meals require time to cook and an above average level of nutritional knowledge.

 

And there it is; "obesity patterns overlay with poverty levels" I had a small roll, extremely small, in a study that came to the same conclusion, that filler foods are less expensive, short term, than quality foods. There also appears to be an epidemic of cognitive/emotional/behavioral issues that are related to allergies associated with the 'industrialized' diet, including depression & ADHD among a many others. And Verizon is correct, I've read it can be traced back to at least the 1950's.

[verhrzn]

And there it is; "obesity patterns overlay with poverty levels" I had a small roll, extremely small, in a study that came to the same conclusion, that filler foods are less expensive, short term, than quality foods. There also appears to be an epidemic of cognitive/emotional/behavioral issues that are related to allergies associated with the 'industrialized' diet, including depression & ADHD among a many others. And Verizon is correct, I've read it can be traced back to at least the 1950's.

 

What's especially fun about fat shaming then is that it also has a veneer of classism to it. When you sneer at an obese person, you might actually be sneering at someone who works the night shift (which is notoriously bad for your weight, but pays a much higher wage than a day time shift at the same job), might not have their own transportation (more walking, but also means less ability to go long distances for good food. Their meals are regulated to what they can get to easily), and probably does not have the best health care, which all contributes to-tada!-being overweight, and has nothing to do with being lazy, undisciplined, or a horrible person.

[carhill]

Born 1950's, 5'11" @ 220 when 14 yo. Currently 5'10" @ 230 at 52 yo

 

Breast fed until 22 months (from what my mother told me), SAHM full balanced meals, rarely ate out and never 'fast' food until well into teens. Very active childhood, with a lot of sports and outdoor play. Only one TV in house, in living room. No eating in living room, ever. Little 'junk' food in house and most meals made from fresh ingredients. Home-packed lunches every day for school. Both parents were of average size, with dad being 5'8" and 140 until death.

 

I got plenty of shaming as a child, as well as bullying, but fortunately had a healthy and loving home life for balance. However, those tapes persist in my low tolerance for bullying and/or shaming behaviors and my often violent response to them. Cross me in that regard at one's own risk. Most people need only one experience to educate them.

[FitChick]

As a libertarian, I say let anyone eat themselves into an early grave if that is their choice.

 

Poor people are generally poor because of lack of education. Educated people make better choices as well as more money. We have the fattest poor people on earth. Go to Africa or India and their poor are thin and probably much healthier. I have vintage cookbooks and the portion sizes are a fraction of what they are today. If people ate less they'd spend less money because their dollars would go farther.

 

As for redesigning cities, yeah, that will happen. If you don't get enough exercise to burn off the calories you eat, eat fewer calories.

 

People who self-medicate with food, as is the case with Oprah who admits it, need to get some sort of therapy. I recommend the Lefkoe Method which has been very successful with helping people lose weight. No, it's not a diet.

[verhrzn]

As a libertarian, I say let anyone eat themselves into an early grave if that is their choice.

 

Poor people are generally poor because of lack of education. Educated people make better choices as well as more money. We have the fattest poor people on earth. Go to Africa or India and their poor are thin and probably much healthier. I have vintage cookbooks and the portion sizes are a fraction of what they are today. If people ate less they'd spend less money because their dollars would go farther.

 

As for redesigning cities, yeah, that will happen. If you don't get enough exercise to burn off the calories you eat, eat fewer calories.

 

People who self-medicate with food, as is the case with Oprah who admits it, need to get some sort of therapy. I recommend the Lefkoe Method which has been very successful with helping people lose weight. No, it's not a diet.

 

... And poor people have a lack of education because there's no money to go to their schools. So less money equals less qualified teachers, less text books, less supplies... which usually means less good grades, which means no college. People aren't choosing to be poor, any more than they're choosing to be fat.

 

People in Africa and India obviously have less obesity problems than we do because 1) more than a few of them are starving to death and 2) they have a completely different economic and social structure than we do. They don't eat the same foods, they don't have the same living patterns. I mean, it's like going to India and saying," Hey, we Americans don't have wife burnings!" Well no DUH we don't.

[carhill]

Our local 'poor people', meaning the ones with the WIC cards and food credit card (formerly 'food stamps'), generally (from my observations of their shopping carts whilst standing in line with them) load up on 'cheap' calories, mostly from carbohydrates, and traditional protein sources from beans and animal muscle, generally the fattier cuts of such muscle, as those are less expensive and go further than leaner cuts. There's no doubt the food is good tasting (I've had enough of it to know that part) but I'd be morbidly obese if I ate it regularly, even with an exercise program which, absent field labor, few of such people (in my area) have, hence it shows up in both the parents and the children. Where the men primarily work in the fields, they are usually pretty skinny and toned but the rest of the family is anything but. I'm commenting from actual observation and being within such family dynamics for about a quarter century now.

 

Having been to Africa and experienced their 'version', there's a huge difference. Many people are literally starving and eat off the land, often in severe drought conditions, and have few options. There is also a lot more exercise, as there are few/no transportation conveniences for that segment of the population. That said, when in the cities, with the 'middle class' or 'wealthy', the same variances appear which I note at home in the US. Some people are 'normal' (whatever that is) and some are obese. In some cultures there, weight continues to be tantamount to wealth and being 'fat' is looked upon as a positive.

 

It's interesting to read that, prior to the 20th century, obesity was relatively a rare occurrence on a global scale. Industry and technology changed all of that, some partly to serve it and some partly because of it. What will the future bring?

[FitChick]

What will the future bring?

 

Probably this and this. Guess who will pay?

 

You can still lose weight eating at McDonald's if you eat one hamburger instead of five per meal. Remember Jared, the fat guy who lost weight eating at Subway and later become their spokesman?

[FitChick]

Every cloud has a silver lining, even obesity.