More left wing paranoia...

[chucK]

So I guess you don't think behavioral traits are linked to genetic makeup? For example, the "laziness" that you imply causes both the obesity and the low SES.

 

I agree with you that one factor in the obesity epidemic is the ready access to calories (or foods with high "energy density" as in that article above). But you seem to be saying that this is not the real problem, that the main reason people are obese is because they are lazy. I think there's no getting around the fact that there just ARE lazy people. Just dismissing people as Lazy isn't going to be solving any problems, except for maybe the consciences of those people who are making money by marketing cokes and sugar pops to kids.

[JayB]

I'm saying the main reason that people are obese is because they consume more calories than they expend over a long period of time. Food consumption is a voluntary act, and that to a certain extent the innability to regulate food consumption will be associated with an innability to regulate other aspects of one's behavior, and that these traits will often manifest themselves in other aspects of these people's lives as well - which ultimately leads to a moderate correlation between obesity and a low SES. I imagine that there is a correlation between other behaviors that indicate an innability to regulate one's behavior - excessive smoking, drinking, gambling, drug use, etc - and a low SES as well. I wouldn't call it laziness per se - but the odds are reasonably high that someone who can't restrain themselves from blowing this month's check on Colt 45 Tall Boys and lottery tickets probably doesn't do a very good job of keeping their hands off the third helping of beef stroganoff at the local all-you-can-eat buffet either. Like I said before - there are plenty of extremely hard-working fat people out there (see the nurse population at the average hospital for exhibit A) and lazy-ass skinny people (Hilton Sisters) out there - but for a certain percentage of people who are both poor and obese I suspect the two conditions are not entirely unrelated.

 

With regards the the correlation between obesity and a low SES - I think that there are a number of factors that contribute to this correlation - none of which can be addressed in an effective way by increasing regulation and lawsuits - and certainly won't be remedied by lying to fat people and telling them their obesity has nothing to do with their dietary habits and lack of excercise. As far as kids are concerned, if someone has obese children (as in a couple of standard deviations beyond the normal allowance for baby fat) the parents - and not the folks marketing food towards them - are responsible for not regulating their children's diet and exercise properly. FWIW - I believe Sweden has instituted most, if not all of the measures that the usual cheerleaders for the nanny state have been clamoring for - banning all marketing of sweets and junk food to children, strict regulation of the foods available at schools, etc, etc, etc - and it's had a negligible impact on the prevalence of obesity over there. I believe I saw this article in the same issue of The Economist that someone else referred to earlier.

 

[chucK]

Food consumption is a voluntary act,

I doubt we are going to agree on much if one of our baselines is not "survival is good".

 

and that to a certain extent the innability to regulate food consumption will be associated with an innability to regulate other aspects of one's behavior, and that these traits will often manifest themselves in other aspects of these people's lives as well - which ultimately leads to a moderate correlation between obesity and a low SES.

 

Don't you think a big contributor is ignorance of a healthy diet and the fact that non-nutritious foodstuffs are so much less expensive and so much more prevalent?

 

but for a certain percentage of people who are both poor and obese I suspect the two conditions are not entirely unrelated.

 

agreed, but as I wrote above I think that this might be partly a vicious circle. The state of being poor also contributes in itself to an unhealthy diet.

 

As far as kids are concerned, if someone has obese children (as in a couple of standard deviations beyond the normal allowance for baby fat) the parents - and not the folks marketing food towards them - are responsible for not regulating their children's diet and exercise properly.

 

Agreed. Parents should be looking after their kids. One of the tasks in looking after your kids is safeguarding them from predators. The people marketing coke and sugar pops to your kids are predators. We should go down to the high school and hack up the coke machines installed by the school district with the same axe used on the predatory sex offender who attempts to abduct one of our kids.

 

I'd be interested in seeing the statistics that show no effect of "nanny state" prohibitions in Sweden. Has the study been going on long enough to possibly show any conclusions?

 

I'm not calling for prohibitions on selling sweets and non-nutritious foods. Like cigarettes and alchohol, it's the abusers who are the main victims and buyer beware is the mantra of unhindered capitalism. But you're certainly not going to get me to say that the pushers who thrive on selling this crap are helping our society.

[JayB]

"Swedish Meatballs

Daily Policy Digest

 

Health Issues

 

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

 

Despite programs combining a healthy diet and physical exercise to fight obesity in children, the number of overweight children in Sweden has tripled in the past 15 years. Currently 19 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls are overweight.

 

Yet it isn't supposed to be like this in Sweden. For years this nation of nine million has had the sorts of programs, combining healthy diet and physical exercise, that antiobesity advocates everywhere dream about:

 

-Unlike the United States, vending machines are unheard of in Swedish schools.

 

-Sports programs are heavily subsidized to get youngsters up and moving.

 

-TV commercials aimed at kids under 12 are banned.

Schoolchildren as young as eight learn to cook healthy meals.

 

But, Sweden's public health programs, comprehensive as they are, are still losing ground to the combined temptations of fast food, heavy TV watching and Web-surfing that have taken hold in the past decade:

 

-McDonald's Corp.'s sales in Sweden have tripled since 1992; last year, the company spent the equivalent of $34.5 million on marketing in the country, compared with less than $12 million in 1994.

 

-Coca-Cola Co.'s ad spending has risen 15-fold since 1994, to almost $20 million; cola sales have risen 17 percent since 1998.

 

-Meanwhile, Swedish children are being lured by myriad new programs on international satellite TV; these shows and their ads aren't bound by Swedish restrictions.

According to Sweden's National Institute of Public Health, 40 percent of teenage boys participate in organized physical activity at least four times a week, up from 28 percent in 1985; however, they spend as much as 5.3 hours per day watching TV, surfing the Web, talking on the phone or doing other sedentary activities.

 

Source: Deborah Ball, "Swedish Kids Show Difficulty Of Fighting Fat," Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2003. "

 

 

As far as the vending machine vendetta is concerned - it wouldn't bother me if they were no longer present schools - but blaming the problem on the coke machines is missing the mark IMO - although I would be happy to live in a world in which coke machines presented a greater threat to children than the molester down the street. Even if you eliminate the vending machines from schools - it's not like kids can't run to the 7-11 - or home and slug down as much as they want.

 

IMO successful parenting comes down to teaching kids how to handle all of the tempting and potentially harmfull things lurking out there in society - drugs, sex, prostitution, gambling, speeding, etc, etc, etc -that they can choose to engage in or not rather than attempting to erradicate the sources of the said temptations. In that sense, banning coke machines seems to be similar to banning sex-ed, eliminating the availability of contraception, and insisting on abstinence-only education in order to protect kids from diseases and pregnancy. Much better to educate them about the risks and rewards and instill within them with the knowlege and the good-sense necessary to take care of themselves and make good decisions when the time comes IMO.

[chucK]

The Wall Street Journal excerpts (?) are interesting. One thing I guess it shows is that current nanny-state restrictions don't seem to be able stem the Coke and McDonald's sales and advertising.

 

The problem with a coke machine in the schools is not that it provides access to something they will obviously be able to get elsewhere. The problem lies in the message it's sending to the kids. That the school, the organization that is a major symbol of authority in their lives, is promoting and profiting off of kids drinking Coke. If we have any chance of dampening overconsumption, that you point out is the root cause of the problem, then our best most realistic chance lies in educating our kids and society that a healthy diet and exercise are important. If our educators are part of the cabal pushing the liquid candy I think we are in big trouble.

 

In that sense, banning coke machines seems to be similar to banning sex-ed, eliminating the availability of contraception, and insisting on abstinence-only education in order to protect kids from diseases and pregnancy.

 

No. Banning coke machines from the schools is similar to prohibiting school administrators from pimping out the 8th grade girls to the 7th grade boys.

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2003 by chucK

[JayB]

It wouldn't bother me if they were gone, and I think that the presence of Coke machines is more symptomatic of a need to reform public school's fiscal policies and funding mechanisms than anything else. And I think that making participation in at least one after-school sport compulsory would probably be a whole lot more effective in combating obesity than banning the coke machines.

 

The only other observation I'd add is that there seems to be no better way to insure that teenagers will engage in something than to forbid them to do it deny them access to it and leave it at that. If the day ever comes when eating junk food and drinking Coke aquires the same risky cache as drinking, smoking, speeding, etc, etc, etc - then I think we will be in even bigger trouble....

 

I'm out. Have a Merry Christmas.

[chucK]

Have a Merry Christmas.

 

Here's to you too. Have a good one